130
Engineering Systems Integration
words of Eugene von Böhm-Bawerk, “economic valuation of a good is nothing but a reflection of a more basic valuation which we accord to the life and
welfare purposes which goods serve to attain.” We extend that fundamental
notion of value to encompass the cause by which objects are used to achieve,
attain, or accomplish—that of the performance of an object. An object that
performs well and is costly is not as valuable as an object that performs similarly and costs less. This tenet has been espoused by Miles and forms the
basis of value engineering (Miles 1961, 1972).
The difference between the two approaches of use and value with regard
to thinking of objects and their intended development, integration, and uses
is first, fundamentally how one thinks and speaks about objects, and second,
how one views the nature of importance of objects. Whether our perceptions
of objects are influenced by thinking in terms of uses or value guides how
objects are construed in the workplace, how they are managed, and how
they are accommodated in the systems of financial accounting (whether by
principles or by heuristics). This topic is significantly beyond this introductory text as it impacts on business models, enterprise architecture, project
organization and management, and business strategy.
Performance-Based Value
There is a cliché that has dominated the scientific world for centuries, permeated the social world nearly to the point of paranoia, inspired dramatic rhetoric and oratory, and has seemingly captured the minds of “thinking”
people—to go counter to objective reality spins a web of doom for scientists,
offers displeasing moments for sociologists, and takes the form of dispelling
remarks from others. Perhaps there is not as much drama as this would
seem, but the reconciliation of objective measures with subjective measures
remains to be a much-needed exploration and resolution. Since the concepts
of integration span all disciplines and fields and all thinking and doing, the
ontology of integration must not only be cognizant of the necessity, but also
embody the sufficiency of integrating subjective and objective structures.
Whether by subjective or objective measures, the presumed goal of integration is to form something of value.
Value is measurable subjectively and objectively. Objective value is often
characterized by measures of amount (by numerical counting). Subjective
value is often characterized by esteem, opportunity, or some form of intangibles. There are different types of value spanning use, esteem, cost,
exchange, scrap, and various performances as compared with standard references. Value can be thought of both for objects and processes. Objects can be
imbued with value by their properties (e.g., resilience of gold due to various
types of deteriorations (such as rusting)) and by their performance(s). Faster
Engineering Systems Integration
words of Eugene von Böhm-Bawerk, “economic valuation of a good is nothing but a reflection of a more basic valuation which we accord to the life and
welfare purposes which goods serve to attain.” We extend that fundamental
notion of value to encompass the cause by which objects are used to achieve,
attain, or accomplish—that of the performance of an object. An object that
performs well and is costly is not as valuable as an object that performs similarly and costs less. This tenet has been espoused by Miles and forms the
basis of value engineering (Miles 1961, 1972).
The difference between the two approaches of use and value with regard
to thinking of objects and their intended development, integration, and uses
is first, fundamentally how one thinks and speaks about objects, and second,
how one views the nature of importance of objects. Whether our perceptions
of objects are influenced by thinking in terms of uses or value guides how
objects are construed in the workplace, how they are managed, and how
they are accommodated in the systems of financial accounting (whether by
principles or by heuristics). This topic is significantly beyond this introductory text as it impacts on business models, enterprise architecture, project
organization and management, and business strategy.
Performance-Based Value
There is a cliché that has dominated the scientific world for centuries, permeated the social world nearly to the point of paranoia, inspired dramatic rhetoric and oratory, and has seemingly captured the minds of “thinking”
people—to go counter to objective reality spins a web of doom for scientists,
offers displeasing moments for sociologists, and takes the form of dispelling
remarks from others. Perhaps there is not as much drama as this would
seem, but the reconciliation of objective measures with subjective measures
remains to be a much-needed exploration and resolution. Since the concepts
of integration span all disciplines and fields and all thinking and doing, the
ontology of integration must not only be cognizant of the necessity, but also
embody the sufficiency of integrating subjective and objective structures.
Whether by subjective or objective measures, the presumed goal of integration is to form something of value.
Value is measurable subjectively and objectively. Objective value is often
characterized by measures of amount (by numerical counting). Subjective
value is often characterized by esteem, opportunity, or some form of intangibles. There are different types of value spanning use, esteem, cost,
exchange, scrap, and various performances as compared with standard references. Value can be thought of both for objects and processes. Objects can be
imbued with value by their properties (e.g., resilience of gold due to various
types of deteriorations (such as rusting)) and by their performance(s). Faster