148
Engineering Systems Integration
for patterns. Patterns expose different perspectives—no pattern may suggest
an ineffective perspective versus a discernible pattern, that can possibly be
optimized for greater clarity with regards to the type of pattern needed to
coincide with the circumstances of the integration effort. For example, should
a pattern of functionality or behavior be expected to result in a robust, integrated structure? If so, then what patterns would be discernible given a particular order of integrating objects? Further investigation and planning may
be necessary to observe the modes of operation for the structure. Then a
decision can be made as to the notion of working to quell the periodic
response, or ignore, or enhance it. The combining of objects provides the
opportunity to investigate the functions and their primary dependencies.
To glean more information from objects and their interactions as they
relate to integration, a functional model can be developed with the goal of
acknowledging the generally discussed natural relations between the topical
notion of function (a relation between objects in time and space, i.e., that
which is enabled or required to accomplish something) and the entities that
are characterized as objects. The functional model proceeds from a functional decomposition of a top-level abstraction of a function, for example, ‘to
walk.’ Subfunctions are developed following the procedures of functional
decomposition. An essential part of functional decomposition for integration
purposes is to carefully examine the three types of boundaries (physical,
functional, and behavioral). For a functional decomposition, mapping to
both the physical and behavioral aspects of the product or service lays out
the relations between objects that will become the sequencing for integration. For example, to demonstrate a particular function, these decomposition
diagrams show the two objects that when connected demonstrate the function. The performance of that function is enabled, first by the connection,
second by the partitioning that differentiates the function from other functions, and third by the coupling and cohesion between the EMMI that is
exchanged between the two connected objects.
Summary Overview of Objects
From a systems engineer’s perspective, an experiment is more than just a
scientific investigation based on a hypothesis, carrying out an experiment, and
ending with the confidence that the observations and results are somewhat
correlated with the experiment. The wholeness that we investigate may not
be pliable and yield to the traditional scientific method. Analytical reductionism from high level to lower levels does not seem to capture all of the
system parts (i.e., objects comprised of objects do not decompose into objects
that are deemed to be the parts) (Koestler and Symthies 1968; Troncale 1977).
Thinking in systems for a moment suggests how the scientific method
might be modified to allow for some ambiguity in experimentation, while
retaining within a scientifically posed, process-driven method or methodology. Heeding the perils of rigorously and inflexibly following a particular
Engineering Systems Integration
for patterns. Patterns expose different perspectives—no pattern may suggest
an ineffective perspective versus a discernible pattern, that can possibly be
optimized for greater clarity with regards to the type of pattern needed to
coincide with the circumstances of the integration effort. For example, should
a pattern of functionality or behavior be expected to result in a robust, integrated structure? If so, then what patterns would be discernible given a particular order of integrating objects? Further investigation and planning may
be necessary to observe the modes of operation for the structure. Then a
decision can be made as to the notion of working to quell the periodic
response, or ignore, or enhance it. The combining of objects provides the
opportunity to investigate the functions and their primary dependencies.
To glean more information from objects and their interactions as they
relate to integration, a functional model can be developed with the goal of
acknowledging the generally discussed natural relations between the topical
notion of function (a relation between objects in time and space, i.e., that
which is enabled or required to accomplish something) and the entities that
are characterized as objects. The functional model proceeds from a functional decomposition of a top-level abstraction of a function, for example, ‘to
walk.’ Subfunctions are developed following the procedures of functional
decomposition. An essential part of functional decomposition for integration
purposes is to carefully examine the three types of boundaries (physical,
functional, and behavioral). For a functional decomposition, mapping to
both the physical and behavioral aspects of the product or service lays out
the relations between objects that will become the sequencing for integration. For example, to demonstrate a particular function, these decomposition
diagrams show the two objects that when connected demonstrate the function. The performance of that function is enabled, first by the connection,
second by the partitioning that differentiates the function from other functions, and third by the coupling and cohesion between the EMMI that is
exchanged between the two connected objects.
Summary Overview of Objects
From a systems engineer’s perspective, an experiment is more than just a
scientific investigation based on a hypothesis, carrying out an experiment, and
ending with the confidence that the observations and results are somewhat
correlated with the experiment. The wholeness that we investigate may not
be pliable and yield to the traditional scientific method. Analytical reductionism from high level to lower levels does not seem to capture all of the
system parts (i.e., objects comprised of objects do not decompose into objects
that are deemed to be the parts) (Koestler and Symthies 1968; Troncale 1977).
Thinking in systems for a moment suggests how the scientific method
might be modified to allow for some ambiguity in experimentation, while
retaining within a scientifically posed, process-driven method or methodology. Heeding the perils of rigorously and inflexibly following a particular