Systems Engineering Isn’t Optional — It’s the Foundation

Author: David Bath, MBA

For more than three decades of either leading complex programs or as an individual contributor to programs, I’ve seen a consistent pattern. The projects that succeed don’t just have Systems Engineering (SE)—they live it. And the ones that fail? Frequently treat SE as a compliance exercise, as a checkbox that they must do or is an afterthought. The lesson is simple but critical; SE is not a support role; it’s the framework that makes everything else possible.

As programs expand in scope and technical complexity, achieving success depends upon more than skilled personnel and serious efforts. It requires structure—an integrated, intentional approach that crosses disciplines, aligns stakeholders, and maintains traceability from concept through sustainment. That’s what SE brings to the table. And when paired with Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), it becomes not only scalable, but adaptable in real-time.

From Compliance to Strategy

Let’s be honest…in many organizations, SE is still seen as a necessary evil—something to satisfy a statement of work or pass a gate review. This mindset is not only outdated; it is dangerous. Programs which marginalize SE often pay the price in the form of rework, late-stage integration failures, and ballooning costs. Studies indicate that dedicating about 15–20% of total program effort to SE significantly reduces the risk of cost and schedule overruns, reinforcing the idea that SE must be a foundational pillar of any large-scale program [1]. It’s a clear pattern when SE is underfunded or delayed, programs struggle to stay on track.

We can’t afford to approach SE as a check box. It must be the foundation we build on.

What Real Systems Engineering Looks Like

Systems Engineering, when practiced as it should be, provides much more than documents or diagrams; it offers clarity amidst complexity and ties technical decisions to mission outcomes. It connects the “what” to the “why” and the “how” to the “when”. It keeps teams aligned, risks visible, and tradeoffs measurable.

At its core, SE is about asking the right questions early and ensuring the answers stay consistent throughout the lifecycle. Are we building the right thing? Will it work as

intended? How will changes upstream ripple across the architecture? These are not trivial questions and they don’t get easier to answer later in the development process.

The Role of MBSE in Today’s Programs

Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is not a replacement for SE it is one of the ways we practice it. Traditional, document-heavy approaches simply can’t keep up with today’s systems. Requirements buried in Word files, architectures spread across PowerPoints, and test plans disconnected from design decisions—it’s a recipe for confusion. MBSE changes that.

MBSE allows us to move from static artifacts to dynamic connected models that change with the system. These models serve as a living blueprint—showing how the system is built, how it behaves, how parts connect, and what limits it has. Models support early verification, cross-domain collaboration, and digital thread continuity [2][3]. When implemented well, SE and MBSE become the foundation for the program.

I’ve seen firsthand how even partial MBSE adoption can improve stakeholder understanding, reduce integration churn, and support smarter, faster decision-making. It’s not just about the tools—it’s about intent, discipline, and leadership.

It’s a Culture Shift

Successful MBSE adaptation isn’t about installing software or hiring a modeling team. It’s about changing the way we think and work. It means engaging in Systems Engineering from the very beginning, not just to manage requirements, but to engineer outcomes from the outset. Successful MBSE adoption also means developing modeling standards, governance processes, and a workforce that understands both the technical depth and the strategic role of the model.

MBSE adaptation also means starting small. The most successful programs I’ve supported did not try to model everything on day one. They targeted high-risk areas, interfaces, mission threads, or critical performance requirements while demonstrating value early. That value, in turn, builds momentum, helping teams see MBSE not as extra work, but as a tool for reducing risk and enabling faster, smarter decisions.

Systems Engineering as a Business Advantage

Programs and companies which incorporate SE into their company strategies and programs build better systems and run smarter programs. When SE is integrated into how teams plan, communicate, and check their work, it has the power to mitigate risk, prevent rework and maintain course on projects. Not only is it about the techniques which provide

insight, it is about making smarter business decisions in a fast-moving, high stakes environment.

A Call to Lead Differently

If you’re leading a program today, ask yourself: Is SE driving your decisions or reacting to them? Are your teams working from a shared model or juggling disconnected documents? Are you waiting until testing to validate the system, or are you verifying early and often?

The complexity of modern programs is not going away. On the contrary, it’s increasing. As engineering leaders, we owe it to our teams, and to our missions, to treat SE not as a box to check, but as the foundation we lead from.

When SE is embedded in program culture and when MBSE is used as more than a modeling tool, as a strategic enabler, our programs move from reactive to resilient. In today’s environment that’s not just good engineering, it is good leadership.

References

[1] INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, 4th ed., International Council on Systems Engineering, 2015.

[2] INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2035, International Council on Systems Engineering, 2022.

[3] INCOSE, INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, Version 4, Wiley, 2015.