217
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
project, including building a building (e.g., impacts environment, transportation throughput, electrical utilities, and potable water distribution); building
infrastructure (e.g., impacts on environment and movement of people); and
building means of transportation (e.g., impacts on environment, movement
of people, means of commerce, density of people).
The problem that systems engineers faced then was in determining which
new technologies could be used to improve existing services while simultaneously lowering the cost of delivering those enhanced services. With a head
of steam that sometimes drove adoption of new, immature technology, systems engineers took on the role of being the objective, rational gatekeepers to
protect the investment in infrastructure and systems. That role required
skills that spanned various types of research, mandated familiarity with
fundamental development that extracted techniques and ideas from research
and prepared them for pilot modeling, prescribed an appreciation for the
infrastructure that was already in place and the user behaviors that were
already adapted to certain types of products and services, and the sensitivities of economic implications from operations. The early systems engineers
focused on establishing performance and cost objectives for technologies
they determine would improve existing infrastructure and services. Today’s
systems engineers are sometimes handed technology and saddled with
making it work within a schedule and budget.
With an appetite for systems and system of systems that have more functionality with greater depth and sophistication, systems engineering is
challenged. However, it is not that the new technology is inappropriate for
consideration or maturation. “The development and acquisition of new systems usually requires the use of new technologies in order to meet requirements unachievable with the current state-of-the-art” (Ender et al. 2009).
Rather, it is the complexity and reliability that baffle systems engineering
and confound integration. It is inconceivable that any other method,
approach, or discipline besides that embodied in systems engineering could
deal with the vagaries imposed on building complex systems and achieving
sufficient levels of system reliability.
Of course there is a method to this decision process, which may be dependent on the structure of the acquisition system. For commercial ventures,
new technologies undergo extensive testing before subjecting customers and
users to unreliable products or services. Marketplace feedback can be swift
and thunderous. Given alternatives, customers will begin to work with other
vendors and suppliers. The less reliable, less functional, and less performance systems are replaced by others. For entrepreneurial ventures, new
technologies must be proven along with an objectively supportable view that
there will be marketplace acceptance before the entrepreneurial venture
may be considered for institutional funding from sophisticated investors.
The funding and support go to those whose ideas will dramatically change
existing markets or establish new markets that are both strong revenue gainers and offer high profit margins. The “play” for the investors is to sell their
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
project, including building a building (e.g., impacts environment, transportation throughput, electrical utilities, and potable water distribution); building
infrastructure (e.g., impacts on environment and movement of people); and
building means of transportation (e.g., impacts on environment, movement
of people, means of commerce, density of people).
The problem that systems engineers faced then was in determining which
new technologies could be used to improve existing services while simultaneously lowering the cost of delivering those enhanced services. With a head
of steam that sometimes drove adoption of new, immature technology, systems engineers took on the role of being the objective, rational gatekeepers to
protect the investment in infrastructure and systems. That role required
skills that spanned various types of research, mandated familiarity with
fundamental development that extracted techniques and ideas from research
and prepared them for pilot modeling, prescribed an appreciation for the
infrastructure that was already in place and the user behaviors that were
already adapted to certain types of products and services, and the sensitivities of economic implications from operations. The early systems engineers
focused on establishing performance and cost objectives for technologies
they determine would improve existing infrastructure and services. Today’s
systems engineers are sometimes handed technology and saddled with
making it work within a schedule and budget.
With an appetite for systems and system of systems that have more functionality with greater depth and sophistication, systems engineering is
challenged. However, it is not that the new technology is inappropriate for
consideration or maturation. “The development and acquisition of new systems usually requires the use of new technologies in order to meet requirements unachievable with the current state-of-the-art” (Ender et al. 2009).
Rather, it is the complexity and reliability that baffle systems engineering
and confound integration. It is inconceivable that any other method,
approach, or discipline besides that embodied in systems engineering could
deal with the vagaries imposed on building complex systems and achieving
sufficient levels of system reliability.
Of course there is a method to this decision process, which may be dependent on the structure of the acquisition system. For commercial ventures,
new technologies undergo extensive testing before subjecting customers and
users to unreliable products or services. Marketplace feedback can be swift
and thunderous. Given alternatives, customers will begin to work with other
vendors and suppliers. The less reliable, less functional, and less performance systems are replaced by others. For entrepreneurial ventures, new
technologies must be proven along with an objectively supportable view that
there will be marketplace acceptance before the entrepreneurial venture
may be considered for institutional funding from sophisticated investors.
The funding and support go to those whose ideas will dramatically change
existing markets or establish new markets that are both strong revenue gainers and offer high profit margins. The “play” for the investors is to sell their