CQUniversity PPMP20012 Week 3 Portfolio: Systems Engineering Relevance

This report, prepared by Varun Thatikonda for the PPMP20012 unit at CQUniversity, assesses the relevance of systems engineering to project cases, focusing on the week 3 topic. It explores system classifications (structures, humans, control, social, and families) and engineered systems driven by stakeholders. The report highlights the difference between system sciences and system thinking, emphasizing the application of system approaches to engineered systems and the use of model-based system engineering. It covers system life cycle processes, including agreement, technical management, and technical processes, along with risk assessment and control. The report references mandatory and optional readings, including materials from SEBoK, PMI, and Kerzner, and reflects on the learnings from weekly studies and lectures, including the application of systems engineering concepts to project management and the organization of projects. The report also provides insights into how systems engineering concepts and methodologies can help a project manager organise a project.

VARUN THATIKONDA / 12068175 - PPMP20012 Unit Portfolio for Week 3
Week 3 Topic: Assess the relevance of systems engineering to project cases
Reading samples Learning
outcomes of the
unit
Learnings from your weekly study, experience, this and
prior unit readings and assignments
Supporting
documentation
including any
prior learning
Mandatory Readings
Part 2: Foundations of
Systems Engineering
-'Knowledge Area:
Representing Systems
with Models';
–Part 6: Related
Disciplines
-'Knowledge Area:
Systems Engineering
and Industrial
Engineering';
–Part 6: Related
Disciplines
-'Knowledge Area:
Systems Engineering
and Specialty
Engineering';
Optional Readings
 Kerzner (2013)
Chapters 17.12-
17.17;
 •AS/NZS
15288:2015
Chapter 5;
1. Assess the relevance
of systems engineering
to project cases
From the study and learning materials discussed in week 3 I have came to
know about the system classifications and engineered system classifications. The
systems are classified into structures, humans, control and social and families on
the other hand, the engineered systems are driven by stakeholders, created,
used, sustained for achieving mission, vision, goals and purpose of the project.
From the week 3 study unit I came to know about the difference between
system sciences and system thinking. The concept of system thinking cannot be
executed without system concept and system patterns and principles. In main
cases the system approaches are applied to engineered systems. The Ideas of
system thinking are represented through model based system engineering. I
have learned that, models are much complete, semantically rich as well as
complete. In order to execute any project different types of systems are used.
The system are created and used to deliver services and products in various
working environment to give commercial benefits to both the stakeholders and
users as well.
Apart from that, system life cycle processes are also illustrated in the week 3
study materials. The different system life cycle processes approaches by the
project executives are agreement process, technical management process and
technical process. The degrees of risks are calculated based on time and
functionalities. It is applicable in research and development department,
manufacturing department and marketing department. In order to identify and
resolve risks I came to know about importance of risk control, risk intensity, risk
tolerance also.
PPMP 20012
Program & Portfolio
Information Systems
Lecture 3 for Week 3
1 of 2

VARUN THATIKONDA / 12068175 - PPMP20012 Unit Portfolio for Week 3
References
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(2), 291-298.
Svejvig, P., & Andersen, P. (2015). Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. International
Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 278-290
2 of 2