227
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
requirements; and more emphasis on training in the practice of systems
engineering rather than educating for insights and research opportunities
have stifled creativity and innovation in the very people who have the predilection for such work. The illusion that tends to silence the cynics, contrarians,
and curmudgeons is that the demands of stakeholders would seem not to be
inherently evocative of structural difficulties in the practice of systems engineering. The “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality, or “It’s good enough”*
wisdom reinforces a pervasive elixir that systems engineering is sufficient in
the main as currently devised. And therefore, the effective instructional
strategy should be to continue with current materials and methods of presentation and practice. The warning signs of an inconsistency between
stakeholder purpose and the means and methods of systems engineering
have been visible and chronicled by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office for the last decade (GAO 2001, 2008, 2009b).
Holism
Systems engineering is used throughout this book to highlight, expose,
and example the application of the structures and concepts of integration.
Integration is a part of systems engineering as much as it is a part of all
disciplines, fields, and thinking. By applying the principles of holism † to promote metathinking (thinking in systems through interaction and integration),
isomorphisms ‡ build on the correspondences and similarities in form and
relations across disciplines (von Bertalanffy 1968, Finkelstein 1993), reductionism § is used to analyze and separate constituent elements, and perturbation helps identify nonlinearities in performance and results to quantify
losses (Taguchi 1986, Groah 2007). The principle of perturbation (that nonlinearities cause measureable loss) suggests that the nonlinearities of governance and work activities are indeed the realities of integration. And further,
that integration is inherently nonlinear helps answer the question as to why
the whole is equal to more than the mere summation of the parts. Systems
are inherently holistic, interacting in nonlinear fashion.
* The most annoying response!
† Holism is defined as the fundamental principle of a whole made up of parts, interconnected
parts that cannot exist independently without the whole. Systems are holistic, and since the
universe is made up of parts (interacting and integrated), the universe is holistic by its nature
and construct. This definition is by no means meant to trivialize a subject that in itself dominates the great thinkers and many lifetimes of scholarly works.
‡ Similarities in concepts or structures, objects or behaviors, all things and factors considered.
§ Systems engineers need to be wary of a strictly reductionist schema for systems engineering.
The holistic perspective is that of the system, not reductionistic schemas. “Western man
needs to balance his intense devotion to analytical reductionism with anasynthetic words
which link his success at reduction to needed successes in holism” (Troncale 1977 citing
Koestler and Symthies 1968).
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
requirements; and more emphasis on training in the practice of systems
engineering rather than educating for insights and research opportunities
have stifled creativity and innovation in the very people who have the predilection for such work. The illusion that tends to silence the cynics, contrarians,
and curmudgeons is that the demands of stakeholders would seem not to be
inherently evocative of structural difficulties in the practice of systems engineering. The “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality, or “It’s good enough”*
wisdom reinforces a pervasive elixir that systems engineering is sufficient in
the main as currently devised. And therefore, the effective instructional
strategy should be to continue with current materials and methods of presentation and practice. The warning signs of an inconsistency between
stakeholder purpose and the means and methods of systems engineering
have been visible and chronicled by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office for the last decade (GAO 2001, 2008, 2009b).
Holism
Systems engineering is used throughout this book to highlight, expose,
and example the application of the structures and concepts of integration.
Integration is a part of systems engineering as much as it is a part of all
disciplines, fields, and thinking. By applying the principles of holism † to promote metathinking (thinking in systems through interaction and integration),
isomorphisms ‡ build on the correspondences and similarities in form and
relations across disciplines (von Bertalanffy 1968, Finkelstein 1993), reductionism § is used to analyze and separate constituent elements, and perturbation helps identify nonlinearities in performance and results to quantify
losses (Taguchi 1986, Groah 2007). The principle of perturbation (that nonlinearities cause measureable loss) suggests that the nonlinearities of governance and work activities are indeed the realities of integration. And further,
that integration is inherently nonlinear helps answer the question as to why
the whole is equal to more than the mere summation of the parts. Systems
are inherently holistic, interacting in nonlinear fashion.
* The most annoying response!
† Holism is defined as the fundamental principle of a whole made up of parts, interconnected
parts that cannot exist independently without the whole. Systems are holistic, and since the
universe is made up of parts (interacting and integrated), the universe is holistic by its nature
and construct. This definition is by no means meant to trivialize a subject that in itself dominates the great thinkers and many lifetimes of scholarly works.
‡ Similarities in concepts or structures, objects or behaviors, all things and factors considered.
§ Systems engineers need to be wary of a strictly reductionist schema for systems engineering.
The holistic perspective is that of the system, not reductionistic schemas. “Western man
needs to balance his intense devotion to analytical reductionism with anasynthetic words
which link his success at reduction to needed successes in holism” (Troncale 1977 citing
Koestler and Symthies 1968).