83
Essences of Interaction
team of workers; the allocation of resources; the development of an overall
schedule and budget; and the organizing of work tasks. The focus of the
proximate causalities is to define and enable the project work. The previously
determined specifics of the work packages, the assignment of personnel, the
interim due dates, the allocations of specific resources, and allotment of facility
usage are all indicators of proximate causalities. The customer exists, the project exists, the work exists (all due to modal causalities), but the particulars are
coming into existence as decisions are made (the work of proximate causalities). Proximate causalities were most often conditional causalities, showing
the historical traces of decisions that have resulted in the present. However,
all proximate causalities are not known (nor knowable).
The conditional causalities are very local, indeed. Going to work on time,
staying late, taking vacation, using or not using a particular method or tool,
having a conversation (or not), and checking your work all point to conditional causalities. Conditional causalities are controllable to an extent.
The management processes for systems engineering (i.e., planning, communicating, directing, controlling, team building, and organizing) are formulated and carried out through processes. The results of the systems
engineer’s work are the physical object and their connections that provide a
user with function and result in various behavior. The relation between the
physical object and the function that it enables it at the interface with another
physical object is referred to as the consistency (or integrity) between an
object’s function and the structure formed by the objects (Clark and Fujimoto
1990). The management processes that guide the building of products and
services result in the construction of objects and their resultant functions.
Therefore, for functional integration to occur, there must be a frame of planning, organizing, directing, communicating, controlling, and working with
other people (teamness), referencing Garud (1995) for the work of Astley and
Brahm (1989) who states “the functional integration of modules as part of a
coherent system, an overarching ‘framework’ of planning and coordination
would be necessary.” The systems engineering activities and procedures are
defined in the 3 × 3 matrix of tasks for the framework of objective causalities.
As Glennan points out in “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation” (Glennan
2002), there appears to be a seemingly irresolvable difference between the
approaches to interpreting the fundamental nature of scientific explanations. Salmon (1984) proposed a causal approach to unification via mechanisms, and Kitcher (1989) proposed unification based on patterns that explain
unification. Unity is a sought-after concept that illustrates the reuse of various social mechanisms (some of which may be considered fundamental)
(Hedstrom and Swedberg 1998; Gross 2009). That social scientists (Torres
2008), biologists, chemists, physicists, economists (Williamson 2009), and
systems engineers should adopt a mechanistic view attests to the pervasive
nature of proof that appears required to pose arguments that are by some
means convincing. It would seem that if we can appreciate a mechanistic
way of transforming one thing into another we have comfort in being able to
Essences of Interaction
team of workers; the allocation of resources; the development of an overall
schedule and budget; and the organizing of work tasks. The focus of the
proximate causalities is to define and enable the project work. The previously
determined specifics of the work packages, the assignment of personnel, the
interim due dates, the allocations of specific resources, and allotment of facility
usage are all indicators of proximate causalities. The customer exists, the project exists, the work exists (all due to modal causalities), but the particulars are
coming into existence as decisions are made (the work of proximate causalities). Proximate causalities were most often conditional causalities, showing
the historical traces of decisions that have resulted in the present. However,
all proximate causalities are not known (nor knowable).
The conditional causalities are very local, indeed. Going to work on time,
staying late, taking vacation, using or not using a particular method or tool,
having a conversation (or not), and checking your work all point to conditional causalities. Conditional causalities are controllable to an extent.
The management processes for systems engineering (i.e., planning, communicating, directing, controlling, team building, and organizing) are formulated and carried out through processes. The results of the systems
engineer’s work are the physical object and their connections that provide a
user with function and result in various behavior. The relation between the
physical object and the function that it enables it at the interface with another
physical object is referred to as the consistency (or integrity) between an
object’s function and the structure formed by the objects (Clark and Fujimoto
1990). The management processes that guide the building of products and
services result in the construction of objects and their resultant functions.
Therefore, for functional integration to occur, there must be a frame of planning, organizing, directing, communicating, controlling, and working with
other people (teamness), referencing Garud (1995) for the work of Astley and
Brahm (1989) who states “the functional integration of modules as part of a
coherent system, an overarching ‘framework’ of planning and coordination
would be necessary.” The systems engineering activities and procedures are
defined in the 3 × 3 matrix of tasks for the framework of objective causalities.
As Glennan points out in “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation” (Glennan
2002), there appears to be a seemingly irresolvable difference between the
approaches to interpreting the fundamental nature of scientific explanations. Salmon (1984) proposed a causal approach to unification via mechanisms, and Kitcher (1989) proposed unification based on patterns that explain
unification. Unity is a sought-after concept that illustrates the reuse of various social mechanisms (some of which may be considered fundamental)
(Hedstrom and Swedberg 1998; Gross 2009). That social scientists (Torres
2008), biologists, chemists, physicists, economists (Williamson 2009), and
systems engineers should adopt a mechanistic view attests to the pervasive
nature of proof that appears required to pose arguments that are by some
means convincing. It would seem that if we can appreciate a mechanistic
way of transforming one thing into another we have comfort in being able to