Iñigo Alonso Fernández

Ukraine would be happy to sell them cheap gas. Or even allow Russian gas to be transported over Ukraine pipelines (with a fee). They just need Hungary to stop funding Russia while they are at war. A quite reasonable ask. If Hungary prefers funding Russia, then of course they are enemies.

For the curious: "que te jodan" is the literal version, "que te den por culo" is the most used, "vete a freír espárragos" is less vulgar and funniest one when translated ("go fry some asparagus")...

Snow-covered view of the European Spallation Source from The Loop in Science Village, Lund (Sweden).

The snow is here.

Not great news for Venezuela.

Loose definition + weak oversight = built-in abuse

The key takeaway: Tracking how engineers use risk tools over time reveals how to use which design supports to build robust systems.

Full paper here 👉 doi.org/10.1017/dsj....

Big thanks to Massimo & Ola for their guidance, and to the great participants from Volvo Cars & Volvo Trucks, your discussions and good spirits made this research possible!

#VolvoCars #VolvoTrucks

✅ Use risk assessment tools early: catching indirect interactions early reduces nasty surprises later.

⚠️ But don’t overdo it: we found that low-intensity, long-term use is more effective than short bursts of intense analysis.

#ResearchInsights

🚨 New research out! We tracked how engineers use tools to understand risk propagation in complex systems (like trucks).

The insights are surprising 👇

#RiskAssessment #SystemsThinking #EngineeringDesign

In complex, high-stakes systems, this is how we contain the entropy.
This is how we move forward without delusion.
This is what Systems Engineering is for.

It’s a form of humility:
We admit we don’t know everything at the start.
But we commit to making good decisions anyway; by design, not by accident.

A mature SE process treats requirements as living constructs.
Not contracts to lock down, but frameworks to evolve as reality unfolds.

At ESS, requirements for neutron flux, shielding, or control latency shouldn’t be fixed specs.
They should be negotiations, between physics, engineering, safety, and cost.
SE helps keep that negotiation disciplined and productive.

This process includes:

Translating vague goals into testable behaviors

Resolving requirement conflicts across domains

Establishing traceability to anchor decisions

Managing inevitable change with rigor

Systems Engineering doesn’t solve this with a perfect list of specs.
Instead, it gives us a process for converging on clarity over time.

Stakeholders don’t always know what they want.
Engineers don’t yet know what’s possible.
And projects are boxed in by budget, compliance, and deadlines from day one.

In complex systems (think particle accelerators, automotive platforms, control systems) early requirements are rarely complete or stable.
They’re often ambiguous, conflicting, or just… aspirational.

One of the most persistent myths in engineering is this:
"If we just define the requirements well enough up front, everything else will fall into place."
Tempting idea. Also, deeply wrong.

So no, Systems Engineering doesn’t find “the best solution.”

It finds the right compromise.

And in complex systems, that’s not settling; that’s mastery.

#SystemsEngineering #EngineeringLeadership #ProjectManagement #ProductDevelopment

In the end, SE is about informed decision-making.

Not making everyone perfectly happy, but ensuring rational, transparent, and defensible trade-offs.

It keeps systems viable, valuable, and verifiable.

Metaphor time:

SE is like conducting an orchestra where:

The score changes mid-performance

The musicians interpret it differently

And the sponsor keeps revising what “success” sounds like

You can’t control every note; but you shape the harmony.

This isn’t easy. Stakeholder needs shift. Engineers discover new constraints. Projects run into surprises.

SE is often more like playing 3D chess than solving a triangle.

It’s dynamic. It’s messy. It’s real-world problem solving.

Alternatively, you can think about SE not just as balancing trade-offs, but as an alignment mechanism.

It aligns intent, design, and outcomes across time and teams.

It ensures that what’s built actually delivers what was needed; even when that need evolves.

Think of SE as solving a constrained multi-variable equation.

You can’t maximize all variables, some must yield.

But the solution must still be:

Technically sound

Feasible to deliver

Valuable to the end-user

A solution might be technically perfect; but unaffordable.
Another might be cheap and fast; but useless to the customer.
Another might thrill the stakeholder; but defy physics.
SE’s job? Not perfection. Balance.

Systems Engineering can be seen as an optimization problem constrained by three pillars:

Stakeholders: with their wishlist (needs and expectations).

Projects: with budgets, timelines, and resources.

Engineering Disciplines: with the technical possibilities.

SE lives in the space between them.

Bottom line: A weak FR leads to strong regrets. Build the right system before you build the system right.

#SystemsEngineering #EngineeringManagement #BigScience #ESS #FunctionalReview #VModel

If you’re managing complex systems, don’t treat Functional Reviews as a checkbox. They are foundational. If the FR is solid, design phases are smoother, changes are fewer, and confidence is higher.

At ESS, we follow a structured review process from FR to Operational Readiness Review. It saves time, not wastes it. FRs reduce late-stage churn, design rework, and integration issues across in-kind partners and internal stakeholders.

You should review:
– The system’s validated needs
– Functional requirements (complete, traceable, testable)
– Functional architecture and decomposition
– Interface definitions (especially external)
– Operational scenarios
– Verification strategies
– Key risks & assumptions