84
Engineering Systems Integration
describe the result of the transformation of an input into an output. With a
plethora of mechanisms that appear to be active ubiquitously, the pleasure of
characterizing all of them may be daunting. But this monumental task does
not obviate the power of mechanisms as unifying transformers of EMMI.
Regardless of these apparent difficulties, causality can be modeled using
mechanisms and produce results acceptable for systems engineering and
systems engineering integration. The further development of a theory of
integration relies on a mathematical formulation (following the mereology
proposed by Stanislaw Les ´niewski (Stanford University 2007)), more experimentation across a wider set of disciplines and fields, the discovery of more
principles and fundaments, and extension of current cognitive structures.
The global perspective of mechanisms (Glennan 2002) is only partly
described by these two mentioned approaches for unification. Other approaches
should be assumed to exist. In fact, mechanisms may be reexamined, refined,
and replaced, but mechanisms will be a fundamental part of the model and
integral to the framework. The same is to be said about the frames. The objective frame will follow the objective user behaviors, the product’s functions, and
the physical entities. The subjective frame will represent the cognitive part
(however that is conceived or formulated), the procedures to carry out the cognition, and the thinking about the models or representations of the cognitions
and procedures. The general nature of a project for people to build or change
ideas into a product or service is the essential character, the essence of the
objective causalities framework. For convenience, the framework is broken into
two regimes, each representing a frame—one subjective, the other objective.
Subjective and objective measures are discussed in Chapter 3.
Objective Frame
The objective causalities framework also translates into the natural regime
(i.e., without human interventions) in the same manner, retaining its inviolate character. The phases of the lifecycle may change or be redefined or
eliminated. However, the general nature of nature is to exist within the paradigms of low energy usage to achieve stability, and once past the threshold(s)
of stability, transition through instability with catastrophic releases of
energy. The complete transformation of energy to matter and matter to
energy is representative of the observations and laws of nature that we are
beginning to recognize in greater detail.
The objective frame of the framework of objective causalities is the final
result of the work efforts managed under processes—the physical objects,
the product or service functions, and the objective behaviors that were determined by the development team to result from the use of the product or
service or in anticipation of the product or service.
The importance of the model and framework for objective causalities is
in its general utility as a descriptive means to gauge the general nature of
causality. As such, systems engineering can be replaced with any discipline
Engineering Systems Integration
describe the result of the transformation of an input into an output. With a
plethora of mechanisms that appear to be active ubiquitously, the pleasure of
characterizing all of them may be daunting. But this monumental task does
not obviate the power of mechanisms as unifying transformers of EMMI.
Regardless of these apparent difficulties, causality can be modeled using
mechanisms and produce results acceptable for systems engineering and
systems engineering integration. The further development of a theory of
integration relies on a mathematical formulation (following the mereology
proposed by Stanislaw Les ´niewski (Stanford University 2007)), more experimentation across a wider set of disciplines and fields, the discovery of more
principles and fundaments, and extension of current cognitive structures.
The global perspective of mechanisms (Glennan 2002) is only partly
described by these two mentioned approaches for unification. Other approaches
should be assumed to exist. In fact, mechanisms may be reexamined, refined,
and replaced, but mechanisms will be a fundamental part of the model and
integral to the framework. The same is to be said about the frames. The objective frame will follow the objective user behaviors, the product’s functions, and
the physical entities. The subjective frame will represent the cognitive part
(however that is conceived or formulated), the procedures to carry out the cognition, and the thinking about the models or representations of the cognitions
and procedures. The general nature of a project for people to build or change
ideas into a product or service is the essential character, the essence of the
objective causalities framework. For convenience, the framework is broken into
two regimes, each representing a frame—one subjective, the other objective.
Subjective and objective measures are discussed in Chapter 3.
Objective Frame
The objective causalities framework also translates into the natural regime
(i.e., without human interventions) in the same manner, retaining its inviolate character. The phases of the lifecycle may change or be redefined or
eliminated. However, the general nature of nature is to exist within the paradigms of low energy usage to achieve stability, and once past the threshold(s)
of stability, transition through instability with catastrophic releases of
energy. The complete transformation of energy to matter and matter to
energy is representative of the observations and laws of nature that we are
beginning to recognize in greater detail.
The objective frame of the framework of objective causalities is the final
result of the work efforts managed under processes—the physical objects,
the product or service functions, and the objective behaviors that were determined by the development team to result from the use of the product or
service or in anticipation of the product or service.
The importance of the model and framework for objective causalities is
in its general utility as a descriptive means to gauge the general nature of
causality. As such, systems engineering can be replaced with any discipline