1 / 33

GRCSE Path Forward

This document outlines the responses to the review comments received on the GRCSE framework by the BKCASE Core team and Task Force. We identified nine key themes in the feedback, addressing issues such as global applicability, entrance expectations, and curriculum architecture. It discusses the emphasis on software vs. hardware, the need for clearer communication regarding Core and Core Extensions, and highlights the significance of context in education systems. Additionally, it sets the path forward for workshops and aims to ensure that GRCSE remains a valuable guide for developing and evaluating Master of Systems Engineering programs.

qamra
Télécharger la présentation

GRCSE Path Forward

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GRCSE Path Forward

  2. Outline of GRCSE section • BKCASE Core team + TF have made overview responses to GRCSE review comments • Identified 9 themes • I present the 9 themes of comments • Our responses to the 9 themes • Path forward • Workshop VII (June) • Workshop VIII (October) • GRCSE v0.5 (review release)

  3. GRCSE Key Issues • Globally applicable—US Centric. • Stated intention – to be globally applicable • Seemed to fit US education/employment system • Stage of life/career at which students commence Masters in SE • Issues associated with accreditation

  4. GRCSE Key Issues • Defense/Aerospace slant • We believe this general observation flowed from the use of examples originating from particular places • Both institutions and industries

  5. GRCSE Key Issues • Experience (Entrance Expectations) • Global issues: is it too much? Not enough? • Some concern that it was overly restrictive • Not sensitive to different national contexts • Lack of explanation of how the entrance expectations are linked to • Content • Outcomes • Objectives

  6. GRCSE Key Issues • Degree Type (Entrance Expectation) • MBA, social sciences • This was based on the different pathways taken by SEs and the fact that some employers had successfully encouraged people with non-engineering backgrounds to do SE programs (usually after on-the-job training in engineering based on other education)

  7. GRCSE Key Issues • Recommendations VS Requirements • Some reviewers seemed to expect a specification of a Master of SE program • Contrary to our intention – to write a guide to assist people to • Develop Master of SE programs • Evaluate/maintain Master of SE programs • Inform activities associated with linking programs to competencies and accreditation (we specifically are not producing an accreditation framework)

  8. GRCSE Key Issues • Software—too much emphasis? • There were many comments to the effect that there was too much about software in GRCSE, and not enough about hardware or SoS or enterprises • Entangled disciplines • We have been conscious of tension over related disciplines – especially PM and SwE • Product/Service/Enterprise/SoS

  9. GRCSE Key Issues • Curriculum Architecture • Questions raised about the choice of explicit addressing of System Design and Technology Management • What about other aspects of lifecycle – such as O&M and Disposal • Bias – seemed to follow Defense acquisition approach

  10. GRCSE Key Issues • How to use/examples • Some reviewers suggested it would be useful to have guidance in how to use GRCSE in various scenarios in which it could be used • Companion document • Papers (0.5) • Additional chapter/appendix (1.0?)

  11. GRCSE Key Issues • CorBoK • Confusion about the relationship of ‘Core’ and ‘Core Extension’ • Requires better communication • Why did we choose SDD and TM • Incompleteness (X’s, not Bloom levels) made it harder to understand • Many recommended additional topics

  12. Global applicability • Possibly different sets of recommendations by education system • We observe differences in progress through education – next slide • We interpreted the comments about global applicability as relating to these differences in education system structure internationally (not details of terminology – which also differ)

  13. Global applicability 1 How to compensate for the difference in order? Educate Experience Educate 2 Educate Educate Experience Additional activities Practical/Hands-on work Labs 3 Educate Experience Undergrad only—holistic perspective on WFD

  14. Global applicability • Globally applicable • Possibly different sets of recommendations by education system • Dividing out into two streams (u/g->p/g->wk; u/g->work->p/g) is likely to make changes to: • Entrance requirements • Objectives • Outcomes • More later

  15. Defense/Aerospace slant • We believe this observation flowed from the use of examples originating from particular places • Both institutions and industries (this can follow from specific vocabulary or issues) • Contrary to the goal of domain independence • Solution • Rework to excise examples or to create new material in other areas

  16. Entrance expectations • Concerns expressed over how much experience should be expected • Range from none to 10 years • Seems to be influenced by educations system and competitive position of the university • Education system – valid in GRCSE • Competitive position – not relevant in GRCSE • Action • Review in relation to education system decision • Link to learning outcomes and objectives

  17. Background degree expectations • Degree Type (discipline) • Question is which kind of degree should be required as background • Is it important which degreeORWhat students should have learned through the degree? • Natural science (one or several? Physics, Bio, Chem? All? Some?) • Domain dependent? Finance requires math focus; defense physics, etc.

