38
Engineering Systems Integration
preponderance of the effects contained within. Alternatively, one could think
of the boundedness as those characteristics as not contained in the bounded
domain. Yet this boundary presumes or ignores the significance of (the circumstances that arise when boundaries are permeable to energy, matter,
material wealth, or information that enters a bounded domain and interacts
with object(s) within that bounded domain) that which “bleeds” through (or
enacts across) the boundary. The intended and often times prevailing assumption is that the bleed-through influences or phenomena are minor or insignificant. Therefore, bleed-throughs are thought to be ignorable for the “practical”
purposes of inquiry or engineering of products. It is exactly this somewhat
ill-advised disregard for the consequences of boundaries that confounds the
development and operations of systems. Problems arise when developing
products and services when the key stakeholders realize that the requirements need revision, additions, or deletions. Such requirement changes are
most disruptive for schedules and can add significantly to the costs of development. The greatest impact on cost and schedule is realized, the further into
the development that changes are made. In a significant part, it is this boundary that presents itself as the demarcation for observing patterns, behaviors,
and properties. And, it is this boundary that we find enigmatic, whether
ascertained as a limit of concern or as determined by fiat. In the case of our
universe it is surmised that “the boundary becomes indistinguishable from
its contents” (Schiller 2009).
The arbitrariness of demarcation between things poses two problems for
defining a system. First, the impacts of consequential bleed-throughs across
demarcations may invalidate any preference or benefit imparted by an
imposed isolation. That preference may be for convenience, expediency, or
desirability (e.g., analysis may be easier). The consequences of a subjective or
capricious decision about boundaries may introduce a randomness (or limitation) that increases the error in both the precision and accuracy of knowledge needed to design a product or service. Second, the ascertainment of
patterns, behaviors, and properties is dependent on perspective. The perspective of the designer, the user, the customer, and other key stakeholders
will at first be different. Within the boundaries of an entity (if such a concept
has meaning), the observation of patterns will be different inside the domain
of the product or service than that from an external vantage point. What may
appear as dependencies that presage or present as patterns, behaviors, or
properties may be dependent on other factors unobservable from the perspective of the observer. The result could be false data, erroneous information, misleading analysis, and theory in conflict with information. The
perspective from which one examines an object or process with respect to its
boundaries (observer view) will determine the kind and quality of data
obtained and how the information is interpreted.
We can rationalize an idealized boundary that demarks platonic objects
and process so as to avoid the problems of arbitrary demarcation by instead
posing a condition by which the boundary might circumvent the problems
Engineering Systems Integration
preponderance of the effects contained within. Alternatively, one could think
of the boundedness as those characteristics as not contained in the bounded
domain. Yet this boundary presumes or ignores the significance of (the circumstances that arise when boundaries are permeable to energy, matter,
material wealth, or information that enters a bounded domain and interacts
with object(s) within that bounded domain) that which “bleeds” through (or
enacts across) the boundary. The intended and often times prevailing assumption is that the bleed-through influences or phenomena are minor or insignificant. Therefore, bleed-throughs are thought to be ignorable for the “practical”
purposes of inquiry or engineering of products. It is exactly this somewhat
ill-advised disregard for the consequences of boundaries that confounds the
development and operations of systems. Problems arise when developing
products and services when the key stakeholders realize that the requirements need revision, additions, or deletions. Such requirement changes are
most disruptive for schedules and can add significantly to the costs of development. The greatest impact on cost and schedule is realized, the further into
the development that changes are made. In a significant part, it is this boundary that presents itself as the demarcation for observing patterns, behaviors,
and properties. And, it is this boundary that we find enigmatic, whether
ascertained as a limit of concern or as determined by fiat. In the case of our
universe it is surmised that “the boundary becomes indistinguishable from
its contents” (Schiller 2009).
The arbitrariness of demarcation between things poses two problems for
defining a system. First, the impacts of consequential bleed-throughs across
demarcations may invalidate any preference or benefit imparted by an
imposed isolation. That preference may be for convenience, expediency, or
desirability (e.g., analysis may be easier). The consequences of a subjective or
capricious decision about boundaries may introduce a randomness (or limitation) that increases the error in both the precision and accuracy of knowledge needed to design a product or service. Second, the ascertainment of
patterns, behaviors, and properties is dependent on perspective. The perspective of the designer, the user, the customer, and other key stakeholders
will at first be different. Within the boundaries of an entity (if such a concept
has meaning), the observation of patterns will be different inside the domain
of the product or service than that from an external vantage point. What may
appear as dependencies that presage or present as patterns, behaviors, or
properties may be dependent on other factors unobservable from the perspective of the observer. The result could be false data, erroneous information, misleading analysis, and theory in conflict with information. The
perspective from which one examines an object or process with respect to its
boundaries (observer view) will determine the kind and quality of data
obtained and how the information is interpreted.
We can rationalize an idealized boundary that demarks platonic objects
and process so as to avoid the problems of arbitrary demarcation by instead
posing a condition by which the boundary might circumvent the problems