208
Engineering Systems Integration
From a systems engineering integration perspective, the need for an
effective system of systems presumes that requirements are determinable,
objectifiable, and buildable. Requirements determinability is a matter of
identifying the needs of the designers, customers, and users* of system of
systems, eliciting data and information from knowledgeable stakeholders,
then applying a process to deliver the physical, functional, and behavioral
properties and attributes desired in the system of systems.
In the most general sense, there are multiple combinations of measures of
effectiveness which are relatable to organizations and organizational processes. Without the benefit of significant research to guide this discussion,
there seems to be four kinds of organizational power structures. These kinds
appear to be consistent across organizations, whether they are inculcated
into groups of people, companies, or governments of countries. These organizational power structures are termed as the item, the syndicate, the aggregate, and the agglomerate. † No particular preference is given to any one or
another of these power structures. No one is better or worse, only tailored to
match circumstances. They are merely structures that need to be accommodated with design and architecture when building a system of systems. We
can think of the architecture of a system of systems as that of a system, with
the architecture supporting the governance of the system of systems, the
processes that provide for the metafunctions, and the power structure of its
organization. In many ways, the architecture of the organization is akin to
that of the architecture of the product (Yassine and Wissmann 2007), with
the notable exception being the power structure. The reason why organization power structures are distinct and not included in products derives from
the nature of the subsystems and their independence. Within a product that
is a system, autonomous operating capability with connectivity to other systems operations is inconsistent with the product being a system. Semiautonomous operation that has connectivity to a system is termed as a system
of systems.
The item is a unitary power structure with a single entity that determines
access to valuable resources. An example of an item power structure is a
monolithic organization that has a consistent set of policies that governs uses
of power and access to valuable resources. Decisions made by central governance are policy, with no exception other than as is agreed to by the central
governance. An example is that of the small business owner, whose authority
over access to valuable resources is inviolable. There may be one or many
objects at the level of governance of an item power structure.
The syndicate is typified by many objects which have decision-making
authority, act as a group once consensus is reached, but have a myriad of
* More generally, the set of stakeholders (significantly beyond the designer, customer, and user)
for a typical system number in the multiple 100s and grow geometrically with the number of
subsystems within a system.
† The vaguest of association with dictionary definitions or those defined with more precision
is the intent for their usage in this presentation.
Engineering Systems Integration
From a systems engineering integration perspective, the need for an
effective system of systems presumes that requirements are determinable,
objectifiable, and buildable. Requirements determinability is a matter of
identifying the needs of the designers, customers, and users* of system of
systems, eliciting data and information from knowledgeable stakeholders,
then applying a process to deliver the physical, functional, and behavioral
properties and attributes desired in the system of systems.
In the most general sense, there are multiple combinations of measures of
effectiveness which are relatable to organizations and organizational processes. Without the benefit of significant research to guide this discussion,
there seems to be four kinds of organizational power structures. These kinds
appear to be consistent across organizations, whether they are inculcated
into groups of people, companies, or governments of countries. These organizational power structures are termed as the item, the syndicate, the aggregate, and the agglomerate. † No particular preference is given to any one or
another of these power structures. No one is better or worse, only tailored to
match circumstances. They are merely structures that need to be accommodated with design and architecture when building a system of systems. We
can think of the architecture of a system of systems as that of a system, with
the architecture supporting the governance of the system of systems, the
processes that provide for the metafunctions, and the power structure of its
organization. In many ways, the architecture of the organization is akin to
that of the architecture of the product (Yassine and Wissmann 2007), with
the notable exception being the power structure. The reason why organization power structures are distinct and not included in products derives from
the nature of the subsystems and their independence. Within a product that
is a system, autonomous operating capability with connectivity to other systems operations is inconsistent with the product being a system. Semiautonomous operation that has connectivity to a system is termed as a system
of systems.
The item is a unitary power structure with a single entity that determines
access to valuable resources. An example of an item power structure is a
monolithic organization that has a consistent set of policies that governs uses
of power and access to valuable resources. Decisions made by central governance are policy, with no exception other than as is agreed to by the central
governance. An example is that of the small business owner, whose authority
over access to valuable resources is inviolable. There may be one or many
objects at the level of governance of an item power structure.
The syndicate is typified by many objects which have decision-making
authority, act as a group once consensus is reached, but have a myriad of
* More generally, the set of stakeholders (significantly beyond the designer, customer, and user)
for a typical system number in the multiple 100s and grow geometrically with the number of
subsystems within a system.
† The vaguest of association with dictionary definitions or those defined with more precision
is the intent for their usage in this presentation.