106
Engineering Systems Integration
that transcend discrete partitions of thinking, for example, disciplines and
fields. For the purposes of thinking in systems, partitioning must be considered with great care. Boundary confounds, partitions constrain, and inferences drawn need to be generalizable. Together, thinking in systems and
thinking in integration empower systems engineers and systems integrators
to consider the problem space as a whole and therefore the possible solution
sets in the context of lifecycle issues or discrete events. The fabric of general
systems theory rightly originates from this merger of thinking in systems
and thinking in integration. To suggest a fabric that improves descriptive
and empirical results and accounts for unobserved phenomenon, a set of
best thinking* for systems theory and the guiding principles from systems
integration need to be blended. Together, systems thinking and systems integration form this theoretic fabric. The balance between theory and principle
can be maintained by committing to two conditions: For every theoretical
construct there shall be a corresponding principle that typifies the duality of
their applications, and for every principle there shall be a corresponding
theory that embodies its use and relates to the fabric through its context.
A consensus on general system theory (von Bertalanffy 1928, 1968), its integration into systems engineering (Boldyreff 1954), the development of cybernetics (Wiener 1948; Ashby 1957), the dynamic behaviors of complex systems
(Forrester 1958), the relevance of chaos theory (Lorenz 1963), the maturation
of sociology (Buckley 1967), the considerations of living systems (Miller
1978), the structures of information systems (Lewis 1994), and the acquisition, building, and integrating of complex systems (e.g., military customers
(Schilling 2005)), focus on spatial and temporal conformities, forces, mechanisms, control, and hierarchical levels of entangled interactions.
The argument generally posed in support of general systems theory
focuses attention on spatial and temporal conformity, forces, mechanisms,
control, and hierarchical levels related through complex relationships. That
focus presumes that spatial and temporal constructs determine the perspectives of contexts, properties, and states. Rather, we determine to focus on
events rather than the typical spatial and temporal constructs; we develop a
mereology of objects and processes. Therefore, we revise the traditional
thinking that systems are referred to as hierarchical or multilevel (Simon
1962, 1973) and characterize these appearances as hypothetical rather than
derived from a natural orderliness or empirical data set. For example, hierarchy can be represented in linear Hilbert space (Gabora 2002) where states
are defined as mathematical objects reflecting the properties of measurements. These measurements are grounded in a definable physical reality.
Combinations of number, type, and state(s) of elements also include forces.
Forces can be further differentiated into mechanisms and controls. Therefore,
number, type, state(s), and forces are the essential components of complex
systems. In this way, Gabora avoids the need to define explicitly the term
* Rules of thumb, rules of dumb.
Engineering Systems Integration
that transcend discrete partitions of thinking, for example, disciplines and
fields. For the purposes of thinking in systems, partitioning must be considered with great care. Boundary confounds, partitions constrain, and inferences drawn need to be generalizable. Together, thinking in systems and
thinking in integration empower systems engineers and systems integrators
to consider the problem space as a whole and therefore the possible solution
sets in the context of lifecycle issues or discrete events. The fabric of general
systems theory rightly originates from this merger of thinking in systems
and thinking in integration. To suggest a fabric that improves descriptive
and empirical results and accounts for unobserved phenomenon, a set of
best thinking* for systems theory and the guiding principles from systems
integration need to be blended. Together, systems thinking and systems integration form this theoretic fabric. The balance between theory and principle
can be maintained by committing to two conditions: For every theoretical
construct there shall be a corresponding principle that typifies the duality of
their applications, and for every principle there shall be a corresponding
theory that embodies its use and relates to the fabric through its context.
A consensus on general system theory (von Bertalanffy 1928, 1968), its integration into systems engineering (Boldyreff 1954), the development of cybernetics (Wiener 1948; Ashby 1957), the dynamic behaviors of complex systems
(Forrester 1958), the relevance of chaos theory (Lorenz 1963), the maturation
of sociology (Buckley 1967), the considerations of living systems (Miller
1978), the structures of information systems (Lewis 1994), and the acquisition, building, and integrating of complex systems (e.g., military customers
(Schilling 2005)), focus on spatial and temporal conformities, forces, mechanisms, control, and hierarchical levels of entangled interactions.
The argument generally posed in support of general systems theory
focuses attention on spatial and temporal conformity, forces, mechanisms,
control, and hierarchical levels related through complex relationships. That
focus presumes that spatial and temporal constructs determine the perspectives of contexts, properties, and states. Rather, we determine to focus on
events rather than the typical spatial and temporal constructs; we develop a
mereology of objects and processes. Therefore, we revise the traditional
thinking that systems are referred to as hierarchical or multilevel (Simon
1962, 1973) and characterize these appearances as hypothetical rather than
derived from a natural orderliness or empirical data set. For example, hierarchy can be represented in linear Hilbert space (Gabora 2002) where states
are defined as mathematical objects reflecting the properties of measurements. These measurements are grounded in a definable physical reality.
Combinations of number, type, and state(s) of elements also include forces.
Forces can be further differentiated into mechanisms and controls. Therefore,
number, type, state(s), and forces are the essential components of complex
systems. In this way, Gabora avoids the need to define explicitly the term
* Rules of thumb, rules of dumb.