Systems Engineering Books
Showing 1-50 of 229

by (shelved 8 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.19 — 21,318 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 6 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.60 — 80 ratings — published

by (shelved 6 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.95 — 668 ratings — published 1975

by (shelved 5 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.96 — 112 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 4 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.38 — 50 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 4 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.17 — 88 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 4 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.89 — 37 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 4 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.99 — 1,016 ratings — published 1977

by (shelved 3 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.68 — 44 ratings — published

by (shelved 3 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.97 — 58 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 3 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.67 — 9 ratings — published

by (shelved 3 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.00 — 9 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 3 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.15 — 46,886 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 3 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.93 — 35,871 ratings — published 1990

by (shelved 3 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.30 — 23 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.23 — 56 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.46 — 16,264 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.87 — 15 ratings — published

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.77 — 609 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.38 — 309 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.15 — 848 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.21 — 24 ratings — published

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.06 — 16 ratings — published

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.17 — 1,476 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.70 — 10,182 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.50 — 8 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.94 — 18 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.11 — 3,458 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.90 — 122 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.85 — 13 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 2 times as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.13 — 110 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.50 — 2 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 0.0 — 0 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.40 — 86 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.26 — 782 ratings — published 2021

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.20 — 5 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.07 — 390 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.50 — 8 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.84 — 147 ratings — published 1972

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.99 — 102 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.08 — 3,739 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.27 — 15 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.47 — 19 ratings — published 1968

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.51 — 16,120 ratings — published 2024

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.07 — 81,962 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 3.62 — 74 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.44 — 685 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.43 — 599 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 5.00 — 2 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as systems-engineering)
avg rating 4.00 — 1 rating — published 1995
“If we want to solve problems effectively...we must keep in mind not only many features but also the influences among them. Complexity is the label we will give to the existence of many interdependent variables in a given system. The more variables and the greater their interdependence, the greater the system's complexity. Great complexity places high demands on a planner's capacity to gather information, integrate findings, and design effective actions. The links between the variables oblige us to attend to a great many features simultaneously, and that, concomitantly, makes it impossible for us to undertake only one action in a complex system.
A system of variables is "interrelated" if an action that affects or meant to affect one part of the system will also affect other parts of it. Interrelatedness guarantees that an action aimed at one variable will have side effects and long-term repercussions. A large number of variables will make it easy to overlook them.
We might think of complexity could be regarded as an objective attribute of systems. We might even think we could assign a numerical value to it, making it, for instance, the product of the number of features times the number of interrelationships. If a system had ten variables and five links between them, then its "complexity quotient", measured in this way would be fifty. If there are no links, its complexity quotient would be zero. Such attempts to measure the complexity of a system have in fact been made.
Complexity is not an objective factor but a subjective one. Supersignals reduce complexity, collapsing a number of features into one. Consequently, complexity must be understood in terms of a specific individual and his or her supply of supersignals. We learn supersignals from experience, and our supply can differ greatly from another individual's. Therefore there can be no objective measure of complexity.”
― The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations
A system of variables is "interrelated" if an action that affects or meant to affect one part of the system will also affect other parts of it. Interrelatedness guarantees that an action aimed at one variable will have side effects and long-term repercussions. A large number of variables will make it easy to overlook them.
We might think of complexity could be regarded as an objective attribute of systems. We might even think we could assign a numerical value to it, making it, for instance, the product of the number of features times the number of interrelationships. If a system had ten variables and five links between them, then its "complexity quotient", measured in this way would be fifty. If there are no links, its complexity quotient would be zero. Such attempts to measure the complexity of a system have in fact been made.
Complexity is not an objective factor but a subjective one. Supersignals reduce complexity, collapsing a number of features into one. Consequently, complexity must be understood in terms of a specific individual and his or her supply of supersignals. We learn supersignals from experience, and our supply can differ greatly from another individual's. Therefore there can be no objective measure of complexity.”
― The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations

“The limits on a growing system may be temporary or permanent. The system may find ways to get around them for a short while or a long while, but eventually there must come some kind of accommodation, the system adjusting to the constraint, or the constraint to the system, or both to each other. In that accommodation come some interesting dynamics.
Whether the constraining balancing loops originate from a renewable or nonrenewable resource makes some difference, not in whether growth can continue forever, but in how growth is likely to end.”
― Thinking In Systems: A Primer
Whether the constraining balancing loops originate from a renewable or nonrenewable resource makes some difference, not in whether growth can continue forever, but in how growth is likely to end.”
― Thinking In Systems: A Primer