135
Foundations in Systems Integration
in the process(es). Measuring that variation is difficult, if even noticeable.
Defining processes is problematic, implementing processes is problematic,
describing processes is problematic, and quite intuitively, integrating processes is problematic (GAO 2009).
From an integration perspective, processes guide the work. The systems
engineering process model describes the stages in which the project team
focuses on various milestones and deliveries. Moving from one stage to the
next stage is process driven (by the work to complete the assigned tasks).
The aim of process integration is to improve the management of capital,
assets, and operations, that is, increase the value of the organizational efforts.
Convenient measures of process integration are operating efficiency and
capital effectiveness. These measures of the target process are always referenced to another “like-kind” process, or self-referenced in the manner of
“game-play.” Particular attention needs to be given to the reference process.
Should the reference process be a previous enactment of itself, clear and
open objectivity must accompany both the measurements and the evaluations that compare the target process to the reference process. It is very easy
to measure that which you want to see, whether the evidence is there or not.
An objective third party is one means to prevent intellectual contamination
of the measurement process, analyses, and evaluations.
Further, a process can be compared to an entirely different process that has
a different provenance, background, subject, intention, and industry focus.
For example, compare an apple-growing process with that of painting orange
fences. Aside from both processes having a common abstraction* of fruit, the
apple–orange comparison has no objective basis from which to make measurements or comparisons. But wait. The assumptions that go into the determinations of the apple–orange processes do not have to be the same or for
that matter even be similar. One can have as a reference an entirely different
process as long as there is a common overriding theme that is similar for
both the reference(s) and the target process. In the apple–orange process
comparison, we find that both processes engage workers. The apple process
uses seasonal workers and the orange painting process uses student labor.
Management for both processes concerns supporting their workers year
round, in spite of their seasonal and part-time employments. Embedded in
both the apple–orange processes are the vestiges of policies that provide sustainment, support, and team-building benefits. The comparison of processes
should be focused on the “game-play” scenario, which in this case is worker
retention. Worker retention regardless of the type of work is important to
* Abstraction is an insufficiency of details to describe completely all that is needed so that the
EMMI that is necessary to enact a mechanism is available as needed. An abstraction that is
too high implies less detail than required. An example of too high an abstraction is captured
in the statement “Exit room.” The level of abstraction is important to convey meaning. “Exit
room” may mean to leave the room in which you are currently located; you must go to
another room to exit (indicated by the statement “Exit room”; or whichever notion you think
is irrelevant, you must exit the room.
Foundations in Systems Integration
in the process(es). Measuring that variation is difficult, if even noticeable.
Defining processes is problematic, implementing processes is problematic,
describing processes is problematic, and quite intuitively, integrating processes is problematic (GAO 2009).
From an integration perspective, processes guide the work. The systems
engineering process model describes the stages in which the project team
focuses on various milestones and deliveries. Moving from one stage to the
next stage is process driven (by the work to complete the assigned tasks).
The aim of process integration is to improve the management of capital,
assets, and operations, that is, increase the value of the organizational efforts.
Convenient measures of process integration are operating efficiency and
capital effectiveness. These measures of the target process are always referenced to another “like-kind” process, or self-referenced in the manner of
“game-play.” Particular attention needs to be given to the reference process.
Should the reference process be a previous enactment of itself, clear and
open objectivity must accompany both the measurements and the evaluations that compare the target process to the reference process. It is very easy
to measure that which you want to see, whether the evidence is there or not.
An objective third party is one means to prevent intellectual contamination
of the measurement process, analyses, and evaluations.
Further, a process can be compared to an entirely different process that has
a different provenance, background, subject, intention, and industry focus.
For example, compare an apple-growing process with that of painting orange
fences. Aside from both processes having a common abstraction* of fruit, the
apple–orange comparison has no objective basis from which to make measurements or comparisons. But wait. The assumptions that go into the determinations of the apple–orange processes do not have to be the same or for
that matter even be similar. One can have as a reference an entirely different
process as long as there is a common overriding theme that is similar for
both the reference(s) and the target process. In the apple–orange process
comparison, we find that both processes engage workers. The apple process
uses seasonal workers and the orange painting process uses student labor.
Management for both processes concerns supporting their workers year
round, in spite of their seasonal and part-time employments. Embedded in
both the apple–orange processes are the vestiges of policies that provide sustainment, support, and team-building benefits. The comparison of processes
should be focused on the “game-play” scenario, which in this case is worker
retention. Worker retention regardless of the type of work is important to
* Abstraction is an insufficiency of details to describe completely all that is needed so that the
EMMI that is necessary to enact a mechanism is available as needed. An abstraction that is
too high implies less detail than required. An example of too high an abstraction is captured
in the statement “Exit room.” The level of abstraction is important to convey meaning. “Exit
room” may mean to leave the room in which you are currently located; you must go to
another room to exit (indicated by the statement “Exit room”; or whichever notion you think
is irrelevant, you must exit the room.