80
Engineering Systems Integration
beginning in a physical sense, the question “how” is answered simply as
there is no beginning and no ending, only a continuum of object and action.
In this matter, the issue of spontaneous events is dealt with without reference
to other equally interesting questions, such as why, where, who, when, and
what.
Determining the number of modal chains of events is important for analyzing proximate events, with the objective of identifying conditional events.
Missing a modal event may prevent us from uncovering a conditional event.
The impact of missing a conditional event is to suggest the existence of a
spontaneous event—which has been disregarded as previously described.
Not allowing spontaneous events simplifies the analysis of proximate events
to identify conditional events.
Model for Objective Causalities
The earthquake-building failure example points to several components of a
model that can be built for objective causalities (modal, proximate, and conditional). A model shapes what we see and how we act (Senge 2006).
The aim is to advance a means of capturing the key relations that are fundamental to objective causes. A model that gives justice to the sensitivities of
the variables, yet fairly captures all that is reasonably germane. The test of
sensitivity should concern all that enlightens the conditional causes, that is,
those that are constraining for integration. Limiting the purview of the
model, we add worth to understanding what we observe (it is conditional on
our actions and relatively straightforward to analyze) and viability to its use
as a tool from which to analyze and evaluate for planning and predicting.
The test of reasonableness is built into the model’s ability to support theory
which facilitates confirming these predictions. However, a model without an
adequate framework may not capture the essence of how to think about the
subject, its premises, and its nuances—in this case, perhaps the modal and
proximate causes. Therefore, the model must consider the limitations that
are imposed on the work, the confounding and proximate causes that affect
the work, and the conditional issues that are seemingly under our control.
For a project, the modal causes include the funding limits (total and incremental) and the schedule limits (total and by stage or deliverable); the proximate causes include the influences of family members on the work habits of
the project team (either individually or collectively); while the conditional
causes include project management’s allocation of resources and skills.
A framework structures the sequences of relations shown within the
dimensions of the model and expands on relations by applying various principles (Garud and Kumaraswamy 1995). Frameworks facilitate managing of
concepts.
Engineering Systems Integration
beginning in a physical sense, the question “how” is answered simply as
there is no beginning and no ending, only a continuum of object and action.
In this matter, the issue of spontaneous events is dealt with without reference
to other equally interesting questions, such as why, where, who, when, and
what.
Determining the number of modal chains of events is important for analyzing proximate events, with the objective of identifying conditional events.
Missing a modal event may prevent us from uncovering a conditional event.
The impact of missing a conditional event is to suggest the existence of a
spontaneous event—which has been disregarded as previously described.
Not allowing spontaneous events simplifies the analysis of proximate events
to identify conditional events.
Model for Objective Causalities
The earthquake-building failure example points to several components of a
model that can be built for objective causalities (modal, proximate, and conditional). A model shapes what we see and how we act (Senge 2006).
The aim is to advance a means of capturing the key relations that are fundamental to objective causes. A model that gives justice to the sensitivities of
the variables, yet fairly captures all that is reasonably germane. The test of
sensitivity should concern all that enlightens the conditional causes, that is,
those that are constraining for integration. Limiting the purview of the
model, we add worth to understanding what we observe (it is conditional on
our actions and relatively straightforward to analyze) and viability to its use
as a tool from which to analyze and evaluate for planning and predicting.
The test of reasonableness is built into the model’s ability to support theory
which facilitates confirming these predictions. However, a model without an
adequate framework may not capture the essence of how to think about the
subject, its premises, and its nuances—in this case, perhaps the modal and
proximate causes. Therefore, the model must consider the limitations that
are imposed on the work, the confounding and proximate causes that affect
the work, and the conditional issues that are seemingly under our control.
For a project, the modal causes include the funding limits (total and incremental) and the schedule limits (total and by stage or deliverable); the proximate causes include the influences of family members on the work habits of
the project team (either individually or collectively); while the conditional
causes include project management’s allocation of resources and skills.
A framework structures the sequences of relations shown within the
dimensions of the model and expands on relations by applying various principles (Garud and Kumaraswamy 1995). Frameworks facilitate managing of
concepts.