Samuel F. Kovacic

System of systems engineering: an emerging multidiscipline

In this paper, we present System of Systems Engineering (SOSE) as a developing multidiscipline, spanning across and drawing from a variety of disciplines to address complex situations; situations are characterised by ambiguity, high uncertainty and emergence. This paper is organised to: (1) provide an assessment of the current state of SOSE field development, (2) suggest the nature of complex issues for which traditional approaches are falling short to include the corresponding challenges facing SOSE development, (3) describe two perspectives of the SOSE response to complex situations and (4) establish an emerging paradigm for SOSE as a multidiscipline based on current research. This paper concludes with the implications for further development of research and practice for SOSE.

Complex situations: An alternative approach for viewing a System of Systems

Inherent to system of systems (SOS) are wicked problems. This paper generalizes the characteristics of a wicked problem based on a practical example of a System of Systems. In 1994 the Department of Defense (DoD) set into motion a sequence of events that resulted in an unprecedented decision for change, the result of that decision was to standup the joint forces command. The decision carried with it a mandate to change more than processes and doctrine, but more fundamentally, to change how the military thinks and behaves; this decision created a wicked problem. The paper probes the limitations of analysis on a wicked problem going beyond the characteristics of the problem to explore the exacerbating phenomena of the wicked problem: perspective. The paper provides an alternative approach for viewing wicked problems and concludes that system of systems as a wicked problem require a paradigm that is able to deal with this perspective.

Research Agenda for Complex Situations

Abstract: System of systems engineering involves the attainment of desired outcomes by multiple, independent systems. The integration of independent systems forms a complex condition. The research agenda describes the scientists search for knowledge based on Epistemological, Ontological and Methodological facets. It does not demarcate understanding from knowledge nor allow for understanding to be the singular purview of any domain or perspective. The agenda complements traditional scientific approaches, and expands them to allow for multi-disciplinary methods. The paper identifies what is to be researched, how it to be studied, and what is sought from this research.

The National Centers for System of Systems Engineering: A Case Study on Shifting the Paradigm for System of Systems

Introduction Based on literature and interest encountered in practice, there is a clear and consistent increase in System of Systems Engineering (SOSE). SOSE is being used in organizations such as Lockheed Martin, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, and the Joint Forces Command, all providing a service or solution for complex, distributed problems. However, a quick scan of literature, publications, and websites show that the approaches being presented do not necessarily subscribe to a common theme or methodology for solving, or defi ning SOS type problems. For example:  Lockheed Martin (CIAD 2006) proposes a unifi ed discipline methodology that integrates the practitioners needed to provide SOS solutions.  Concurrent Technologies Corporation (www.sosece. org), that operates the System of Systems Center of Excellence, suggests that System of Systems Engineering is an emergent condition of Systems Engineering and builds on current techniques.  Joint Forces Command, Standing Joint Task Force (MECS report 2006) focus on System of System Analysis, which is used to defi ne service capabilities in the process of providing for a Joint Force capability.

Type III: 'The Theory of the Observer'

Just as the maestro creates harmony with the notes issued from the orchestra, we are able to exist in harmony even with our own diametrically opposed views of reality. In the world of engineering management one view provides us the necessary depth to articulate specifications for design, but, at the expense of understanding the whole. The other view provides us the necessary breadth to bind the limits of our requirements, but at the expense of saturating the design with unnecessary information. The duality of the two views creates paradoxical barriers that must be overcome. This paper explores historically the generalization of the two views, and describes the quandary of these views and their impact to the final solution. Additionally, the paper postulates that bridging or unifying the two views is unproductive, but a third view is possible, a view that actually exists by virtue of the two opposing views and acts as the catalyst for change regardless of the existence of the paradox. This third view, for the purpose of this paper will be labeled as type III, exist through harmony and as such is a condition of the first two views, yet is separate and distinct of both types. In this paper a thesis of the philosophical construct mat describes the type III worldview is provided.