  18. Background degree expectations • Degree Type (discipline) • Another set of comments expressed a lack of explanation of the link of background education and the content or outcomes and objectives of programs • Type of system focus • Product, service, enterprise • What are the commonalities?

  19. Background degree expectations • Specifics • Need specifics? vs World view • Scientific method (scientific discipline) • Engineering thought process and proficiency (some level)—using science to solve problem • Undergraduate sequence in engineering and/or natural sciences (not dependent on specifics—domain drives specifics of which sciences) • Programs determine specifics based on their emphases, domain focuses, etc.

  20. GRCSE Recommendations vs Requirements • Tension in how people understood GRCSE • Some expected instruction for a program • Some expected guidance for how to design a program • Solution • Improve clarity of expression of recommendations concept • Recommendations is one of the foundational positions of GRCSE (I believe correctly)

  21. Software - emphasis • Entangled disciplines—PM and SwE • Solution • Improve the clarity and completeness of discussion of • Product • Service • Enterprise • SoS

  22. Architecture • Some difficulty for readers to understand • Approach • Use detailed adjudication of comments to determine the best solution to deal with SDD/TM—rationale? Defense? • This also impacts the generalisability of GRCSE

  23. Examples related to use of GRCSE • Suggested that examples of how to use GRCSE would help readers • Use of GRCSE as a tools to design a program • As a tool to review/revise an existing program • As a tool for constructing an accreditation guide • V0.5 – write as an additional chapter/appendix — companion document, papers; additional chapter/appendix

  24. CorBOK • SDD/TM – table • What to include? • What is the intent? • Extension areas contentious • What they are – maybe others • Many recommended additional topics • SEBoK TOC stable at 15 July • Part Leads identify/prioritize KA’s and topics for CorBoK and corresponding Bloom’s levels

  25. CorBOK • Path Forward • Use SEBOK structure to guide topic selection • More mature at 15/July • Clarify nature and content of the tables • This is likely to be much clearer when we include Bloom levels of achievement

  26. Educational systems – 2 patterns • Two different entrance expectations based on 2 models • Weave the rest around the expectations • Packaging will create two variants • Need to trace entrance to outcomes • CorBoK Kas the same • Outcomes same or very similar (very clear) • Objectives may be different • Architecture may be different (but some similarity)

  27. WS VI – Working Day (Day 3) • First cut at topics (~10?) with Bloom’s levels • Core • Extensions • Present end of day 3 • Brief discussion with full author team • Plan details of action to proceed • Plan how to engage authors not present at BKCASE VI

  28. GRCSE work to WS VII • Comment adjudication 1st cut • Document update based on discussion • Solid version of materials outside CorBoK • First cut of CorBoK based on current 0.5 skeleton • Topics and Bloom’s levels • Validate post WS VII • Consider contact time budget for approx hours allocated to topics to achieve Bloom’s level • Differences between Education/Experience Model s1 and 2

  29. Towards BKCASE VII - Companion Documents? • Examples of implementations • Schools that may use GRCSE to examine/start programs, use in academic program reviews • Plan work to be done (by WS VII)

  30. Towards WS VIII (UK) (preliminary) • 1 Aug – Engage SEBOK Part Team leads • For guidance re CorBOK content and Bloom’s levels • Draft 0.5, with near-final CorBoK, promulgated among team, present at BKCASE VIII

  31. Staffing • Chapter 1 – Team • Chapter 2 – Team • Chapter 3 – Tim, Rick, NEED • Chapter 4 – Olwell, NEED • Chapter 5 – Nic, Rick, Marcia, Massood, NEED • Chapter 6 – Alice, John B., NEED • Chapter 7 – JJ, Alice, Tim, (Olwell, Tim, Art), NEED 1 and 2

  32. Staffing • Chapter 8 – Olwell, Daniel P • Chapter 9 – Tim • Appendix A – Mary, Tom, Nic (follow up?) • Appendix B – Tim, NEED • Appendix C – NEED 1, 2, and 3 • Appendix D – Prun • Appendix E – Alice, NEED • Appendix F – Freeman

  33. Staffing • References and Glossary (compilation) - Nic

More Related