196
Engineering Systems Integration
physical contact. The two pieces of wood will remain connected (in contact)
as long as their forces of friction generated by their resistance to movement
are stronger than the forces imposed by external events to move one piece
relative to the other piece. The function of the two pieces of connected wood
might be to make a cavern in which to build a fire and create a thermal cavity
for generating a higher temperature (e.g., building on the concept of cavity
radiation). There is no force expected that would move one piece relative to
the other, so with gravitational and lateral stabilities the fire can reach higher
temperature with a stable cavity in place, that is, the dimensions of the cavity
remain constant. In this case, the function of the connection between the two
pieces of wood is to create a physical cavity.
That objects can be configured to provide functions is an inherent trait of
interacting objects. The interface between two objects can be viewed as a
boundary, that which separates one object from another object. That there
are three types of boundaries (physical, functional, and behavioral) points
integration efforts in three, sometimes different, directions. Whether the
physical boundary of the product or service is the most important aspect is
normally ill defined in the set of initial requirements. In general, products
and services are considered to be tools for carrying out particular functions.
Since functions are distinguished only by the type of function, the
performance(s) of the types of functions, and the quality related to the performances (sometimes, quality is ascribed to the function directly—functions
with high quality equates to a product or service of high quality). Therefore,
most new products or services angle to take advantage of advancements in
technology, so that new products or services offer different functions (or
combinations of functions), improvements in performance or quality (or
both), or show increased value for the same sets of functions (performances and quality) by delivering at a lower price. From an integration
perspective, functions are functions, only the objects and processes may
change. As such, boundaries become more important for proving functionality and significantly important when integrated to achieve a systemic relation between constituent objects. The interface is the result of
objects and EMMI. Managing an interface means managing the symptom,
not the cause. The distinction is mighty when integration efforts are confronted with functions that fall short of their performance requirements.
Passing unit tests and interface checking should not suggest nor necessarily
imply that the risk has been reduced in a development effort. And neither
does passing these early development tests mean that earned value is as
calculated.
If an earned value calculation indicates 25% of the work is completed and
is on budget and on schedule, and the work completed for early testing indicates that all is progressing “nicely,” the underlying premises may be faulty.
If integration budgets swell to 50%, then the risk apportionment should be
normalized to the allocation of risk across like-kind projects. Currently,
earned value is based only on the project that is ongoing. Rather, it would be
Engineering Systems Integration
physical contact. The two pieces of wood will remain connected (in contact)
as long as their forces of friction generated by their resistance to movement
are stronger than the forces imposed by external events to move one piece
relative to the other piece. The function of the two pieces of connected wood
might be to make a cavern in which to build a fire and create a thermal cavity
for generating a higher temperature (e.g., building on the concept of cavity
radiation). There is no force expected that would move one piece relative to
the other, so with gravitational and lateral stabilities the fire can reach higher
temperature with a stable cavity in place, that is, the dimensions of the cavity
remain constant. In this case, the function of the connection between the two
pieces of wood is to create a physical cavity.
That objects can be configured to provide functions is an inherent trait of
interacting objects. The interface between two objects can be viewed as a
boundary, that which separates one object from another object. That there
are three types of boundaries (physical, functional, and behavioral) points
integration efforts in three, sometimes different, directions. Whether the
physical boundary of the product or service is the most important aspect is
normally ill defined in the set of initial requirements. In general, products
and services are considered to be tools for carrying out particular functions.
Since functions are distinguished only by the type of function, the
performance(s) of the types of functions, and the quality related to the performances (sometimes, quality is ascribed to the function directly—functions
with high quality equates to a product or service of high quality). Therefore,
most new products or services angle to take advantage of advancements in
technology, so that new products or services offer different functions (or
combinations of functions), improvements in performance or quality (or
both), or show increased value for the same sets of functions (performances and quality) by delivering at a lower price. From an integration
perspective, functions are functions, only the objects and processes may
change. As such, boundaries become more important for proving functionality and significantly important when integrated to achieve a systemic relation between constituent objects. The interface is the result of
objects and EMMI. Managing an interface means managing the symptom,
not the cause. The distinction is mighty when integration efforts are confronted with functions that fall short of their performance requirements.
Passing unit tests and interface checking should not suggest nor necessarily
imply that the risk has been reduced in a development effort. And neither
does passing these early development tests mean that earned value is as
calculated.
If an earned value calculation indicates 25% of the work is completed and
is on budget and on schedule, and the work completed for early testing indicates that all is progressing “nicely,” the underlying premises may be faulty.
If integration budgets swell to 50%, then the risk apportionment should be
normalized to the allocation of risk across like-kind projects. Currently,
earned value is based only on the project that is ongoing. Rather, it would be