Editor's Corner: Difference between revisions

From SEBoK Draft
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(234 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
[[File:Hutchison,Nicole Profile.jpeg|right|200px]]
===History, Motivation, and Value===
The Body of Knowledge and Curriculum to Advance Systems Engineering Project (BKCASE) began to create a community-based ''Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)'' and a ''Graduate Reference Curriculum for Systems Engineering (GRCSE)'' in fall of 2009 (Pyster and Olwell et al. 2012) (Please see http://www.bkcase.org for more information).  The SEBoK came into being out of a recognition that the systems engineering (SE) discipline could benefit greatly by having a living authoritative guide that discusses what is included in the discipline, how the discipline should be structured to facilitate understanding, and what documents are the most important to the discipline. A key principle of the BKCASE project is that the SEBoK and GRCSE will always be available free worldwide – including the revisions to those products.  


Through the end of 2012, BKCASE was led by Stevens Institute of Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School in coordination with several professional societies and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), which provided generous funding. Volunteers from dozens of companies, universities, and professional societies across 10 countries contributed many thousands of hours writing the SEBoK articles; their organizations provided significant other contributions in-kind. For additional information on the BKCASE authors, please see the [[Acknowledgements]] article.
{|
|-
|<center>''The ''Editor’s Corner'' provides perspective from the Editor in Chief on critical topics for systems engineering, either through their own words or by inviting a guest writer.''</center>
|}


The scale and complexity of BKCASE emerged over the first few months of the project.  Systems engineering is large and relatively immature when compared to more classic engineering disciplines, such as electrical and mechanical engineering.  We are extremely pleased with how the community rose to the challenge.  New authors continually stepped up when gaps in the writing team were identified and we routinely assembled 25 to 30 authors every three months in a multi-day workshop to iron out issues and make key decisions. 
<div style="text-align:right">'''19 May 2025'''</div>


One of the most critical decisions occurred in January 2011, when the team confirmed a switch to a wiki-based presentation for the body of knowledge. This added much complexity to the effort, but offered great advantages in terms of the modularity for update, access to interim material by the authors, easy review and suggestions for improvements, and flexible navigation.  In hindsight, the impact of choosing a wiki was much greater than we understood, but we are very happy we went down that path.  We believe this format to present the body of knowledge will serve the SE community much better than if we had produced a traditional PDF or Word document.
'''Protecting Innovation'''


To help ensure both the quality of the SEBoK and its acceptance by the community, it was vital that the SEBoK be created with an open collaborative process. Specifically, each version had public review and each review comment was adjudicated. The adjudication results can be found at [[SEBoK Review and Adjudication]].
In today's world of high complexity and competition, innovation is required not only for improvement and growth, but for survival.


The earliest value of the SEBoK has simply been the greater sense of community that has developed among the authors, which include many fellows of professional societies and other leaders in the field.  For example, the relationship between Systems Science and Systems Engineering is now more clearly understood than in the past. This relationship is captured in Parts 2 and 3 of the SEBoK.
So what is innovation? Academic definitions abound and no two seem to match exactly.  


The greater value of the SEBoK, of course, comes from use by the community. As of the end of March 2013, SEBoK articles have been accessed more than 100,000 times and early usage reports are encouraging.  We hope the SEBoK will regularly be used by thousands of systems engineers around the world as they undertake such activities as creating systems architectures, developing career paths for systems engineers, and deciding new curricula for systems engineering university programs. 
Rather than quibbling over minor wording differences, let's start with a "good enough" definition that seems to take into account the most important aspects:


The SEBoK is intended to evolve and morph with use and with changes in the field. The wiki structure is particularly well-suited for promoting that purpose.  Users are asked to comment about what they like and dislike, what is missing and what should be removed.  New articles will be added and existing articles updated regularly.
<blockquote> '''Innovation''' is the ability to ''generate and execute new ideas'' - incremental, evolutionary, or revolutionary—and it starts with ''creativity''. (IDEO 2025)</blockquote>


At the beginning of 2013, with version 1.0 of both SEBoK and GRCSE released, BKCASE transitioned to a new governance model with shared stewardship between the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) (see http://www.sercuarc.org), the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) (see http://www.incose.org), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society (IEEE-CS) (see http://www.computer.org).  This new governance structure is being formalized in an agreement between the three stewards that will be finalized in spring of 2013. The stewards have reconfirmed their commitment to the key principle that SEBoK and GRCSE will be available at no cost to the users.
If we can agree that innovation is important for everyone, no matter the specific context, then it is worthwhile spending some time understanding what enables an individual or group or organization to be innovative.


