117
Foundations in Systems Integration
6: The Principle of Planning). Yet, even with the key stakeholders in violent
agreement with regard to strategies and good recognition of patterns for
planning and scheduling, the project development work lags. If the key
stakeholders agree on strategy, then the problems in development may be
due to requirements to engineer with less mature, less reliable technology in
order to achieve advancements over existing systems. A very bad decision
would be to push unreliable technology in engineered objects into an integration environment. A very good decision would be to insert a suitable surrogate technology into the engineered objects to serve as a “placeholder”
during integration. Since only a portion of the engineering work is predicated on less reliable technology, and a primary objective of integration is to
provide for a stable system (builds on Principle 2: The Principle of
Partitioning), integration can proceed along with development. The key to
integrating with surrogates is modularity in functionality (Stone 1997).
Industry recognizes the need for modular functionality, but resists making
the investments required to realize modularity. Modularity of functionality
means that all perceptions, uses, interactions, and embodiments of functionality are equivalent. The difference is the physical delivery of the function.
In other words, the function is provide, but the performance(s) and qualities
of those performances are not equivalent to the same function provided by
different physical objects. The form (physical representation) and the fit
(dimensionalities) may be different. The performance(s) may be different.
And the deviations from the performance target(s) may be different, but the
function is present and reliable. As form, fit, and function are generally
described in the product baseline, the process model would need to be
amended to allow for functional equivalency through modularity. For existing products and services, the modularity of form, fit, and function is a preeminent expectation and requirement (Herald et al. 2007). Thinking in
integration is more about making the product or service a reality. Thinking
in systems engineering is a focus on making components comply with specifications that reflect requirements, that is, what product or service should
do. Should-do thinking is systems engineering development, whereas willdo thinking is systems integration.
The emphasis on functionality (as defined in this book) for integration
(as defined in this book) is different than how the term modularity is used
in other contexts; in fact there is a wide disparity in definitions (Gershenson
et al. 1999). A typical view of modularity expresses the dissimilar nature
and independences of module components from other aggregations of
components, along with simplicity as a hallmark of improved lifecycle
issues (Stryker and Jacques 2009).
Whether the objects are elementary particles or artifacts within subsystems, integration is a deterministic factor in achieving wholeness (that of
systems wholeness). Integration can be observed and appreciated through
human endeavors by design, architecting, and implementation. As a natural
phenomena, objects act through their energy and matter mechanism, and
Foundations in Systems Integration
6: The Principle of Planning). Yet, even with the key stakeholders in violent
agreement with regard to strategies and good recognition of patterns for
planning and scheduling, the project development work lags. If the key
stakeholders agree on strategy, then the problems in development may be
due to requirements to engineer with less mature, less reliable technology in
order to achieve advancements over existing systems. A very bad decision
would be to push unreliable technology in engineered objects into an integration environment. A very good decision would be to insert a suitable surrogate technology into the engineered objects to serve as a “placeholder”
during integration. Since only a portion of the engineering work is predicated on less reliable technology, and a primary objective of integration is to
provide for a stable system (builds on Principle 2: The Principle of
Partitioning), integration can proceed along with development. The key to
integrating with surrogates is modularity in functionality (Stone 1997).
Industry recognizes the need for modular functionality, but resists making
the investments required to realize modularity. Modularity of functionality
means that all perceptions, uses, interactions, and embodiments of functionality are equivalent. The difference is the physical delivery of the function.
In other words, the function is provide, but the performance(s) and qualities
of those performances are not equivalent to the same function provided by
different physical objects. The form (physical representation) and the fit
(dimensionalities) may be different. The performance(s) may be different.
And the deviations from the performance target(s) may be different, but the
function is present and reliable. As form, fit, and function are generally
described in the product baseline, the process model would need to be
amended to allow for functional equivalency through modularity. For existing products and services, the modularity of form, fit, and function is a preeminent expectation and requirement (Herald et al. 2007). Thinking in
integration is more about making the product or service a reality. Thinking
in systems engineering is a focus on making components comply with specifications that reflect requirements, that is, what product or service should
do. Should-do thinking is systems engineering development, whereas willdo thinking is systems integration.
The emphasis on functionality (as defined in this book) for integration
(as defined in this book) is different than how the term modularity is used
in other contexts; in fact there is a wide disparity in definitions (Gershenson
et al. 1999). A typical view of modularity expresses the dissimilar nature
and independences of module components from other aggregations of
components, along with simplicity as a hallmark of improved lifecycle
issues (Stryker and Jacques 2009).
Whether the objects are elementary particles or artifacts within subsystems, integration is a deterministic factor in achieving wholeness (that of
systems wholeness). Integration can be observed and appreciated through
human endeavors by design, architecting, and implementation. As a natural
phenomena, objects act through their energy and matter mechanism, and