206
Engineering Systems Integration
of abstractions for the system of systems. For planning purposes, both
Hospital, Ltd. and Doctors, Ltd. manage their own personnel; for organizing
and directing work, the subservience of doctors from Doctors, Ltd. tracks
whether the patients are from Hospital, Ltd. or Doctors, Ltd. Controlling
work is principally with Hospital, Ltd, as the established work relation is
arms-length, at-will, for hire status. Teamwork is expected at all levels of
interaction and is encouraged by accommodating reasonable requests and
maintaining frequent and congenial communications.
Whether natural or human-built, the process of integrating systems (the
joining of objects to achieve an effect) is describable with the framework of
objective causality.
Organizational Models
Organization and architecture (i.e., structure) are the two key structural
factors that make up the fundamental functionalities at the metalevel of a
system of systems. Once the structure is formulated and constructed, other
issues need to be considered and dealt with, such as how each subsystem
interoperates with the metasystem model, how effective are the functions
that form the metafunctions enabled by the subsystems, what overall subperformances cause substantial losses for the metaperformance, and how the
metafunctions are constrained and limited by the operations, supporting
subfunctions, and various human behaviors (if people are involved in operations). While there are any number of ways to structure a system of systems,
presumably large variability in organizational performance is normally not
characterized by its structure. It is usually assumed that to a large degree
organizational structure is a mentioned factor, but not necessarily significant.
The voluminous literature on measures of effectiveness for organizations is
replete with discussions about horizontal and vertical integrations, matrix
and line organizations, and lifecycle models (Quinn and Cameron 1983) that
for the most part describe their physical, functional, and behavioral aspects.
These publications fit within lines of inquiry that follow strategies of staging
where an organization fits within a continuum of changes (lifecycle); surmising what is right (or wrong) with existing organizational notions (diagnosing and evaluating); and analyzing the organizational dynamics based on
presumptions of static structures (work groups and management), external
pressures (business market competitiveness), or human dynamics (covers
mergers and acquisitions). Within these broad strategies, various attributes
are investigated, including influences, preferences, and power. This portrayal is not meant to be either a survey or an exhaustive description, but
rather to suggest another strategy which applies directly to the integration of
a system of systems. That is, organizations seem to be distinguishable by a
Engineering Systems Integration
of abstractions for the system of systems. For planning purposes, both
Hospital, Ltd. and Doctors, Ltd. manage their own personnel; for organizing
and directing work, the subservience of doctors from Doctors, Ltd. tracks
whether the patients are from Hospital, Ltd. or Doctors, Ltd. Controlling
work is principally with Hospital, Ltd, as the established work relation is
arms-length, at-will, for hire status. Teamwork is expected at all levels of
interaction and is encouraged by accommodating reasonable requests and
maintaining frequent and congenial communications.
Whether natural or human-built, the process of integrating systems (the
joining of objects to achieve an effect) is describable with the framework of
objective causality.
Organizational Models
Organization and architecture (i.e., structure) are the two key structural
factors that make up the fundamental functionalities at the metalevel of a
system of systems. Once the structure is formulated and constructed, other
issues need to be considered and dealt with, such as how each subsystem
interoperates with the metasystem model, how effective are the functions
that form the metafunctions enabled by the subsystems, what overall subperformances cause substantial losses for the metaperformance, and how the
metafunctions are constrained and limited by the operations, supporting
subfunctions, and various human behaviors (if people are involved in operations). While there are any number of ways to structure a system of systems,
presumably large variability in organizational performance is normally not
characterized by its structure. It is usually assumed that to a large degree
organizational structure is a mentioned factor, but not necessarily significant.
The voluminous literature on measures of effectiveness for organizations is
replete with discussions about horizontal and vertical integrations, matrix
and line organizations, and lifecycle models (Quinn and Cameron 1983) that
for the most part describe their physical, functional, and behavioral aspects.
These publications fit within lines of inquiry that follow strategies of staging
where an organization fits within a continuum of changes (lifecycle); surmising what is right (or wrong) with existing organizational notions (diagnosing and evaluating); and analyzing the organizational dynamics based on
presumptions of static structures (work groups and management), external
pressures (business market competitiveness), or human dynamics (covers
mergers and acquisitions). Within these broad strategies, various attributes
are investigated, including influences, preferences, and power. This portrayal is not meant to be either a survey or an exhaustive description, but
rather to suggest another strategy which applies directly to the integration of
a system of systems. That is, organizations seem to be distinguishable by a