72
Engineering Systems Integration
engineering, and every other discipline and field that bring things together
with the purpose of relating the whole as more than its parts. Such a legitimate framework would help capture the essential ingredients of the systems
thinking. Yet, it is neither a multitude nor a family of frameworks that is
required for this role. A single, all-inclusive framework can be constructed in
which consistency and capaciousness are both conveyed and comprehensible.
However, if the framework was purely theoretical, it would tend to (1) cover
only a limited number of object classes and variability, or presumably lose its
relevance; (2) not necessarily enlighten the practice of systems thinking (or
systems engineering); and (3) ignore that which it could not explain. And if
the framework were particularly practical, (1) observables would appear
without implicating any tenet of causality; (2) there may be no context for
what one knows with regard to what one does not know (without reference to
pre-existing conditions); and (3) there may be no reliable means to plan actions
for that which one does not know in advance (assumptions must be all encompassing, therefore predetermining the answer by trivializing the problem).
The approach to developing a consistent, utilitarian framework is to apply
a few general principles (some from systems theory) to explain empirical
phenomena and then predict new behaviors that should be observable in all
systems. To that end, the focus is on descriptive measures that confirm our
normal thinking about concepts that help guide us through investigation
and interpretation of our actions. The commonly thought-of notions of investigation, management, research, construction, decision making, and analysis
should be enlightened by this framework that we tat. This framework should
make apparent the rationality, inference, or discrimination that is commensurate with our innate ability to explain, convey meaning, and carry out our
everyday tasks. The desired framework will reflect a combined theoretical
and practical presentation.
Frameworks are comprised of frames, each frame representing a set of concepts that together are a different perspective of the domains that make up
integration, that is, the defining objects and the interactions between objects.
For integration, those domains are (1) the processes that when enacted provide the guidance needed to bring objects together, and (2) the results of
those processes—the products or services that we desire as satisfaction of
our goal. The process domain governs the building of objects while the product (or service) domain is the result of those efforts to put parts together.
Process Frame
The model of the roles played by cognition, procedures, and representations
of cognition and procedures (herein referred to as models or representations)
within the process frame is representative of the management processes. The
model of the roles played by the physical, functional, and behavioral characteristics (of the user) within the product (or service) frame is the result of
the work to build the product or service. Both the process and product
Engineering Systems Integration
engineering, and every other discipline and field that bring things together
with the purpose of relating the whole as more than its parts. Such a legitimate framework would help capture the essential ingredients of the systems
thinking. Yet, it is neither a multitude nor a family of frameworks that is
required for this role. A single, all-inclusive framework can be constructed in
which consistency and capaciousness are both conveyed and comprehensible.
However, if the framework was purely theoretical, it would tend to (1) cover
only a limited number of object classes and variability, or presumably lose its
relevance; (2) not necessarily enlighten the practice of systems thinking (or
systems engineering); and (3) ignore that which it could not explain. And if
the framework were particularly practical, (1) observables would appear
without implicating any tenet of causality; (2) there may be no context for
what one knows with regard to what one does not know (without reference to
pre-existing conditions); and (3) there may be no reliable means to plan actions
for that which one does not know in advance (assumptions must be all encompassing, therefore predetermining the answer by trivializing the problem).
The approach to developing a consistent, utilitarian framework is to apply
a few general principles (some from systems theory) to explain empirical
phenomena and then predict new behaviors that should be observable in all
systems. To that end, the focus is on descriptive measures that confirm our
normal thinking about concepts that help guide us through investigation
and interpretation of our actions. The commonly thought-of notions of investigation, management, research, construction, decision making, and analysis
should be enlightened by this framework that we tat. This framework should
make apparent the rationality, inference, or discrimination that is commensurate with our innate ability to explain, convey meaning, and carry out our
everyday tasks. The desired framework will reflect a combined theoretical
and practical presentation.
Frameworks are comprised of frames, each frame representing a set of concepts that together are a different perspective of the domains that make up
integration, that is, the defining objects and the interactions between objects.
For integration, those domains are (1) the processes that when enacted provide the guidance needed to bring objects together, and (2) the results of
those processes—the products or services that we desire as satisfaction of
our goal. The process domain governs the building of objects while the product (or service) domain is the result of those efforts to put parts together.
Process Frame
The model of the roles played by cognition, procedures, and representations
of cognition and procedures (herein referred to as models or representations)
within the process frame is representative of the management processes. The
model of the roles played by the physical, functional, and behavioral characteristics (of the user) within the product (or service) frame is the result of
the work to build the product or service. Both the process and product