MITRE | Systems Engineering Guide | The Essence of MITRE Systems Engineering

The section The Evolution of Systems Engineering notes that the systems engineering discipline is defined by the context or environment in which it is embedded. This companion section describes more specifically how the distinctive attributes of MITRE systems engineering are shaped by the expectations of our sponsors and customers and further formed by our corporate interpretation of the quality systems engineering required to meet those expectations.

The U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 35.017 sets forth federal policy on the establishment and use of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and related sponsoring agreements [1]. A portion is excerpted below.

Some phrases from this excerpt stand out as particularly important factors that influence the way in which MITRE executes its systems engineering roles and responsibilities:

MITRE's individual FFRDC sponsoring agreements further shape how we perceive and practice systems engineering [2, 3, 4, and 5]. The FFRDC sponsoring agreements for the C3I [Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence], CAASD [Center for Advanced Aviation System Development], CEM [Center for Enterprise Modernization], and SEDI [Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute] further delineate the purpose and role of each FFRDC, its core work, relationship to the sponsoring organization, and other details of its operation. Despite obvious differences among the sponsoring agreements, two consistent themes are evident: Each FFRDC is expected to be doing appropriate work that answers the nation's needs, and that work needs to be done well. Within MITRE, we sometimes use the shorthand "do the right work" when referring to the former and "do the work right" when referring to the latter. These two fundamental characteristics of quality systems engineering are understood and practiced by MITRE. Below are excerpts from each of the four sponsoring agreements that illustrate these aspects of MITRE systems engineering.

Quality in MITRE's systems engineering includes aspects of both delivering an inherently good product or service and meeting external expectations. For MITRE, external expectations are set by multiple stake-holders, including not only our immediate customers but also the end users of the capabilities we help create, our FFRDC sponsors (and those above them who set expectations for FFRDCs more generally), and our Board of Trustees (who are external to day-to-day company affairs). For the most part, the higher-level expectations from our sponsors and Board align with each other and with our internal aspirations for "good" as embodied by our strategic framework. They also align with how MITRE can and should uniquely contribute to meeting end user needs. These alignment points include:

To meet these expectations we need to be doing appropriate work that answers the nation's needs, and we need to do it well. This is the key requirement that cuts across our four sponsoring agreements. We also need to satisfy our immediate customers. And we need to invest in developing quality relationships with decision-makers, stakeholders, and our customers, to shape our work and present results so that they have the impact they deserve. Meeting our customers' expectations requires that we provide value in the quality of our contributions.

The pressures on our customers often lead them to ask for quick reaction responses from MITRE. To the extent that a quick response is practical, we must provide it. (When the imposed constraints make an informed response impractical, we need to define the extent to which we can make an informed response, explain why we cannot go further, and refuse the remainder of the task.) And our processes for identifying and leveraging applicable past analyses and data, informed professional judgments, and relevant experiences (either within or external to MITRE) need to be focused on enabling the highest quality response within the constraints imposed. Whenever possible we should document our delivery (even after the fact)—the assumptions made, the methods used, and the results conveyed. We also must develop our knowledge base to continually improve our ability to respond to future requests related to our core competencies.

Moreover, we must assess the risks of quick responses to understand the possible issues with their accuracy and completeness, including the potential consequences of these issues—and so inform the customer. When the risk is high, we should strongly recommend a plan for a more complete, fact-based analysis, utilizing, as needed, trade-space exploration, modeling and simulation, experimentation, proof-of-concept prototyping, etc. Clearly, circumstances requiring in-depth study, especially if associated with key national capability outcomes, demand the highest quality work. This entails careful planning and work shaping, appropriate staffing and resources, peer and management consultation and review throughout the execution of the work, and socializing and delivering the results so that they are correctly interpreted and acted upon. Importantly, the higher-level expectations on MITRE can only be met when a significant fraction of our work goes beyond quick response activities, so finding ourselves in these circumstances should be relatively common.

The higher-level expectations on MITRE push us beyond responding to customer requests toward proactively identifying key issues on which we can make a difference. These often involve enterprise objectives such as integration and interoperability for information sharing across the government (and, at times, beyond), which may exceed the bounds of an individual customer's purview. When these proactive initiatives lead to substantive efforts, they also demand the highest quality work, with all the same attributes discussed above applied to their planning, execution, and delivery.

In summary, MITRE needs to provide its customers with "quick and dirty" products when necessary, making them as "clean" as possible but conveying a clean/dirty assessment along with the product. Higher-level expectations for MITRE's FFRDC contributions require us to often work more substantively, with an even greater emphasis on quality for our work. Quality, then, involves both doing enough of the right work, and doing all of our work (but especially the higher impact work) right. It also includes building relationships so that high impact is, in fact, realized. These objectives are reachable only if we all understand the expectations, are frank and open about assessing the work we're asked to do, foster a culture that values quality and learns from both mistakes and successes, follow through (internally and with our customers) on resource allocations, and pay attention to important relationships. Upper management needs to take the lead, but we all need to contribute. Especially with the immediate customer, it's often the project staff that have the frequent connections that influence the customer's perception of our quality and the acceptance of our recommendations.

What does successful systems engineering look like at MITRE? What is the secret formula for it? As noted early in the companion section to this one—The Evolution of Systems Engineering—there is no single definition of systems engineering and so there is no single definition of success. Much depends on the context in which the systems engineering is being practiced. Nevertheless, there are high-level criteria that strongly correlate with successful MITRE systems engineers. These are summarized below. They are excerpted from the MITRE Systems Engineering Competency Model [7].

For more information on the Systems Engineering Guide, or to suggest an article, please contact us.

Criteria for Successful MITRE Systems Engineers

Successful MITRE Systems Engineers:

Define the sponsor's and customer's problem or opportunity from a comprehensive, integrated perspective.
Apply systems thinking to create strategies, anticipate problems, and provide short- and long-term solutions.
Adapt to change and uncertainty in the project and program environment, and assist the sponsor, customer, and other stakeholders in adapting to these.
Propose a comprehensive, integrated solution or approach that:
- Contributes to achieving the sponsor's, customer's and other stakeholders' strategic mission objectives in a changing environment,
- Can be feasibly implemented within the sponsor's and customer's political, organizational, operational, economic and technical context,
- Addresses interoperability and integration challenges across organizations, and
- Shapes enterprise evolution through innovation.
Cultivate partnerships with our sponsors and customers to work in the public interest.
Bring their own and others' expertise to provide sound, objective evidence and advice that influences the decisions of our sponsors, customers, and other stakeholders.

	Solutions That Make a Difference.® Copyright © 1997-2013, The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. MITRE is a registered trademark of The MITRE Corporation. Material on this site may be copied and distributed with permission only.
	Privacy Policy \| Contact Us