===Version 1.1.1 ===
The first question we should examine is, "Can individuals be innovative on their own?" and the simple answer is "yes". The more nuanced answer is, "yes - but it requires some specific skills that not everyone has." For an individual to be innovative, they need:


This version, released 14 June 2013, is a micro release that corrects some errors and adds Wiki functionality.
*'''Curiosity''' - In general, curiosity means a strong desire to learn or know. In the context of innovation, it can also mean more specifically establishing behaviors that question the status quo (asking the five whys, and why not and what if). Curiosity also requires openness to new ideas and developing comfort with the risk and change.
*'''Creativity''' - Closely linked to curiosity, creativity is the ability to generate original and unique ideas. As a skill, this includes utilizing techniques to promote divergent thinking and explore multiple possibilities while resisting the urge to settle on a single idea too quickly. Creativity also includes developing one’s imagination — the ability to concretely visualize what can be versus what is. (CLO 2023)
*'''Problem Solving''' - Trying to solve a problem is often the root of innovation. Identifying and resolving problems can lead to developing new ideas and processes. (CLO 2023) Solving a problem depends on correctly identifying its cause so the best solution can be selected and implemented for sustained results. (ASQ 2025)
*'''Critical Thinking''' -  We must be able to analyze the problem(s) being addressed. Critical thinking explores underlying issues and root causes, clarifies gaps between the current and desired states, analyzes risks and rewards, and evaluates the outcomes of experimentation and prototyping. (CLO 2023)
*'''Resilience and Adaptability''' - Though two separate skillsets, these are closely enough related that it is worth discussing them together here. Resilience is the ability to cope with setbacks — particularly learning and moving on from failures. Adaptability is the flexibility with which humans cope with environmental challenges (modified from Brown 2012) and is necessary to cope with the waves of change experienced in cultures of continuous innovation. (CLO 2023)


Changes made include:
As individuals, we can begin to understand how we fair in these areas. But being a creative, curious, problem solving, critically thinking, resilient and adaptive person does not guarantee innovation. The truth is, while an individual can be innovative, to tackle truly complex problems often requires a team. The last critical skill an individual often needs to be innovative (IDEO) in itself implies the team context:
* Version numbers have been removed from page titles to improve maintenance of links
* Spelling errors in contributor names have been corrected.
* 'Cite This Page' has been revised and improved.
* A few references have been updated, notably in the [[Safety Engineering]] article.
* Meta-tags have been improved to increase visibility to search engines
* Wiki navigational features --- especially breadcrumbs --- have been improved.
* A counter has been added to record PDF down-loads.


No comments were adjudicated for this micro release.
*'''Collaboration''' - "Innovation doesn’t happen in isolation. It occurs when humans come together and collaborate, which can happen at many levels." (CIO 2023) Collaboration is working effectively with a broad ranging group of other people, communicating clearly, embracing a range of perspectives, and sharing knowledge.


===Version 1.1===
I've heard many different people share their views that systems engineering is by necessity a group activity. Whether it be people at conferences citing our discipline as a "team" or "contact" sport, the frequent statement that systems engineering "can't happen in a vacuum", or the implication in the 2019 update of the definition of systems engineering by the INCOSE Fellows as "transdiciplinary", we as a community seem to agree that we have to have multiple perspectives from multiple people to be successful. The same is true for innovation.
This version, released 26 April 2013, is a minor release which updates many topic articles and glossary articles.


