NAVSEA’s Systems Engineering Development Program two years later
In the March-April issue of Defense AT & L, Michael W. Wynne and Mark D. Schaeffer, in their article “Revitalization of Systems Engineering in DoD,” stated that “our primary goal is to re-establish DoD’s systems engineering prowess.” One of the missions of the Naval Sea Systems Command’s Systems Engineering Development Program is to train and develop systems engineers based on competency-driven models.
Two years ago, NAVSEA’s Systems Engineering Development Program was evaluated for effectiveness. In October 2003, after the survey, a national engineering manager’s meeting was held to enhance and improve the program through the implementations of agreed-upon best practices. This year, 65 engineers from NAVSEA’s Systems Engineering Development Program were surveyed to evaluate our progress. How are we doing? Well, as Dr. Bob (Richard Dreyfeus) said to his client (Bill Murray) in the movie What About Bob? “Baby Steps.”
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
While several areas, such as managerial awareness, downsizing, and the administration of the program, have showed some progress, there is plenty of room for continued improvement. The “intern” name still remains a sore point. The percentage of engineers who would enter the program again has decreased. Although managerial awareness has shown improvement, it still is the area identified as most frustrating and in need of work.
Two years ago, 86 percent of current engineers and graduates said they would enter the program again. In this year’s survey of current interns, 66 percent said that they would definitely enter the program again, another 15 percent said they would not; and 17 percent indicated “not sure.” As before, some of those who would not enter the program again cited faster advancement outside the program. According to some engineers, the current lower initial salary contributes to their reluctance.
Best Experiences
Systems Engineering Education
Two years ago, 90 percent of managers indicated that engineers were learning systems engineering, as did 63 percent of current engineers. This year, 100 percent of the managers said that the engineers were learning systems engineering, and 73 percent of the engineers agreed.
Rotations
Two years ago, rotations–the core of NAVSEA’s Systems Engineering Development Program–were cited as the most valuable aspect of the program by 60 percent of the engineers surveyed. This year, 81 percent indicated that rotations were valuable, with 55 percent citing the rotations as “extremely valuable.”
In answering the question “What has been your best experience in the program?” the predominant number of responses were related to the opportunity to rotate and the flexibility to rotate through different assignments, especially those rotations that brought the engineer closer to the sailor and the Navy’s products. Fifty-four percent cited rotations and another 22 percent cited the flexibility that the program offers. Since rotations are a major aspect of the flexibility, one might argue that 76 percent of the positive indicators pointed to rotations. Some comments:
* “The main reason I entered the program was the ability to rotate within NAVSEA.”
* “Rotations provide you with the background to understand the Navy organization.”
* “External rotation at SubPac Pearl Harbor. I learned how the Navy ‘really works’ from the guys in both blue and khaki.”
Some engineers found the rotations to be career-defining:
* “Freedom to explore the Navy’s acquisition system, the opportunity to mold my career path, and the chance to get a graduate-level education are fantastic aspects of the program.”
* “[The program] gave me an opportunity to work many different kinds of engineering jobs and work with many different kinds of engineers. This helped me sculpt what an ideal job for me would be, where I could contribute the most.”
Hands-on Experience
Two years ago, 20 percent indicated that hands-on experience from events, trips, and SEA trials was one of the more important aspects of the program. This year, the number was up to 48 percent. Ninetyfour percent indicated that hands-on experience was, at the least, “valuable,” if not more than valuable. Unhappily, some engineers stated that they hadn’t had the opportunity for hands-on experience. Some of the engineers reported that hands-on experience enabled career-defining realizations. A representative comment from one engineer: “By being hands on, I was able to determine what kind of position I would like to pursue once I’ve graduated from the program and enter the regular government civilian workforce.”