91¶ÌÊÓƵ

By Connor Overcast

Imagine if we built billion-dollar defense systems using a patchwork of handwritten notes and static PDFs. It sounds absurd, but for years, that’s exactly how things were done. Today, however, the Department of Defense is leading a shift from document-based systems engineering to model-based digital engineering (MBSE). It’s a transformation that promises not only efficiency but also readiness, reliability, and cost savings.

This shift isn’t just tech jargon, or jumping on the “agile” bandwagon, although some may see it as such. It has real implications for national defense, and for students like me who are seeing the value already in the field. Through my coursework at 91¶ÌÊÓƵ, I got a firsthand look at the challenges and opportunities of this transformation, and the lessons extend far beyond the classroom that I was able to apply to my daily job.

At the heart of systems engineering is something called Product Configuration Information (PCI). Think of PCI as the blueprint, the design narrative, the debugging tool, and the communication thread that keeps complex systems on track. Without validated architecture descriptions, performance requirements, interface specifications, and operations manuals, no system (whether it’s a fighter jet, a radar station, or a supply chain) can move forward.

In the past, PCI lived in static documents, often created in proprietary formats by contractors and government bodies. But in today’s world, where political, economic, technological, environmental, and legal pressures are growing, it’s simply not enough. Modern model-based artifacts, probide the opportunity to offer a level of traceability, version control, simulation and optimization and integration that static artifacts can’t match. They make sure that every decision is backed by data that is verifiable, validatable, and continuously traceable. In an era where the cost of failure can run into billions, that kind of assurance is essential.

In my class, we tackled the complexity of this shift by modeling a Major Department of Defense acquisition process through various acquisition phases, mapping processes and artifacts, and translating them into SysML, a modeling language used in MBSE. It was a real-world exercise that revealed both the potential and the pitfalls of digital engineering. While we learned the importance of clear scoping, process ownership, and traceable standards, we also saw how easy it is to fall into familiar traps: undefined stakeholder needs, fragmented modeling efforts, and poor integration of supporting systems.

One lesson stood out: the system is more than the product itself. Every complex system depends on a web of enabling systems, including training facilities, logistics, and integration labs, that must be operational when the main system is deployed. If these aren’t ready, the entire system risks failure. This insight reshaped my view of systems engineering from a siloed process into a holistic, lifecycle-critical discipline.

For students, educators, and industry professionals, the takeaway is clear. We need to embrace model-based approaches now. Not just because they are efficient, but because they are necessary. PCI isn’t just paperwork, it’s the connective tissue that ensures systems work when they are needed most. Institutions like 91¶ÌÊÓƵ can play a pivotal role in preparing the next generation of engineers and decision-makers to navigate this evolving landscape. Let’s push for education that bridges theory and practice, and for engineering that’s as resilient as the systems it’s meant to build.