Changes that have been made include:
In any group - be it a team focusing on a specific problem or a large business organization or enterprise - innovation has become a common theme. And there are things that groups need to do to foster innovation. Though there are a lot of ways to think about what makes an organization innovative, I've had success in my career working with the Quality of Interaction or Qi index. This is a tool that allows groups to assess how innovative they are by looking at two main factors: psychological safety and cognitive diversity. '''Psychological safety''' is the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. (Reynolds and Lewis 2018) Innovation - and in fact most problem solving efforts - include things like brainstorming, where it's important to get many different ideas on the table. In an environment without psychological safety, however, people generally only share ideas that fit within the current ''status quo''. If innovation is in part challenging the ''status quo'', it is easy to see how this could stifle innovation. '''Cognitive diversity''' is having differences in information, experiences, and processing styles within a group. A study by Reynolds and Lewis in 2017 found that a specific aspect of this - how individuals think about and engage with new, uncertain, and complex situations - was one of the most critical aspects of cognitive diversity for fostering innovation.
* Fourteen topic articles were updated in Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6, for the purpose of expanding or improving the explanation of the topic, or in some cases to add new references.
* Sixteen glossary terms were updated and two new glossary terms were added.
* The [[Acknowledgements]] page was updated to reflect the significantly revised governance structure for the SEBoK, which added many new contributors in varying roles.  
* The [[Main Page]] and other Quicklinks pages have been modified to reflect the new version.
* The SEBoK Evolution article formerly in [[SEBoK v. 1.1 Introduction]] was deleted, being replaced by an updated version, being this Editor's Note article.


There were no changes to wiki navigation and operation. Comments from version 1.0.1 that were adjudicated were deleted from DISQUS, while comments still to be adjudicated remain in the wiki.
What does it look like if groups don't have both characteristics of cognitive diversity and psychological safety? Again, I like the clarity of the Qi index here. (Human Insight) We have all been in groups where individuals have strong opinions and cannot or will not be persuaded by other views. While there is a diversity of opinions, I'm sure your experience, like mine, was that this was not a terribly innovative - or maybe even effective - group to be a part of. In their framework, Human Insight defines an organization with high cognitive diversity but low psychological safety as "oppositional". And for me, at least, the common use of this word categorizes experiences in these groups fairly well.


===Upcoming Releases===
On the other end of the spectrum, organizations can have very high psychological safety, but everyone in the organization essentially approaches problems and thinking in the same ways. Human Insight defines these groups as "uniform". It's useful for having strong team spirit and branding and, depending on what work you're doing may be great. But, with everyone bringing the same kinds of ideas to the table, the group will continue to solve problems in the same ways. Uniform may have strengths - but innovation isn't generally one of them.


We will regularly update the SEBoK to correct errors, improve existing articles, add new articles, and respond to specific comments from the user community. The current plan is to issue occasional micro updates and two minor updates a year for the first two years, and then decide whether a larger more major revision is needed in the third year or whether additional micro and minor revisions are adequate. Micro updates correct spelling errors and sentence grammar and make other very modest changes and occur as needed. They are identified by three digits - Version 1.x.y.  Version 1.0.1 was the first micro release. Minor updates will correct errors, continue to add content to existing articles, including any new references published recently, and perhaps add articles to existing knowledge areas.  Minor updates will not change the basic organization of the SEBoK. The editors may not respond to all comments posted in DISQUS for the minor updates. This release, Version 1.1, is the first minor update.  Major updates will be unconstrained.  All accumulated comments and suggestions will be adjudicated for the major updates, and the adjudication results will be posted for the community.
Then, of course, there are groups that score lowly on both factors, where individuals generally think alike and are worried about being punished if they do bring something different forward. The Qi Index defines these groups as "defensive" and, again, I think the word sums up a lot of our experiences in groups where nothing but the ''status quo'' is desired or even tolerated. For myself, I try to get out of these groups as quickly as possible. Even if it's an environment you're comfortable being in, at the end of the day, it's difficult to find much innovation in these groups.


New releases are under the control of a Governing Board appointed by the stewards, who oversee the SEBoK Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editor-in-Chief, and an Editorial Board. The stewards contribute resources to manage the SEBoK wiki, support new releases, and encourage SEBoK adoption.  Volunteer authors from the world-wide SE community continue to propose and create new content and other volunteers review that new content.
So what does all of this mean for you, the systems engineer who thinks innovation is important but isn't sure where to go from here? First, I'd suggest each of us start with ourselves. Think about the skills outlined above, and have an honest conversation with yourself. "Do I really bring all of these skills to the table? Which skills are stronger for me? Where could I use some help?" Self-awareness is an important first step for all of us and, as a bonus, if you spend time understanding where you fit, people in your groups are more likely to listen when you bring group-level thoughts forward.


