Systems
201
Systemic emergent properties are irreversible. From a causality perspective,
systems are predicated on sustained interactions between objects. The
antecedent events that postured some objects for salient contributions are no
longer operative in a system. This formalism results from the irreversibility
of the systemic emergent properties of some of the objects. Other objects that
are not so postured retain their reversibility and exhibit emergent attributes.
When these objects are combined, the aggregate behavior can be representative of the emergent properties of the objects, or the emergent attributes of
objects, or a combination of both types of objects. Antecedent events,
although causal in terms of the formation of a system, serve to provide the
objects and EMMI, but are precursors rather than directly involved in the
integration process. Therefore, systems are of two types, those formed from
only proximate events and those formed by proximate and objective events.
Systems that are summative are built up of individual objects and smaller
clusters of objects (i.e., proximate and objective events), while normative systems are based on proximate and objective events that come together as
agglomerates to form a system of systems.
All the existing definitions of systems capture a portion or all of the superficial notions that elements interact (e.g., work together) within a boundary to
perform functions jointly that are unachievable as individual elements. Such
definitions generally lead the discussion on how systems thinkers think of
their tasks. Specifically, these definitions are how systems engineers go about
their building of systems. Somewhat intuitively, thinking in systems’ context
fosters a general feeling about what is important. Systems engineers “feel”
that importance—considered to be the art of systems engineering. But when it
comes to designing and architecting a system, that art needs to be integrated
into a product or service. Even the seasoned professionals are overwhelmed
with thousands of items to track and 100,000 objects to develop. The intricacies of interacting objects overwhelm the marked abilities of the seasoned
group of tenacious systems engineers. In any reasonably sized system, there
are literally millions of EMMIs (objects interacting in ways that are much less
predictable and significantly more volatile than can be tamed). It falls on
these systems engineers and systems engineering integrators to apply their
skills learned from wrangling over decisions based on trade studies, test
results, stakeholder needs and wants, political expediencies, and most aptly
their best-informed guesses. But this is not the way to bring order and stability to planning, budgeting, and scheduling.
It should now be intuitively clear that a precise definition of system is
naive. Even trying to encapsulate a clear, comprehensive, and simple conception of systems is challenging.
Following the definition of a system according to Palmer (2009), a system
can be conceptualized in terms of the behavior of its objects (descriptive of
the essence of their system); the context of the minimum energy structures
(reflective of the design and architecture); the perspective of the definer (providing a referenced view); and the methods that epitomize its functioning
201
Systemic emergent properties are irreversible. From a causality perspective,
systems are predicated on sustained interactions between objects. The
antecedent events that postured some objects for salient contributions are no
longer operative in a system. This formalism results from the irreversibility
of the systemic emergent properties of some of the objects. Other objects that
are not so postured retain their reversibility and exhibit emergent attributes.
When these objects are combined, the aggregate behavior can be representative of the emergent properties of the objects, or the emergent attributes of
objects, or a combination of both types of objects. Antecedent events,
although causal in terms of the formation of a system, serve to provide the
objects and EMMI, but are precursors rather than directly involved in the
integration process. Therefore, systems are of two types, those formed from
only proximate events and those formed by proximate and objective events.
Systems that are summative are built up of individual objects and smaller
clusters of objects (i.e., proximate and objective events), while normative systems are based on proximate and objective events that come together as
agglomerates to form a system of systems.
All the existing definitions of systems capture a portion or all of the superficial notions that elements interact (e.g., work together) within a boundary to
perform functions jointly that are unachievable as individual elements. Such
definitions generally lead the discussion on how systems thinkers think of
their tasks. Specifically, these definitions are how systems engineers go about
their building of systems. Somewhat intuitively, thinking in systems’ context
fosters a general feeling about what is important. Systems engineers “feel”
that importance—considered to be the art of systems engineering. But when it
comes to designing and architecting a system, that art needs to be integrated
into a product or service. Even the seasoned professionals are overwhelmed
with thousands of items to track and 100,000 objects to develop. The intricacies of interacting objects overwhelm the marked abilities of the seasoned
group of tenacious systems engineers. In any reasonably sized system, there
are literally millions of EMMIs (objects interacting in ways that are much less
predictable and significantly more volatile than can be tamed). It falls on
these systems engineers and systems engineering integrators to apply their
skills learned from wrangling over decisions based on trade studies, test
results, stakeholder needs and wants, political expediencies, and most aptly
their best-informed guesses. But this is not the way to bring order and stability to planning, budgeting, and scheduling.
It should now be intuitively clear that a precise definition of system is
naive. Even trying to encapsulate a clear, comprehensive, and simple conception of systems is challenging.
Following the definition of a system according to Palmer (2009), a system
can be conceptualized in terms of the behavior of its objects (descriptive of
the essence of their system); the context of the minimum energy structures
(reflective of the design and architecture); the perspective of the definer (providing a referenced view); and the methods that epitomize its functioning