169
Foundations in Systems Integration
experiment is a most arduous task. The social class is inextricably involved
with the model and abstract classes in the measurement framework of all
three domains. In political science, there is a somewhat pervasive antagonism toward rationalizing power (Diaz et al. 2004).
Power
While much has been written about power in innumerable contexts, including sociology, psychology, and economics, regarding its expression, its relation to causal factors, its capability and ability, and the impacts on the actors
(e.g., people, groups, organizations, and governments), very little has been
said about power and integration. Such a discussion helps to illuminate
some aspects of power that are discussed elsewhere, but perhaps not in the
same way. For objects that interact (and sometimes integrate), the concept of
power can be expressed in terms of dominance (through overwhelming
magnitudes of EMMI) or an ability to influence (through the proper release
of EMMI that has effects on another object’s mechanisms). At the fundamental level of interaction, power is the limit imposed by one object on its EMMI.
In other words, power is both an object’s EMMI and the object’s constraints
that limit another object’s access to EMMI. For humans, power is EMMI and
access to EMMI. Objects value EMMI as their means to make things happen.
One object, in turn, can change the makeup of the EMMI it receives into
other kinds of EMMI. Changing the output of EMMI by the rate of releasing
outputs, the magnitude of an individual output, the average “power” of a
series of individual outputs, and taking care as to which objects have access
to the EMMI may bring more power to any object than would otherwise
occur. The rate of doing work is another form of power as mediated by an
object’s output EMMI. The changes in EMMI may be thought of as delegation (in an organizational sense), as veto (in a decisional sense), as a means of
sustainment (in a distributional sense), as a means of communication (in an
informational sense), as a means of commerce (in a material wealth sense),
as a means of influence (in a political or social sense), as a means of leverage
(in a economics sense), and as a means of exchanging EMMI (in an integration sense). Fundamentally, every object has a mechanism to transform
EMMI into an output; therefore, every object has some measure of power.
Metaphorically, we can refer to objects as the constituent parts of products
and services, as people, and as organizations of people. Objects that combine
into an integrated whole would seem to have more power to influence other
objects than do individual objects.
The partitioning (or allocation) of EMMI is sometimes portrayed as exercise of power. In this regard, power has two components, the resource of
EMMI and the access to that resource. For integration of a system of systems,
the meaningful expression of architecture of this exchange of EMMI is a
Foundations in Systems Integration
experiment is a most arduous task. The social class is inextricably involved
with the model and abstract classes in the measurement framework of all
three domains. In political science, there is a somewhat pervasive antagonism toward rationalizing power (Diaz et al. 2004).
Power
While much has been written about power in innumerable contexts, including sociology, psychology, and economics, regarding its expression, its relation to causal factors, its capability and ability, and the impacts on the actors
(e.g., people, groups, organizations, and governments), very little has been
said about power and integration. Such a discussion helps to illuminate
some aspects of power that are discussed elsewhere, but perhaps not in the
same way. For objects that interact (and sometimes integrate), the concept of
power can be expressed in terms of dominance (through overwhelming
magnitudes of EMMI) or an ability to influence (through the proper release
of EMMI that has effects on another object’s mechanisms). At the fundamental level of interaction, power is the limit imposed by one object on its EMMI.
In other words, power is both an object’s EMMI and the object’s constraints
that limit another object’s access to EMMI. For humans, power is EMMI and
access to EMMI. Objects value EMMI as their means to make things happen.
One object, in turn, can change the makeup of the EMMI it receives into
other kinds of EMMI. Changing the output of EMMI by the rate of releasing
outputs, the magnitude of an individual output, the average “power” of a
series of individual outputs, and taking care as to which objects have access
to the EMMI may bring more power to any object than would otherwise
occur. The rate of doing work is another form of power as mediated by an
object’s output EMMI. The changes in EMMI may be thought of as delegation (in an organizational sense), as veto (in a decisional sense), as a means of
sustainment (in a distributional sense), as a means of communication (in an
informational sense), as a means of commerce (in a material wealth sense),
as a means of influence (in a political or social sense), as a means of leverage
(in a economics sense), and as a means of exchanging EMMI (in an integration sense). Fundamentally, every object has a mechanism to transform
EMMI into an output; therefore, every object has some measure of power.
Metaphorically, we can refer to objects as the constituent parts of products
and services, as people, and as organizations of people. Objects that combine
into an integrated whole would seem to have more power to influence other
objects than do individual objects.
The partitioning (or allocation) of EMMI is sometimes portrayed as exercise of power. In this regard, power has two components, the resource of
EMMI and the access to that resource. For integration of a system of systems,
the meaningful expression of architecture of this exchange of EMMI is a