113
Foundations in Systems Integration
do not exist everywhere and do not exist in stable configuration at all
times. Therefore, integration neither occurs everywhere nor at all times.
Why and where does integration occur? Why and when does integration
not occur? While it may seem intuitive that interaction is inherent throughout the lifetime of a system (implying stability), it is more accurate to consider the lifetime as a continuum of integration. Rather than thinking of
lifecycle as conception to disposal, it is more appropriate from a product
or service’s perspective to think of various stages of interaction and integration. The lifecycle paradigm is from the perspective of the customer,
developer, and user. The integration perspective is from the perspective of
the product or service. Systems are opportunistic, by their ability to adapt
to changes in EMMI.
The system is the result of integration, or conversely, integration is the
result of achieving system behaviors. Lifecycle can be thought of as merely
the temporal interpretation of integration, whereas the events of integration
are interpretable in terms of lifecycle stages. Posing lifecycle as the primary
orchestration and organization of systems engineering in itself is not new.
And in the recent past, several have suggested an integration process model
(Project Management Institute 2000; Booher 2003; Jain et al. 2010; Tvaryanas
2010) suggesting that there is a distinguishable difference between lifecycle
process models and integration process models. The paper by Rashmi Jain
specifically proposes a systems integration process model (Jain et al. 2010)
that is based on a lifecycle view of systems integration. The systems engineering process models do in fact regiment the portal to the fundamentals of
integration, but without sufficiency in detail and interactiveness with other
processes and with a dearth of discussion concerning objects and processes.*
Without integration, no process would integrate with another process, no
object would combine with objects to make a system, and no product or service functions would be group-governing and reflective of the whole. Every
process, every function, and even the physical space that encompass the
domain of interest exist only because of interaction and integration, and both
necessarily for a system. Integration requires interaction, but interaction
* I confess I am unable to appreciate the writings of many authors who profess to discuss integration. To be clear, their reasonings seem to apply the word integration aptly as if I already
knew what it meant and how to do it. Were it merely to bring two parts together to form a
whole, then the difficulty of integration would be rather uninteresting and perhaps easy. Yet,
I have found integration to be extremely interesting, but most certainly not easy. Integration
seems very fundamental, perhaps at the level of existence. Integration silently poses as an
invisible cement that permeates, binds, and forms all that we are and much of what we do.
Humans are systems that live and work in systems. We also build and work with objects that
are not systems. What is a system and what is not a system? Systems interact with nonsystems and systems. It is difficult not to interact with either. Somehow the prevailing views of
integration are logically premised or defined as simply putting parts together to form a
whole—or at least simple stated by many accounts. Integration will only be simple when we
know how to recognize it, how to describe it, and how to do it.
Foundations in Systems Integration
do not exist everywhere and do not exist in stable configuration at all
times. Therefore, integration neither occurs everywhere nor at all times.
Why and where does integration occur? Why and when does integration
not occur? While it may seem intuitive that interaction is inherent throughout the lifetime of a system (implying stability), it is more accurate to consider the lifetime as a continuum of integration. Rather than thinking of
lifecycle as conception to disposal, it is more appropriate from a product
or service’s perspective to think of various stages of interaction and integration. The lifecycle paradigm is from the perspective of the customer,
developer, and user. The integration perspective is from the perspective of
the product or service. Systems are opportunistic, by their ability to adapt
to changes in EMMI.
The system is the result of integration, or conversely, integration is the
result of achieving system behaviors. Lifecycle can be thought of as merely
the temporal interpretation of integration, whereas the events of integration
are interpretable in terms of lifecycle stages. Posing lifecycle as the primary
orchestration and organization of systems engineering in itself is not new.
And in the recent past, several have suggested an integration process model
(Project Management Institute 2000; Booher 2003; Jain et al. 2010; Tvaryanas
2010) suggesting that there is a distinguishable difference between lifecycle
process models and integration process models. The paper by Rashmi Jain
specifically proposes a systems integration process model (Jain et al. 2010)
that is based on a lifecycle view of systems integration. The systems engineering process models do in fact regiment the portal to the fundamentals of
integration, but without sufficiency in detail and interactiveness with other
processes and with a dearth of discussion concerning objects and processes.*
Without integration, no process would integrate with another process, no
object would combine with objects to make a system, and no product or service functions would be group-governing and reflective of the whole. Every
process, every function, and even the physical space that encompass the
domain of interest exist only because of interaction and integration, and both
necessarily for a system. Integration requires interaction, but interaction
* I confess I am unable to appreciate the writings of many authors who profess to discuss integration. To be clear, their reasonings seem to apply the word integration aptly as if I already
knew what it meant and how to do it. Were it merely to bring two parts together to form a
whole, then the difficulty of integration would be rather uninteresting and perhaps easy. Yet,
I have found integration to be extremely interesting, but most certainly not easy. Integration
seems very fundamental, perhaps at the level of existence. Integration silently poses as an
invisible cement that permeates, binds, and forms all that we are and much of what we do.
Humans are systems that live and work in systems. We also build and work with objects that
are not systems. What is a system and what is not a system? Systems interact with nonsystems and systems. It is difficult not to interact with either. Somehow the prevailing views of
integration are logically premised or defined as simply putting parts together to form a
whole—or at least simple stated by many accounts. Integration will only be simple when we
know how to recognize it, how to describe it, and how to do it.