210
Engineering Systems Integration
structure—highly focused, centralized, and monolithic from their governance to the ideals and responsibilities of their citizens. The People’s Republic
of China operates as an aggregate power structure—centralized, yet responsive to local needs. The United States and the European Union (Nieminen
2005) are examples of an agglomerated organizational power structure—
operating with highly independent states (in the United States) or countries
(in the European Union) where both subsystems have high degrees of autonomy and authority. The differences between the United States and the
European Union, albeit substantial in most dimensions, are materially alike
when it comes to their architectures which enforce and sustain access to
power. The rules can be quite different, the circumstances distinct, and the
particulars novel, but the physical entities provide substantially the same
functionalities at the metasystem’s level, with a resultant access to valuable
resources that is substantially similar.
The two organizations, Hospital, Ltd. and Doctors, Ltd., are representative
of two different categories of system of systems. Doctors, Ltd. is a syndicate
of doctors with a limited set of partners acting in concert to set policy and
providing centralized management. The essential characteristic for a system
of systems is that there are many individual systems with common skills
and generally the functional goals. Another example of a syndicate is the
group of people who use the Internet. The Internet users have common tools,
similar skills to exploit Internet and web content, and all share in the same
benefit of gathering, exchanging, or posting information. Pursuit to their
particular rules, the syndicate may share as partners in some benefit (e.g.,
profits, in the case of Doctors, Ltd.).
Hospital, Ltd. is a privately held entity with shareholders, who elect a
Board of Directors to manage the affairs of the business. For our purposes,
we refer to this category of organization as an amalgamation—a blend of
different interests and skills that have particular influence on the outcome
of the business operations. The difference between the categories of amalgamations and syndicates is the predominant theme of stakeholders deriving
different benefits from their association with each. Stakeholders in Hospital,
Ltd. may be participating purely for the cachet of being involved with the
medical profession (and a hospital in particular) and the political benefits
derived from the same in local government. While this difference between
system of systems (as syndicates and as amalgamations) may seem particularly inconsequential, the differences imply quite different architectures
and therefore very different planning for integration. The simplistic difference of quite different goals is handled easily through architecture by
emphasizing that all parties can accomplish their goals (once it is recognized how to phrase and present the relation between the goals and the
benefits for the business that are derived from the architecture). The more
troublesome factors that impact on architecture are the degree of autonomy
expected by the two organizations based on their mindsets and previous
business structures. Changing a business architecture is not only quite a
Engineering Systems Integration
structure—highly focused, centralized, and monolithic from their governance to the ideals and responsibilities of their citizens. The People’s Republic
of China operates as an aggregate power structure—centralized, yet responsive to local needs. The United States and the European Union (Nieminen
2005) are examples of an agglomerated organizational power structure—
operating with highly independent states (in the United States) or countries
(in the European Union) where both subsystems have high degrees of autonomy and authority. The differences between the United States and the
European Union, albeit substantial in most dimensions, are materially alike
when it comes to their architectures which enforce and sustain access to
power. The rules can be quite different, the circumstances distinct, and the
particulars novel, but the physical entities provide substantially the same
functionalities at the metasystem’s level, with a resultant access to valuable
resources that is substantially similar.
The two organizations, Hospital, Ltd. and Doctors, Ltd., are representative
of two different categories of system of systems. Doctors, Ltd. is a syndicate
of doctors with a limited set of partners acting in concert to set policy and
providing centralized management. The essential characteristic for a system
of systems is that there are many individual systems with common skills
and generally the functional goals. Another example of a syndicate is the
group of people who use the Internet. The Internet users have common tools,
similar skills to exploit Internet and web content, and all share in the same
benefit of gathering, exchanging, or posting information. Pursuit to their
particular rules, the syndicate may share as partners in some benefit (e.g.,
profits, in the case of Doctors, Ltd.).
Hospital, Ltd. is a privately held entity with shareholders, who elect a
Board of Directors to manage the affairs of the business. For our purposes,
we refer to this category of organization as an amalgamation—a blend of
different interests and skills that have particular influence on the outcome
of the business operations. The difference between the categories of amalgamations and syndicates is the predominant theme of stakeholders deriving
different benefits from their association with each. Stakeholders in Hospital,
Ltd. may be participating purely for the cachet of being involved with the
medical profession (and a hospital in particular) and the political benefits
derived from the same in local government. While this difference between
system of systems (as syndicates and as amalgamations) may seem particularly inconsequential, the differences imply quite different architectures
and therefore very different planning for integration. The simplistic difference of quite different goals is handled easily through architecture by
emphasizing that all parties can accomplish their goals (once it is recognized how to phrase and present the relation between the goals and the
benefits for the business that are derived from the architecture). The more
troublesome factors that impact on architecture are the degree of autonomy
expected by the two organizations based on their mindsets and previous
business structures. Changing a business architecture is not only quite a