93
Essences of Interaction
communicated verbally (procedure) the results of a decision (abstraction and cognition), the workers are free to interpret, modify, and
defend what they heard. Without the physical documentation, the
decision can be changed by behaviors and circumstances. The number of workers, the number of requirements, the number of changes,
and the number of decisions stack to beyond what anyone person can
sort and make sense out of. Leaving a trail of information that models and represents what has happened and what is planned synchronize a lock-step team response.
Function
Objects have boundaries that extend beyond the physical entity. Objects
that physically connect with other objects (i.e., touching) have a defined
boundary at the exact location and instant of contact. That contact may be of
some permanence, episodic, periodic, temporary, occasional, or one-time.
Regardless of the temporal nature of the contact, the physical connection of
two objects results in an interface. That interface is the boundary between
the two objects. Specifically, the exchange of EMMI between two objects
and satisfaction of the interface boundary conditions creates a function*
that did not exist before the connection. Interfaces between physical objects
act as mechanisms that transfer EMMI, that is, the influence of one object’s
* Several definitions of functions and functional frameworks have been posed and described in
the literature (Van Wie et al. 2005), but these have not been tailored explicitly to the issues of
interaction and integration. A common theme in these definitions is to relate functions to
behaviors and structure. Sorting through the differences in meaning for the same word across
multiple disciplines is daunting, and trying to reconcile the multitude of definitions (each supported by varying degrees of scholarship) is overwhelming. Rather than approach the essence
of integration in that manner of simply defining terms, a few observations guided by introspection were foundational ideas for many of the definitions in this book. Consider a wooden
block (object) sliding on a hard surface (object). This scenario demonstrates two objects interacting to perform the function of “to move.” From a discussion of this experiment, the nature
of interaction can be exhibited in great detail. Taking care to reflect on the variables and their
relations in this experiment, then applying the basic premises of systems begins to reveal the
nature of integration. The word “function,” for example, has multiple meanings spanning
mathematics and sociology, while the word “system” is defined conveniently for biology, sociology, cybernetics, engineering, and systems engineering. In the case of the work “system,”
there is notable deference given to political motivations by systems engineers for defining
“system” just beyond the evolving capability of the engineer. In the mid-1950s engineers recognized the need for systems engineering and differentiated systems engineering thinking as
broader than the focused disciplines of engineering. Over time these engineering domains
broadened to ply the practices in a broader (more system’s fashion). Similarly with systems
engineering, the evolving marketplace has extended systems engineering from its beginnings
to systems, system of systems, and systems of systems. It is a bold ascertain that the differences between engineering and systems engineering could be interpreted as having an
inkling of political interpretation (Hall and Fagen 1956; de Souza 2008).