The next minor release will be Version 1.2, currently scheduled for release in October 2013. At least one new article on ''Systems Engineering Education'' will be included in Part 5, but we suspect several more new articles will be included as well.  The editors also plan to have implemented the process for updating references systematically, and intend to include references published since version 1.0, as appropriate to each article.
Which brings us to the next step: think about the group(s) your a part of. Most of us are part of more than one - maybe we're on multiple projects at work, each with its own team; we volunteer with a local youth program, or sports team, or church; maybe we play softball at our church or pick up footie games with old friends in the park. Consider your experiences in these groups and where they fall on the spectrum from "generative" (highly fostering innovation) to oppositional, uniform, or defensive. Reflect on how your behavior changes between these groups. Do you find yourself sharing ideas openly in some settings, but exhibiting more "group think" in others? Again, there is not one right way for a group to function. On your sports team, uniformity might be highly useful.


===Sandbox===
Once you've thought about the groups you engage with, ask yourself, "Which of these groups would benefit from being more innovative?" Now you have some thoughts on places in your life where seeking out the skills that foster innovation and the culture of innovation might have a big impact.


The SEBoK is sometimes compared to Wikipedia. The SEBoK is like Wikipedia in its most fundamental structure, as it is a collection of wiki articles built on mediawiki technology. However, SEBoK is unlike Wikipedia in that the SEBoK's content is carefully controlled. Anyone in the community can suggest changes be made to SEBoK articles, but no one except the SEBoK Editors can actually implement those changes.  Wikipedia is a much more open wiki, allowing virtually anyone to change any article, while reserving the right to undo changes that are offensive or otherwise violate Wikipedia's rules.
As systems thinkers, we have a choice: preserve comfort, or pursue creativity. As Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." ''SEBoK'' evolves because systems engineers evolve — and innovation is how we stay relevant. What small step will you take today to help our field not just survive, but thrive?


Tight control over SEBoK content is a tradeoff.  Such control ensures a stable baseline whose quality and integrity are assured by its editors.  On the other hand, such control discourages some members of the community from contributing improvements to the SEBoK. To satisfy both the need for a stable baseline and the desire for broader community involvement, we will be implementing a new feature sometime in the next several months. The ''Sandbox'' will be copy of the SEBoK, separate from the baseline version, where anyone in the community can edit articles.  The exact rules for how this will be done are being decided now and will be announced in a micro release of the SEBoK as well as through other venues.
Sincerely,
[[File:Hutchison_Signature.png|200px|left]]




[[File:EditorsinChiefSignatures.png||center|400px]]


==Learn More==
AlMunthiri, O., S. Bani-Melhem, F. Mohd-Shamsudin, S. A. Al-Naqubi. 2024. "Does leading with inclusiveness promote innovative behaviors? Examining the role of work engagement and psychological Safety." ''International Journal of Organizational Analysis.'' 32(10): 2468-2493. [https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2023-4003 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2023-4003]


Donovan, M. 2023. "Innovation as a skill set: How you can help your people learn to become more innovative." Chief Learning Officer. August 7, 2023. Available at: [https://www.chieflearningofficer.com/2023/08/07/innovation-as-a-skill-set-how-you-can-help-your-people-learn-to-become-more-innovative/#:~:text=Developing%20innovation%20as%20a%20set,who%20contribute%20to%20your%20culture. https://www.chieflearningofficer.com/2023/08/07/innovation-as-a-skill-set-how-you-can-help-your-people-learn-to-become-more-innovative/#:~:text=Developing%20innovation%20as%20a%20set,who%20contribute%20to%20your%20culture]


