Search

Organisations increasingly invest in resilience to better deal with future uncertainties and change. An organisation's training service is one of the critical ingredients of this effort. However, its role in posturing organisational sustainment in a volatile operational environment and organisational resilience-building effort is rarely considered in its own right and often overlooked. This paper reports developing, verifying, and validating a new survey instrument for assessing the resilience performance of the organisation's training systems. The instrument is based on six resilience attributes juxtaposing organisational ability and capacity to allow management to compare its resilience expectations with the actual resilience and make trade- off decisions. The efficacy of the training service policy is also considered to enable appropriate attribution of the survey findings to the training policy issues or its poor implementation. The survey incorporated a robust mixed-method, multi-attribute and multi- perspective approach that has been applied extensively with 1,403 respondents from more than 20 military training establishments over three years. This research provides organisational leadership with a focused diagnostic instrument in their training aspects' performance against resilience metrics, where such training aspects are often a dynamic enabler for change and, thus, overall organisational sustainability and evolutionary competitiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contribution: An evaluation of the effectiveness of systems engineering (SE) courses in developing students' systems thinking (ST) capacity in both the cognitive and affective domains. A combined cognitive ST performance and affective engagement with ST assessment is proposed as an approach to assess students' ST in both domains. The results can support course change decisions and guide learning experience development. Background: SE education aims to produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in SE and a strong appreciation of the practical value of ST, which addresses the cognitive and affective domains in education. Consequently, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of SE courses in developing students' ST in these domains, an area that studies do not consider. Intended Outcomes: An understanding of the ST ability of undergraduate students in an SE course in a domain specific engineering program in both the cognitive and affective domains. Application Design: A study evaluated the effectiveness of two SE classes in developing students' ST capacity using a combined cognitive and affective assessment tool developed and validated in previous studies. ST assessment is determined by combining ST performance and affective engagement. To observe the transformation of students' ST capacity, a longitudinal design collected data at two times in each of two offerings of an SE course offered by the same university in two locations--Australia and Singapore. Findings: The course developed students in most dimensions of cognitive ST, but did not appear to improve students' affective engagement with ST.

All research projects need a forward path method for performing the investigation, making findings and reaching conclusions. In addition, project methodology must include methods that test the truth of the knowledge claimed to have been developed through the project. We address the specific issue of validation in thesis projects in systems engineering (SE) programs where the intended outcome is either an application of SE method or an investigation of a topic in SE. We present red‐teaming (RTing) as a validation method for results of SE research. We discuss two case studies of thesis projects which used a RTing method to evaluate a proposed method for doing something. From this we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the RTing method in thesis projects and provide guidelines for use of RTing as a project outcomes evaluation method. We conclude RTing is a useful method to evaluate a thesis project which generates a design or a method because it uses a method not directly influenced by the student's assumptions in the design of the project. The RTing method is constrained by the challenges of finding willing red‐team (RT) members, project schedule, and the RT member's knowledge of the subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contribution: An evaluation of the effectiveness of systems engineering (SE) courses in developing students’ systems thinking (ST) capacity in both the cognitive and affective domains. A combined cognitive ST performance and affective engagement with ST assessment is proposed as an approach to assess students’ ST in both domains. The results can support course change decisions and guide learning experience development. Background: SE education aims to produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in SE and a strong appreciation of the practical value of ST, which addresses the cognitive and affective domains in education. Consequently, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of SE courses in developing students’ ST in these domains, an area that studies do not consider. Intended Outcomes: An understanding of the ST ability of undergraduate students in an SE course in a domain specific engineering program in both the cognitive and affective domains. Application Design: A study evaluated the effectiveness of two SE classes in developing students’ ST capacity using a combined cognitive and affective assessment tool developed and validated in previous studies. ST assessment is determined by combining ST performance and affective engagement. To observe the transformation of students’ ST capacity, a longitudinal design collected data at two times in each of two offerings of an SE course offered by the same university in two locations—Australia and Singapore. Findings: The course developed students in most dimensions of cognitive ST, but did not appear to improve students’ affective engagement with ST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper was to develop and validate a new theoretically based scale to measure students’ learning of systems thinking in relation to the affective domain in the context of systems engineering education. Two variant questionnaires are reported here, one using only questions constructed using positive grammar and the other using a mix of positive and negative constructs, each applied to a different sample. The first group of 186 participants completed the positive version of the questionnaire, and, the second group of 163 completed the mixed version. Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was conducted to find the factors underlying each questionnaire. CFA was conducted to confirm the better questionnaire version and to confirm the factors which underlie both versions. The results indicate that a three factor, 16 item, scale with a mix of positive and negative wording is the better instrument with which to measure students’ engagement with systems thinking. The results also indicate that the three factor, 16 item construct is a better representative of both versions of the questionnaire, whether the questionnaire has only positive questions or a mix of positive and negative questions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new, theoretically-based scale that would assess students' learning about systems thinking in relation to the affective domain in systems engineering education. Students' learning of systems thinking in the affective domain deal with emotions, feelings and valuing the related cognitive systems thinking aspects. It is characterized by belief in the power of systems thinking to enable them to develop superior engineered products and systems. This paper describes the psychometric properties of the scale as the basis for future use with a target population of engineering students. It provides the results of an instrument test analysis of data collected from a representative set of the target audience of the instrument. The participants in this study were 180 undergraduate engineering students who enrolled in a systems engineering course. Exploratory factor analysis of the scale for the sample yielded factors largely consistent with conceptualization and construction of the subscales. Confirmatory factor analysis of the scale also supports the initial factor structure. The results suggest that this instrument may be useful to researchers and practitioners interested in measuring systems thinking in engineering students, particularly in the affective domain. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper describes the results obtained for the affective engagement of students with systems thinking (ST). In prior work, the authors have developed and validated a questionnaire instrument for measuring affective engagement of undergraduate engineering students with ST. This paper presents results obtained when the questionnaire was used with undergraduate students. Two surveys with different versions of the questionnaire, one using positive grammar questions only and the other using a mix of positive and negative constructs, were used to measure the students’ engagement with ST and its relationship with gender, age, and work experience. Each questionnaire version was applied to a different sample, the first, 186 participants, completed the positive grammar version, and, the second group of 163 completed the mixed version. The results show that participants in both studies valued ST in each of the three dimensions of the ST construct. Statistical tests confirmed no significant gender differences in either study. Student engagement with the practical dimension of ST was shown to vary, with statistical significance, with groups of age, years of work experience, and country of the university. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Systems thinking (ST) offers a holistic approach rather than a reductionist approach, through appreciating all the interrelated dimensions of complex problems. It is important for understanding and interacting with all kinds of systems, in order to manage complex problems. However, the broad range of the ST‐related literature found in various disciplines, generates a great deal of disagreement about definitions and understanding of systems thinking. Despite the current ambiguities of ST definitions, its underlying philosophy has a long history. This paper aims to clarify what ST is in the modern day and why it is defined in so many different ways. It identifies a number of interpretations of systems thinking with the purpose of clarifying what it is and why it is variously understood. The main aims of this paper is to propose a new ST construct, and to define its role in the practice of Systems Engineering (SE). This paper then draws implications of the new ST construct for SE education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]