147
Foundations in Systems Integration
outputs are grossly driven by the inputs and the object’s mechanism). As the
trend continues and more researchers settle on a mechanistic view, a more
fundamental outlook can be prepared for interaction and integration. For
now we consider mechanisms as the intermediary processes by which inputs
are transformed into outputs (Gross 2009). The multinuanced and suggestive
statement that “mechanisms thus constituted functions” (Gross 2009) is elaborated in this book at some length. Indeed, the association between mechanism and function, and function and process has been suggested widely.
Consequently, there are great differences in definitions and uses of the terms
“mechanism,” “function,” and “process.” Some writers describe mechanisms
as functions, functions as mechanisms, mechanisms as processes, processes
as functions, and processes as functions. In systems engineering, the common reference is to this function and that process, while then referring to
functions that are decomposed into subfunctions and objects and processes
that are linked in flows. By most definitions, the use of the term “function” is
really defined as process. Then to carry the contradiction even further, the
terms “function” and “process” are used interchangeably. But overall there
does not appear to be much confusion and it does not seem to pose a problem
for building systems, as systems are integrated and built fairly routinely.
Instead, this presentation suggests there is a missed opportunity to improve
systems engineering by observing the nature of functions and how they differ from processes and mechanism.*
Objects as related to Functions
The second perspective of objects bridges the gap between objects with
spatially extended boundaries to that of objects having point-like structure
and a granular hierarchy where one object is comprised of other objects
and drawn or grouped together by similarity, proximity, or functionality
(Zadeh 1997). The abstraction of an object from a corporeal shape to a dimensionless entity is at once the same as carrying two thoughts about the same
subject. The abstraction of a chair is causally carried along with a cognitive
representation of a chair—both of which are operative and logically coexistent. As with physical objects, these cognitive objects have boundaries and
boundary conditions. Thus, it follows from the black box approach which
suggests that a bounded object can have internal mechanisms, inputs, and
outputs, and can behave as though the object (with its extended boundaries)
is point-like. Whereas an extended spatial model of objects is important for
detailing their inner workings, the point-like model is pertinent to looking
* Private communication with Dr. James H. Lake, board certified psychiatrist, clinical assistant
professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University Hospital,
Stanford, California, 13 September 2011. Dr. Lake comments, “There still does not seem to be
a consensus on core definitions in systems theory and this has resulted in confusion in the
field and lack of progress in systems engineering theory and applications.”
Foundations in Systems Integration
outputs are grossly driven by the inputs and the object’s mechanism). As the
trend continues and more researchers settle on a mechanistic view, a more
fundamental outlook can be prepared for interaction and integration. For
now we consider mechanisms as the intermediary processes by which inputs
are transformed into outputs (Gross 2009). The multinuanced and suggestive
statement that “mechanisms thus constituted functions” (Gross 2009) is elaborated in this book at some length. Indeed, the association between mechanism and function, and function and process has been suggested widely.
Consequently, there are great differences in definitions and uses of the terms
“mechanism,” “function,” and “process.” Some writers describe mechanisms
as functions, functions as mechanisms, mechanisms as processes, processes
as functions, and processes as functions. In systems engineering, the common reference is to this function and that process, while then referring to
functions that are decomposed into subfunctions and objects and processes
that are linked in flows. By most definitions, the use of the term “function” is
really defined as process. Then to carry the contradiction even further, the
terms “function” and “process” are used interchangeably. But overall there
does not appear to be much confusion and it does not seem to pose a problem
for building systems, as systems are integrated and built fairly routinely.
Instead, this presentation suggests there is a missed opportunity to improve
systems engineering by observing the nature of functions and how they differ from processes and mechanism.*
Objects as related to Functions
The second perspective of objects bridges the gap between objects with
spatially extended boundaries to that of objects having point-like structure
and a granular hierarchy where one object is comprised of other objects
and drawn or grouped together by similarity, proximity, or functionality
(Zadeh 1997). The abstraction of an object from a corporeal shape to a dimensionless entity is at once the same as carrying two thoughts about the same
subject. The abstraction of a chair is causally carried along with a cognitive
representation of a chair—both of which are operative and logically coexistent. As with physical objects, these cognitive objects have boundaries and
boundary conditions. Thus, it follows from the black box approach which
suggests that a bounded object can have internal mechanisms, inputs, and
outputs, and can behave as though the object (with its extended boundaries)
is point-like. Whereas an extended spatial model of objects is important for
detailing their inner workings, the point-like model is pertinent to looking
* Private communication with Dr. James H. Lake, board certified psychiatrist, clinical assistant
professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University Hospital,
Stanford, California, 13 September 2011. Dr. Lake comments, “There still does not seem to be
a consensus on core definitions in systems theory and this has resulted in confusion in the
field and lack of progress in systems engineering theory and applications.”