A programme may know it needs more systems engineering support without agreeing where the gap sits. The result can be a broad brief covering requirements, architecture, integration, testing and assurance, with little indication of the work that matters most.
Before recruiting, identify the decisions or evidence that are missing. This helps you distinguish a systems role from a specialist verification, validation or integration requirement, even when the team uses IVVQ as a shared label.
Locate the gap in the work
Ask the programme team what is currently difficult to complete. Requirements may be unclear, interfaces may not be agreed, or the team may lack a convincing route from a requirement to test evidence.
Describe the specific artefacts and decisions the new person will own. That might be a requirements set, an interface definition, an integration plan or a body of test evidence. It is more helpful than asking for someone who has worked through every stage of a lifecycle.
Be clear about verification and validation
NASA's Systems Engineering Handbook distinguishes verification against specified requirements from validation of the product for its intended use. In a hiring brief, the practical question is which part of that work the person needs to plan, perform or review.
If your organisation uses qualification in a particular contractual or assurance sense, define it. Do not assume that candidates from another organisation use the same terminology in exactly the same way.
Explain how evidence will be reviewed and who accepts the result. This helps candidates understand both the technical task and their level of responsibility.
Describe the interfaces, not just the tools
A systems engineer may need to work across software, electronics, mechanical engineering, commercial constraints and customer expectations. List the interfaces that are central to this particular role.
Tools can be important, but ownership matters more than simply having used a named package. Ask what the candidate created or changed, who used it and how they kept it consistent as the work developed. For model-based systems engineering, discuss the purpose and use of the model rather than treating a tool name as proof of capability.
Use a scenario to explore judgement
A useful interview could describe a changed requirement part-way through development. Ask how the candidate would investigate the effect, identify the people involved and decide what evidence needs updating.
Look for an organised explanation that separates assumptions, decisions and checks. The candidate should be comfortable saying what they would need to find out. Avoid requiring them to disclose protected material from a real programme.
- Which requirement or interface is affected?
- Who needs to assess the proposed change?
- What could the change mean for existing test evidence?
- How would the decision and its reasoning be recorded?
Match the appointment to the level of ownership
A hands-on engineer creating test evidence, a lead planning integration and a technical authority accepting an approach are different appointments. Make the reporting line, decision rights and support available clear.
For a contractor, define outputs and handover expectations. For a permanent hire, explain how responsibility is likely to develop. In both cases, connect the brief to the work that needs doing rather than a wish list of every systems skill.
Secure Consult supports systems engineering, IVVQ and wider engineering recruitment. We can help you describe the gap clearly and assess candidates against the contribution your programme needs.
