**Stage 1:**

Table 2 presents the comparative average scores of graduate managemen<sup>t</sup> and technology students before and after the systems engineering course. The course lasted two semesters, and respondents completed the Frank questionnaire at three stages: at the beginning of the course, the end of the first half, and the end of the second half.



The results of stage 1 are first shown in IEEM 2015 [26].

Table 2 shows no significant difference between average scores of respondents at onset of the course and the end of the first semester (Sig. = 0.103). There was a significant difference between the mean score of respondents at the end of the first semester when compared to the end of the course (Sig. = 0.023). A significant difference was also found between the average score of respondents at onset and course conclusion (Sig. = 0.039).

These results were first presented at IEEM 2015 [28] and are in line with previous studies such as [27,31,32,38].

From these results, we can conclude that the second course provided more systems thinking tools than the first course.

One explanation for this is the nature of the course given in the second semester, which mainly dealt with systems content, as opposed to the course given in the first semester, which focused on specific content.

According to these studies, engineers or managers can report about themselves or others—that they notice details or immediately see the big picture.

Stage 1 of this study supports these findings. A significant correlation was found between supervisor ranking of systems thinking capabilities and average scores of filled-in Frank questionnaires (Sig. = 0.000, *r* = 0.855).

The respondents were asked to provide self-reports on their personal desire to engage in systems-related projects; a significant correlation was found between this evaluation and the results of the Frank questionnaire (Sig. = 0.000, *r* = 0.763).

In contrast to these findings, no correlation was found between capacity for engineering systems thinking and years of employment experience.

The established possibility of distinguishing engineering systems thinking capacity, even after only a few years of work experience, proves that apparently there are additional factors that strengthen systems thinking acquisition. Among these factors, there is also the notion of inherent potential—which seems to be an inseparable part of those candidates who received high systems thinking scores, even with little work experience (measured in years).

In addition to all of the findings mentioned above, respondents were divided into personality groups according to the MBTI questionnaire.

Study findings also support Meade's results [42], according to which 57.9% of respondents belong to the STJ (Sensing, Thinking, Judging) group. Character archetype distribution is presented in Figure 2. This finding emphasizes the fact that a significant percentage of respondents belong to particular personality groups with unique traits.

**Figure 2.** Character archetype distribution according to MBTI questionnaire.
