155
Foundations in Systems Integration
description.* Further, integration may be viewed on a normative basis—one
that is inspired by axiological reference to a standard.
Integration can be thought of as an entity (object or process) acting on
another entity in such a way as to change itself, the other object, or both.
Such a description follows from the methodological representations of integration, and is consistent with simple models of physics, representative of a
widely accepted worldview, and true to various philosophies and principles.
Much of what is found in this writing follows such a Newtonian logic.
Integration is the result of interaction and not merely the acts of interacting
per se. Interaction is a necessary process to achieve integration. The characteristics of the integrated whole are distinguishable from those of the interacting entities. It is both the activity of interaction and the results of those
activities that we distinguish as integration. To explore the nature of integration, it is convenient to work within a framework that characterizes the objects
and the concept of change (where “change is the relation between objects
separated by a time interval” (Turchin 1977)), the interactions between
objects (described as activities), and the consequences of the properties and
attributes of objects, their interactions, and change. The integrated whole can
be represented by the processes that created its integrated structure(s) and
the observable consequence(s) of the integrated whole.
Processes require cognitive direction, purposeful activities that drive from
one condition to another (via inputs and outputs), and models that represent
cognitive structures as well as corporeal results of the activities. Processes,
when combined, form a goal-driven set of cognitively inspired activities that
result in physical representations of those thoughts and acts. Managed processes form the mechanisms of integration for directed human artifacts. One
dimension of the integration framework is the set of processes that portray
the mechanisms of integration.
The other dimension of the framework of integration is the observable consequences of the integrated whole, that is, the product or service. The integrated
whole is then said to have various uses—described as product or service functions that are intended to be put to some purpose. Functions are embodied in
the structures of physical objects and services. We view the physical embodiments (i.e., objects) through their properties and attributes, the functions (either
intended or circumstantial) through their qualities, traits, and performances,
and the processes engendered from the product or service through the behaviors of the users. The observable consequences of the integrated whole form
from the physical objects. The functions result from the physical juxtaposition
of the objects. The behaviors of the users are influenced in some ways by the
objects and their physical presentation. The behaviors are difficult to associate
causally solely with the objects, as the environmental, social, cultural, and political environments provide an intricate context.
* Metaphysical concepts, epistemological essences, and ontological structure are missing.
Foundations in Systems Integration
description.* Further, integration may be viewed on a normative basis—one
that is inspired by axiological reference to a standard.
Integration can be thought of as an entity (object or process) acting on
another entity in such a way as to change itself, the other object, or both.
Such a description follows from the methodological representations of integration, and is consistent with simple models of physics, representative of a
widely accepted worldview, and true to various philosophies and principles.
Much of what is found in this writing follows such a Newtonian logic.
Integration is the result of interaction and not merely the acts of interacting
per se. Interaction is a necessary process to achieve integration. The characteristics of the integrated whole are distinguishable from those of the interacting entities. It is both the activity of interaction and the results of those
activities that we distinguish as integration. To explore the nature of integration, it is convenient to work within a framework that characterizes the objects
and the concept of change (where “change is the relation between objects
separated by a time interval” (Turchin 1977)), the interactions between
objects (described as activities), and the consequences of the properties and
attributes of objects, their interactions, and change. The integrated whole can
be represented by the processes that created its integrated structure(s) and
the observable consequence(s) of the integrated whole.
Processes require cognitive direction, purposeful activities that drive from
one condition to another (via inputs and outputs), and models that represent
cognitive structures as well as corporeal results of the activities. Processes,
when combined, form a goal-driven set of cognitively inspired activities that
result in physical representations of those thoughts and acts. Managed processes form the mechanisms of integration for directed human artifacts. One
dimension of the integration framework is the set of processes that portray
the mechanisms of integration.
The other dimension of the framework of integration is the observable consequences of the integrated whole, that is, the product or service. The integrated
whole is then said to have various uses—described as product or service functions that are intended to be put to some purpose. Functions are embodied in
the structures of physical objects and services. We view the physical embodiments (i.e., objects) through their properties and attributes, the functions (either
intended or circumstantial) through their qualities, traits, and performances,
and the processes engendered from the product or service through the behaviors of the users. The observable consequences of the integrated whole form
from the physical objects. The functions result from the physical juxtaposition
of the objects. The behaviors of the users are influenced in some ways by the
objects and their physical presentation. The behaviors are difficult to associate
causally solely with the objects, as the environmental, social, cultural, and political environments provide an intricate context.
* Metaphysical concepts, epistemological essences, and ontological structure are missing.