<center>
IDEO U. 2025. "Innovation." IDEO U. Available at: [https://www.ideou.com/pages/innovation?srsltid=AfmBOoo36Evl40KGoCrshyDp9GbvhiL8ecwC34Lp1hkAxmYxpjj2IHCJ https://www.ideou.com/pages/innovation?srsltid=AfmBOoo36Evl40KGoCrshyDp9GbvhiL8ecwC34Lp1hkAxmYxpjj2IHCJ]
{|
 
|-
Mathuki, E. and J. Zhang. "Cognitive diversity, creativity and team effectiveness: the mediations of inclusion and knowledge sharing." ''Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems.'' 52(4). September 2022.
|style="background-color: #ffffff"|[[File: Stevens.jpg|300px|center|Stevens Institute of Technology]] |
|style="background-color: #ffffff"|[[File:Systems_Engineering_Logo_r3.JPG|552px|center|Naval Postgraduate School's Systems Engineering Department]]
|}
</center>


Oxford Bibliographies. 2025. "Adaptability". Oxford University Press. Available at: [https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0047.xml https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0047.xml]


Qu, J., S. Zhao, M. Cao, J. Lu, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, and R. Zhu. 2024. "When and how is team cognitive diversity beneficial? An examination of Chaxu climate." ''Heliyon.'' 10(1). January 15, 2024. Available at: [https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2405-8440%2824%2900001-X https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2405-8440%2824%2900001-X]


===Works Cited===
Reynolds, A. and D. Lewis. 2018. "The Two Traits of the Best Problem-Solving Teams." ''Harvard Business Review.'' April 2, 2018. Available at: [https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-The-Two-Traits-of-the-Best-Problem-Solving-Teams.pdf https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-The-Two-Traits-of-the-Best-Problem-Solving-Teams.pdf]


Pyster, A., D.H. Olwell, T.L.J. Ferris, N. Hutchison, S. Enck, J.F. Anthony, D. Henry, and A. Squires (eds). 2012. ''Graduate Reference Curriculum for Systems Engineering (GRCSE™),'' version 1.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: The Trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology ©2012. Available at: http://www.bkcase.org/grcse-10/.
Reynolds, A. and D. Lewis. 2017. "Teams Solve Problems Faster When They’re More Cognitively Diverse." ''Harvard Business Review.'' March 30, 2017. Available at: [https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-Teams-Solve-Problems-Faster-When-Theyre-More-Cognitively-Diverse.pdf https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-Teams-Solve-Problems-Faster-When-Theyre-More-Cognitively-Diverse.pdf]


{{DISQUS}}
Tharpe, W., M. Leachman, and M. Saenz. 2020. "Tapping More People's Capacity to Innovate Can Help States Thrive." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. December 9, 2020. Available at: [https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tapping-more-peoples-capacity-to-innovate-can-help-states-thrive https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tapping-more-peoples-capacity-to-innovate-can-help-states-thrive]

Latest revision as of 00:05, 27 May 2025

Hutchison,Nicole Profile.jpeg
The Editor’s Corner provides perspective from the Editor in Chief on critical topics for systems engineering, either through their own words or by inviting a guest writer.
19 May 2025

Protecting Innovation

In today's world of high complexity and competition, innovation is required not only for improvement and growth, but for survival.

So what is innovation? Academic definitions abound and no two seem to match exactly.

Rather than quibbling over minor wording differences, let's start with a "good enough" definition that seems to take into account the most important aspects:

Innovation is the ability to generate and execute new ideas - incremental, evolutionary, or revolutionary—and it starts with creativity. (IDEO 2025)

If we can agree that innovation is important for everyone, no matter the specific context, then it is worthwhile spending some time understanding what enables an individual or group or organization to be innovative.

