150
Engineering Systems Integration
theoretical basis for integration. The key may lie with the framework that captures the essential ingredients for an effective theory. While there are specific
frameworks that help describe situations of integration in most disciplines, these
are not particularly well suited to lay a foundation on which to extend their narrowly focused body of knowledge (1) to posit a compendious improvement for
the general practice of integration, (2) to identify improvements in current methods of systems engineering, and (3) to apply a consistency of language and
meaning to facilitate both these practices and improvements. A general framework characterized by logic, continuity of method, applicability across disciplines, and scalability within the microscale to the capaciousness macroscale
would seem rather questionable. A most propitious outcome would be a theory
framework that would focus on the eventual goal of helping to show the way to
help explain how integration works. Perhaps such a framework might provide
additional insight into quantifiable measures, functional metrics, sensitivities of
the variables, and a predictive capability. The end result would be a definitive
characterization of integration that could broadly be applied.
While we interpret observations, postulate principles, and derive laws
(sometimes) beginning with theory, while for integration, theory seems illusive. We can work through theory frameworks based on principles that are
fundamental statements that are both comprehensive in their applicability
and generally agree with empirical evidence.* Particular care needs to be taken
when developing a framework for integration. The framework we seek must
be an integrative framework that combines the methods of human (or natural)
activities with that of the outcomes of those activities. Integration is for all
objects (both natural and constructed). In the most general sense, the framework needs to be relevant to all integrations, regardless of perspective. The
framework must encompass the metaphysical bases that have driven our
thinking, helped structure our ideas, and supported our theories over the past
several thousand years. Narrowly defined frameworks within a discipline
must have substance within the general framework or be corrected. This set of
requirements could seem to be a forged gauntlet of expectations that when
thrown down would challenge a reconciliation of terminology, a reconsideration of earlier results, but most importantly a rather concentrated awareness of
what could be gained by exploring the nuances of the framework’s structure.
The benefits of a general theory framework for integration are threefold.
First, by limiting the framework to methods of human activities and outcomes of those activities, the explanation of integration can be made clear
and the discussion clarified by counterposed arguments, both based on
principles and assumptions. Second, judgments may be based on the evidence within the framework as validated by empirical observations. Third,
in addition to being predictive of relations and explanations of the identified
* Laws are recurring rules or collection of recurring rules that have been demonstrated effective
under certain conditions.