319
Systems Integration Management
within the domain of validity for the variables on which the viability of the
object is predicted, is termed as the scalability. Scalability is not simply doing
more as the domain of interest increases. Scalability is not simply maintaining the same (or similar) relation between variables as the quantification of
these variables increase or decrease. And, scalability is not simply maintaining some semblance of fidelity as the variables change in either a decreasing
or an increasing manner. Scalability is the object’s adaptability as the
increases or decreases in the transformation of EMMI by its mechanism and
control in a manner that retains the same ratio of input to output regardless
of the amount of increase or decrease in EMMI. Scalability is the first question that should be asked. The second question is to determine which part of
an end-to-end sequence (i.e., system-level function) is the object a part of.
Since two objects comprise a subfunction, two objects (at a minimum) will be
working together to form a subfunction. Testing both functions over the
domains of a few variables within their specification limits does not expose
the pertinent patterns that necessarily reveal inconsistencies in scalability.
A convenient means of discovering patterns of inconsistency is to construct
an end-to-end threat. Why just one? Because one key thread of system-level
functionality establishes a baseline of operations that can be improved
through better performances, added to additional subfunctions that build
toward additional system-level functionalities, and carry with them the patterns that expose the constraints that impose limitations on scalability. The
third question that should be asked deals with the architecture that supports
all of the system-level threads. As designed, the system architecture provides various system resources to enact system functionalities. An equally
convenient way of thinking about the contributions of architecture is to envision the allocations of resources or the partitioning of resources. While
equivalent at the top level of thinking about the patterns to watch for, the
skills of the systems engineer vary considerably. Each systems engineering
speciality will view the patterns differently, depending on the observer’s
perspective, their skill set, and their experience. Asking the three questions
sensitizes the engineering staff to the issues of integration and not just passing the tests laid out for objects. Merely focusing on the iterations to improve
an object may have no impact on the issues of an object’s integrability with
other objects. One cannot presume that because an object passes one of its
tests, it can be integrated with another object. In fact, the discernable patterns
might show that scalability, the baseline for a basic thread of end-to-end system functionality, and a piece-wise contiguous means of bringing objects
together is far more efficient than any other means of integration. But the
ultimate test of thinking that must be done to complete systems engineering
and to complete systems integration is clearly different—as distinguished by
iterative versus recursive methods. If the answers to the three questions are
a resounding “no time to deal with future implications of what is being done
today to fix today’s problems,” the thinking is iterative—priorities placed on
changing whatever needs to be changed to pass a test. However, if the
Systems Integration Management
within the domain of validity for the variables on which the viability of the
object is predicted, is termed as the scalability. Scalability is not simply doing
more as the domain of interest increases. Scalability is not simply maintaining the same (or similar) relation between variables as the quantification of
these variables increase or decrease. And, scalability is not simply maintaining some semblance of fidelity as the variables change in either a decreasing
or an increasing manner. Scalability is the object’s adaptability as the
increases or decreases in the transformation of EMMI by its mechanism and
control in a manner that retains the same ratio of input to output regardless
of the amount of increase or decrease in EMMI. Scalability is the first question that should be asked. The second question is to determine which part of
an end-to-end sequence (i.e., system-level function) is the object a part of.
Since two objects comprise a subfunction, two objects (at a minimum) will be
working together to form a subfunction. Testing both functions over the
domains of a few variables within their specification limits does not expose
the pertinent patterns that necessarily reveal inconsistencies in scalability.
A convenient means of discovering patterns of inconsistency is to construct
an end-to-end threat. Why just one? Because one key thread of system-level
functionality establishes a baseline of operations that can be improved
through better performances, added to additional subfunctions that build
toward additional system-level functionalities, and carry with them the patterns that expose the constraints that impose limitations on scalability. The
third question that should be asked deals with the architecture that supports
all of the system-level threads. As designed, the system architecture provides various system resources to enact system functionalities. An equally
convenient way of thinking about the contributions of architecture is to envision the allocations of resources or the partitioning of resources. While
equivalent at the top level of thinking about the patterns to watch for, the
skills of the systems engineer vary considerably. Each systems engineering
speciality will view the patterns differently, depending on the observer’s
perspective, their skill set, and their experience. Asking the three questions
sensitizes the engineering staff to the issues of integration and not just passing the tests laid out for objects. Merely focusing on the iterations to improve
an object may have no impact on the issues of an object’s integrability with
other objects. One cannot presume that because an object passes one of its
tests, it can be integrated with another object. In fact, the discernable patterns
might show that scalability, the baseline for a basic thread of end-to-end system functionality, and a piece-wise contiguous means of bringing objects
together is far more efficient than any other means of integration. But the
ultimate test of thinking that must be done to complete systems engineering
and to complete systems integration is clearly different—as distinguished by
iterative versus recursive methods. If the answers to the three questions are
a resounding “no time to deal with future implications of what is being done
today to fix today’s problems,” the thinking is iterative—priorities placed on
changing whatever needs to be changed to pass a test. However, if the