The first question we should examine is, "Can individuals be innovative on their own?" and the simple answer is "yes". The more nuanced answer is, "yes - but it requires some specific skills that not everyone has." For an individual to be innovative, they need:

  • Curiosity - In general, curiosity means a strong desire to learn or know. In the context of innovation, it can also mean more specifically establishing behaviors that question the status quo (asking the five whys, and why not and what if). Curiosity also requires openness to new ideas and developing comfort with the risk and change.
  • Creativity - Closely linked to curiosity, creativity is the ability to generate original and unique ideas. As a skill, this includes utilizing techniques to promote divergent thinking and explore multiple possibilities while resisting the urge to settle on a single idea too quickly. Creativity also includes developing one’s imagination — the ability to concretely visualize what can be versus what is. (CLO 2023)
  • Problem Solving - Trying to solve a problem is often the root of innovation. Identifying and resolving problems can lead to developing new ideas and processes. (CLO 2023) Solving a problem depends on correctly identifying its cause so the best solution can be selected and implemented for sustained results. (ASQ 2025)
  • Critical Thinking - We must be able to analyze the problem(s) being addressed. Critical thinking explores underlying issues and root causes, clarifies gaps between the current and desired states, analyzes risks and rewards, and evaluates the outcomes of experimentation and prototyping. (CLO 2023)
  • Resilience and Adaptability - Though two separate skillsets, these are closely enough related that it is worth discussing them together here. Resilience is the ability to cope with setbacks — particularly learning and moving on from failures. Adaptability is the flexibility with which humans cope with environmental challenges (modified from Brown 2012) and is necessary to cope with the waves of change experienced in cultures of continuous innovation. (CLO 2023)

As individuals, we can begin to understand how we fair in these areas. But being a creative, curious, problem solving, critically thinking, resilient and adaptive person does not guarantee innovation. The truth is, while an individual can be innovative, to tackle truly complex problems often requires a team. The last critical skill an individual often needs to be innovative (IDEO) in itself implies the team context:

  • Collaboration - "Innovation doesn’t happen in isolation. It occurs when humans come together and collaborate, which can happen at many levels." (CIO 2023) Collaboration is working effectively with a broad ranging group of other people, communicating clearly, embracing a range of perspectives, and sharing knowledge.

I've heard many different people share their views that systems engineering is by necessity a group activity. Whether it be people at conferences citing our discipline as a "team" or "contact" sport, the frequent statement that systems engineering "can't happen in a vacuum", or the implication in the 2019 update of the definition of systems engineering by the INCOSE Fellows as "transdiciplinary", we as a community seem to agree that we have to have multiple perspectives from multiple people to be successful. The same is true for innovation.

In any group - be it a team focusing on a specific problem or a large business organization or enterprise - innovation has become a common theme. And there are things that groups need to do to foster innovation. Though there are a lot of ways to think about what makes an organization innovative, I've had success in my career working with the Quality of Interaction or Qi index. This is a tool that allows groups to assess how innovative they are by looking at two main factors: psychological safety and cognitive diversity. Psychological safety is the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. (Reynolds and Lewis 2018) Innovation - and in fact most problem solving efforts - include things like brainstorming, where it's important to get many different ideas on the table. In an environment without psychological safety, however, people generally only share ideas that fit within the current status quo. If innovation is in part challenging the status quo, it is easy to see how this could stifle innovation. Cognitive diversity is having differences in information, experiences, and processing styles within a group. A study by Reynolds and Lewis in 2017 found that a specific aspect of this - how individuals think about and engage with new, uncertain, and complex situations - was one of the most critical aspects of cognitive diversity for fostering innovation.

What does it look like if groups don't have both characteristics of cognitive diversity and psychological safety? Again, I like the clarity of the Qi index here. (Human Insight) We have all been in groups where individuals have strong opinions and cannot or will not be persuaded by other views. While there is a diversity of opinions, I'm sure your experience, like mine, was that this was not a terribly innovative - or maybe even effective - group to be a part of. In their framework, Human Insight defines an organization with high cognitive diversity but low psychological safety as "oppositional". And for me, at least, the common use of this word categorizes experiences in these groups fairly well.

On the other end of the spectrum, organizations can have very high psychological safety, but everyone in the organization essentially approaches problems and thinking in the same ways. Human Insight defines these groups as "uniform". It's useful for having strong team spirit and branding and, depending on what work you're doing may be great. But, with everyone bringing the same kinds of ideas to the table, the group will continue to solve problems in the same ways. Uniform may have strengths - but innovation isn't generally one of them.

