[SystemSafety] Educating the Postmodern Systems Engineer

[Steve Tockey]

Derek,

“It cannot be more than the current list of talking points
because there is no body of knowledge, apart from snippets
here and there.”

From the foreword to the 2014 edition (underlining added by me for emphasis):

“Every profession is based on a body of knowledge, although that knowledge is not always
defined in a concise manner. In cases where no formality exists, the body of knowledge is “generally
recognized” by practitioners and may be codified in a variety of ways for a variety of different
uses. But in many cases, a guide to a body of knowledge is formally documented, usually
in a form that permits it to be used for such purposes as development and accreditation of academic
and training programs, certification of specialists, or professional licensing. Generally,
a professional society or similar body maintains stewardship of the formal definition of a body
of knowledge.

During the past forty-five years, software engineering has evolved from a conference catchphrase
into an engineering profession, characterized by 1) a professional society, 2) standards
that specify generally accepted professional practices, 3) a code of ethics, 4) conference proceedings,
5) textbooks, 6) curriculum guidelines and curricula, 7) accreditation criteria and accredited
degree programs, 8) certification and licensing, and 9) this Guide to the Body of Knowledge.

…

It should be noted that this Guide does not present the entire the body of knowledge for software
engineering but rather serves as a guide to the body of knowledge that has been developed
over more than four decades. The software engineering body of knowledge is constantly
evolving. Nevertheless, this Guide constitutes a valuable characterization of the software engineering
profession.

…

This Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge is presented to you, the reader, as a
mechanism for acquiring the knowledge you need in your lifelong career development as a software
engineering professional."

Even from the original 2004 edition, SWEBOK Guide never claimed to be the entire body of knowledge. That body is simply too big. SWEBOK Guide is just a survey of that knowledge. In fact, what the authors and editors of SWEBOK Guide believe (although it may not be explicitly stated) is that their proposal for a Software Engineering Body of Knowledge is really characterized by Appendix C The Consolidated Reference List and the “MATRIX OF TOPICS VS. REFERENCE MATERIAL” at the end of each Knowledge Area (KA) chapter.


“The current role of SWEBOK is to give box tickers a warm
fuzzy feeling that a body of knowledge exists.”

That may very well be how you perceive the role of SWEBOK Guide, but that’s not at all how it is seen by the people who created it. And by the people who use it as intended.


“When people
suggest that the answer to my question(s) can be found in
SWEBOK, I ask them if they have ever read any of it.
Invariably they have not, but they are ever so sure that
it contains the answers to my question.”

Sad. Not only have I read it—multiple times—I was a reviewer of both the 2004 and 2014 versions. I am also author or co-author of 5 chapters in the new version that should be coming out before the end of this year.



— steve




On Aug 22, 2024, at 6:43 AM, Derek M Jones <derek at knosof.co.uk> wrote:

Les,

From the SWEBOK Foreword:
"Its objectives include the provision of guidance for learners, researchers,
and practitioners to identify and share a common understanding of “generally
accepted knowledge” in software engineering, defining the boundary between
software engineering and related disciplines, and providing a foundation for
certifications and educational curricula."
Q1: Do you feel this is a righteous mission?

I don't know about righteous, but the objectives are laudable.

Q2: If yes how do you think the SWEBOK could be improved?

It cannot be more than the current list of talking points
because there is no body of knowledge, apart from snippets
here and there.

The current role of SWEBOK is to give box tickers a warm
fuzzy feeling that a body of knowledge exists.  When people
suggest that the answer to my question(s) can be found in
SWEBOK, I ask them if they have ever read any of it.
Invariably they have not, but they are ever so sure that
it contains the answers to my question.

Les
Steve,

 > First, I am pulling the “description” of Software Engineering from
the soon-to-be-released version 4 of the “Guide to
the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge” (aka “SWEBOK Guide” v4).
The final publication version should be out in
October or November (fingers crossed) but you can find the public review
draft here:

https://waseda.app.box.com/s/r1j1mavf3glhtf6qh5j0xxdeb4uaws5h

Thanks for this link.

I have always found the SWEBOK Guide to be a very odd document.

It started out as essential a compendium of terms, and has gradually
accumulated a collection of software related phrases, opinions,
and the briefest of examples.

It's not so much a body a knowledge as a body of snippets to
throw into a conversation to appear to know something about
software engineering.

--
Derek M. Jones           Evidence-based software engineering
blog:https://shape-of-code.com

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-
bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
--
Les Chambers
les at chambers.com.au
https://www.chambers.com.au
https://www.systemsengineeringblog.com
+61 (0)412 648 992
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety

--
Derek M. Jones           Evidence-based software engineering
blog:https://shape-of-code.com

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20240822/0550c2d6/attachment-0001.html>