164
Engineering Systems Integration
milestones are in the function domain, and his experimental apparatus and
“laboratory” fall into the physical domain). His intuition, creativity, and analytical thinking fall into the abstract class (his brain was in the physical
domain, his activities of thinking were in the process domain, and the events
of his discoveries were in the functional domain). His behaviors fall into the
social class (his speech and involuntary mannerisms are in the physical
domain, his control of language is in the process domain, and his actions are
in the function domain). The synthesis of Newton’s processes, actions, and
physical entities resulted in the communication of his three laws of motion
as an integrated set of abstraction, model, and social dynamics. Thinking of
modern quantum physics where we observe the influence of the observer’s
actions on the outcome of the experiment illustrates the importance of incorporating the domains of process, physical, and functions with the amalgamation of the integration classes: abstraction, model, and social.
Consolidation of Thoughts on Integration
That two things can come together in such a way to form a whole, that is,
something new that is in itself considered complete, is a matter of curiosity.
It is both the nature and context of this integration that we observe daily. But
that two components somehow can be made to form a whole and that this
whole may not resemble its components is mysterious. How can the whole be
perceived to have even some properties different from that of its original
components? Integration can result in a whole where the properties of the
whole are the same as the properties of the individual constituent parts. An
example of this integration is the sand in the plastic bottle. The plastic bottle
contains the sand, but the containment is not a property. Containment is a
condition of the integration of sand in the plastic bottle. The properties of the
sand, that is, attributes or characteristics are different and distinct from the
properties of the plastic bottle. Whereas the condition of the sand being contained in the plastic bottle is the set of circumstances that circumscribe the
sand, in essence they impose a restriction on the sand due to its situation or
environment when integrated with the plastic bottle. That an integration
should result in a whole that is completely reflective of its constituents, we
refer to as a spurious system.
We can think situationally of systems integration as a constructed balance
between the constituent parts and the whole—a set of circumstances and
events that once enacted transform the parts into a whole, but without reciprocity to reconstitute the parts from the whole. To illustrate, consider making soup as a metaphor for systems integration. We consider the three classes
of integration: abstract, social, and model. Consider the associative feelings
that are engendered by the smell and taste of the soup. These feelings may
Engineering Systems Integration
milestones are in the function domain, and his experimental apparatus and
“laboratory” fall into the physical domain). His intuition, creativity, and analytical thinking fall into the abstract class (his brain was in the physical
domain, his activities of thinking were in the process domain, and the events
of his discoveries were in the functional domain). His behaviors fall into the
social class (his speech and involuntary mannerisms are in the physical
domain, his control of language is in the process domain, and his actions are
in the function domain). The synthesis of Newton’s processes, actions, and
physical entities resulted in the communication of his three laws of motion
as an integrated set of abstraction, model, and social dynamics. Thinking of
modern quantum physics where we observe the influence of the observer’s
actions on the outcome of the experiment illustrates the importance of incorporating the domains of process, physical, and functions with the amalgamation of the integration classes: abstraction, model, and social.
Consolidation of Thoughts on Integration
That two things can come together in such a way to form a whole, that is,
something new that is in itself considered complete, is a matter of curiosity.
It is both the nature and context of this integration that we observe daily. But
that two components somehow can be made to form a whole and that this
whole may not resemble its components is mysterious. How can the whole be
perceived to have even some properties different from that of its original
components? Integration can result in a whole where the properties of the
whole are the same as the properties of the individual constituent parts. An
example of this integration is the sand in the plastic bottle. The plastic bottle
contains the sand, but the containment is not a property. Containment is a
condition of the integration of sand in the plastic bottle. The properties of the
sand, that is, attributes or characteristics are different and distinct from the
properties of the plastic bottle. Whereas the condition of the sand being contained in the plastic bottle is the set of circumstances that circumscribe the
sand, in essence they impose a restriction on the sand due to its situation or
environment when integrated with the plastic bottle. That an integration
should result in a whole that is completely reflective of its constituents, we
refer to as a spurious system.
We can think situationally of systems integration as a constructed balance
between the constituent parts and the whole—a set of circumstances and
events that once enacted transform the parts into a whole, but without reciprocity to reconstitute the parts from the whole. To illustrate, consider making soup as a metaphor for systems integration. We consider the three classes
of integration: abstract, social, and model. Consider the associative feelings
that are engendered by the smell and taste of the soup. These feelings may