Then, of course, there are groups that score lowly on both factors, where individuals generally think alike and are worried about being punished if they do bring something different forward. The Qi Index defines these groups as "defensive" and, again, I think the word sums up a lot of our experiences in groups where nothing but the status quo is desired or even tolerated. For myself, I try to get out of these groups as quickly as possible. Even if it's an environment you're comfortable being in, at the end of the day, it's difficult to find much innovation in these groups.

So what does all of this mean for you, the systems engineer who thinks innovation is important but isn't sure where to go from here? First, I'd suggest each of us start with ourselves. Think about the skills outlined above, and have an honest conversation with yourself. "Do I really bring all of these skills to the table? Which skills are stronger for me? Where could I use some help?" Self-awareness is an important first step for all of us and, as a bonus, if you spend time understanding where you fit, people in your groups are more likely to listen when you bring group-level thoughts forward.

Which brings us to the next step: think about the group(s) your a part of. Most of us are part of more than one - maybe we're on multiple projects at work, each with its own team; we volunteer with a local youth program, or sports team, or church; maybe we play softball at our church or pick up footie games with old friends in the park. Consider your experiences in these groups and where they fall on the spectrum from "generative" (highly fostering innovation) to oppositional, uniform, or defensive. Reflect on how your behavior changes between these groups. Do you find yourself sharing ideas openly in some settings, but exhibiting more "group think" in others? Again, there is not one right way for a group to function. On your sports team, uniformity might be highly useful.

Once you've thought about the groups you engage with, ask yourself, "Which of these groups would benefit from being more innovative?" Now you have some thoughts on places in your life where seeking out the skills that foster innovation and the culture of innovation might have a big impact.

As systems thinkers, we have a choice: preserve comfort, or pursue creativity. As Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." SEBoK evolves because systems engineers evolve — and innovation is how we stay relevant. What small step will you take today to help our field not just survive, but thrive?

Sincerely,

Hutchison Signature.png


Learn More

AlMunthiri, O., S. Bani-Melhem, F. Mohd-Shamsudin, S. A. Al-Naqubi. 2024. "Does leading with inclusiveness promote innovative behaviors? Examining the role of work engagement and psychological Safety." International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 32(10): 2468-2493. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2023-4003

Donovan, M. 2023. "Innovation as a skill set: How you can help your people learn to become more innovative." Chief Learning Officer. August 7, 2023. Available at: https://www.chieflearningofficer.com/2023/08/07/innovation-as-a-skill-set-how-you-can-help-your-people-learn-to-become-more-innovative/#:~:text=Developing%20innovation%20as%20a%20set,who%20contribute%20to%20your%20culture

IDEO U. 2025. "Innovation." IDEO U. Available at: https://www.ideou.com/pages/innovation?srsltid=AfmBOoo36Evl40KGoCrshyDp9GbvhiL8ecwC34Lp1hkAxmYxpjj2IHCJ

Mathuki, E. and J. Zhang. "Cognitive diversity, creativity and team effectiveness: the mediations of inclusion and knowledge sharing." Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 52(4). September 2022.

Oxford Bibliographies. 2025. "Adaptability". Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0047.xml

Qu, J., S. Zhao, M. Cao, J. Lu, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, and R. Zhu. 2024. "When and how is team cognitive diversity beneficial? An examination of Chaxu climate." Heliyon. 10(1). January 15, 2024. Available at: https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2405-8440%2824%2900001-X

Reynolds, A. and D. Lewis. 2018. "The Two Traits of the Best Problem-Solving Teams." Harvard Business Review. April 2, 2018. Available at: https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-The-Two-Traits-of-the-Best-Problem-Solving-Teams.pdf

Reynolds, A. and D. Lewis. 2017. "Teams Solve Problems Faster When They’re More Cognitively Diverse." Harvard Business Review. March 30, 2017. Available at: https://human-insight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBR-article-Teams-Solve-Problems-Faster-When-Theyre-More-Cognitively-Diverse.pdf

Tharpe, W., M. Leachman, and M. Saenz. 2020. "Tapping More People's Capacity to Innovate Can Help States Thrive." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. December 9, 2020. Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tapping-more-peoples-capacity-to-innovate-can-help-states-thrive

Retrieved from "https://sebokwiki.org/draft/w/index.php?title=Editor%27s_Corner&oldid=75588"