Semantic Shift To Pragmatic Meaning In Shared Decision Making: Situation Theory Perspective

The way humans establish communication depends on the generation and conveyance of meaning. Linguistically, meaning in information is dependent on the meaning that is ascribed to signifiers in the context of the communication. These signifiers can include items such as words, phrases, signs, and symbols. Conveyance of meaning may, however, imprecise and prone to error. The meaning of information in communication may arise from a change in the context in which a signifier is placed (intrinsic), or a change in the paradigm with which the signifier and context are perceived (extrinsic). In simple situations, where paradigms are reconcilable, semantic shift is solely intrinsic. In complex situations, where differing paradigms will generally lead to irreconcilable perspectives (paradoxes and dualities); the semantic shift will be both intrinsic and extrinsic. Decisions are based on an individual’s (or individuals’ shared) understanding and understanding is in turn contingent on perspective. Decision making will, therefore, be affected by discrepancies in meaning. It is critical to understand the nature of the discrepancies where shared awareness is necessary to enable group decisions. The theoretical construct presented recognizes that (1) a semantic shift may be required where multiple perspectives based on different paradigms come into play and (2) a semantic shift may introduce error, inefficiency, noise or redundancy. Therefore, individual limits can be recognized via shared awareness, which can be studied with situation theory.

General taxonomy of system[ic] approaches for analysis and design

Taxonomy for the classification of systems or systemic approaches used in analysis and design is presented in this paper. The design of the classification is structured around an epistemological model of complexity where complexity is defined as a characteristic of a situation rather than an entity or domain. The intent of the taxonomy is to provide definition to the variety of fields that hold claim to the term systems, and to reduce this group into a set of meaningful related clusters. Although the applicability of the taxonomy has yet to be validated, some examples of its potential use are demonstrated. Finally, conclusions are drawn, including recommendations on further expansion to the taxonomy and research into its applicability.

Systems engineering: evolution and challenges

In this paper, we investigate the evolution of systems engineering using a framework developed for this purpose. Systems engineering was conceived to deal with complex problems and has evolved to address new challenges as they have emerged. The field has made advances in design capabilities and the process by which products are brought to realisation. It has worked at the limits of what is possible under an engineering governed paradigm. More challenges that involve extremely large, complex structures and networks include problems that supersede any form of design capability. The integration of a management-governed paradigm has become necessary. At this point, it is critical to map the future of systems engineering as a discipline that is capable of dealing with these new problems or can effectively limit itself to more traditional engineering undertakings.

The Gestalt Imperative: A Proposition for Understanding

With so many terms available to define the same thing, it would seem nearly irresponsible to introduce yet another term [complex situation] that appears to describe a phenomenological state such as a system. However, complex situation infers both a broader meaning and imposes a differing perspective. Complex in this context is dependent on understanding and reality rather than observer and knowledge, and Situation imposes a gestalt that cannot be characterized within a singular perspective that relegates paradox to a hierarchically imposed primacy where the “squeaky wheel” gets the attention. This also infers that complex situation has no monotonic definition or each attempt at a definition by a singular perspective is by default incomplete. Therefore the perennial derivations for system: complex systems, system of systems, federation of systems, stochastic, chaotic, dynamic etc.… are no longer a sufficient descriptor for complex situation. Ergo system and its genealogy lack the constitution to define complex situations. To wit, this paper provides the premise for a situation and describes the conditions that make it complex sufficiently for syncretic study by discipline(s) in the proposed field of complex situations.

Reverse Decision Making: An Interpretive Framework for Pragmatic Decision Making

Decision making in Engineering Management suffers from Mitroff’s Type III error; solving the wrong problem precisely, Mitroff (1998). Engineering Management requires a holistic interpretation of theory to provide for the diversity in decision making, often imposed by the pragmatic nature of the situation. As a multidisciplinary field Engineering Management challenges decision makers’ ability to explain phenomena within the aggregate of each individual disciplinary boundary. Whether the failure is from the intractable nature of the individual disciplines that make-up Engineering Management or through the efforts of integrating misaligned perspectives generated from each discipline, Engineering Management suffers from the ensuing uncertainty and complexity that challenge decision makers. It is assumed that there is sufficient overlap between the two disciplines to overcome any integration issues, however, the gaps are generally obscured rather than addressed by the overlap.