Kahlen / Flumerfelt / Alves Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems

New Findings and Approaches
1. Auflage 2017
ISBN: 978-3-319-38756-7
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 334 Seiten

This book presents an internationally comprehensive perspective into the field of complex systems.  It explores the challenges of and approaches to complexity from a broad range of disciplines, including big data, health care, medicine, mathematics, mechanical and systems engineering, air traffic control and finance.  The book's interdisciplinary character allows readers to identify transferable and mutually exclusive lessons learned among these disciplines and beyond.  As such, it is well suited to the transfer of applications and methodologies between ostensibly incompatible disciplines.  This book provides fresh perspectives on comparable issues of complexity from the top minds on systems thinking.     

Franz-Josef Kahlen founded his company Kahlen Global Professional Solutions in 2015, focusing on complexity management and competency development.  His main research interests are in the areas of Manufacturing and Operational Excellence, Lean and Systems Engineering, Project Management, Competency Development, and the evolution of Engineering Professional Practice.  Before returning to private industry, he was an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Cape Town, South Africa.  He has extensive industry experience in printing, disk drive, biomedical, optics, healthcare service delivery, telecom and several other industries with a customer base in Asia, Europe, US, and Australia.  He is author/co-author of ca. 60 publications, and is asked regularly to present keynotes and invited presentations at conferences. Shannon Flumerfelt is a tenured Associate Professor of Organizational Leadership at Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA. She is also an Endowed Professor of Lean and the Director of Lean Thinking for Schools at The Pawley Lean Institute at Oakland University and holds a PhD in leadership. She has pioneered the CX Framework, a transformative tool that promotes lean and systems thinking applications in organizations. Dr. Flumerfelt is the founder of a lean consultancy, training/coaching and analytics firm and she has worked widely in government service and education organizations.  She has published numerous scholarly and practitioner publications, including books such as, Lean Essentials for School Leaders and Lean Essentials: Transforming the Way We Do Business. She speaks and trains widely on the topics of lean, organizational development, management practices and leadership development. Anabela C. Alves is a tenured Assistant Professor at the Department of Production and Systems/School of Engineering/University of Minho. She holds a PhD in Production and Systems Engineering, being affiliated with the Centre ALGORITMI. Her main research interests are in the areas of Production Systems Design and Operation, Lean Manufacturing, Production Planning and Control, Project Management and Engineering Education, with particular interest in active learning methodologies such as Project/Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Lean Education. She is author/coauthor of more than 100 publications in international journals, conferences publications or communications, including the editions of conference proceedings, book chapters and books.. 

Autoren/Hrsg.

Kahlen, Franz-Josef

Flumerfelt, Shannon

Alves, Anabela

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Foreword;6
2;Preface;8
3;Contents;10
4;Mathematical Characterization of System-of-Systems Attributes;12
4.1;1 Introduction;12
4.2;2 Background: Review of Attributes and Taxonomy;14
4.3;3 Discussion: Development of System Attribute Characteristic Expressions;17
4.3.1;3.1 Objectives of the Present Development;17
4.3.2;3.2 Premise;18
4.3.3;3.3 Principles of Systems Theory;18
4.3.4;3.4 Autonomy;19
4.3.5;3.5 Systems of Systems;20
4.3.6;3.6 Diversity;20
4.3.7;3.7 Connectivity;21
4.3.8;3.8 Belonging;22
4.4;4 Discussion: Belonging in the National Airspace System: A Practical Example;24
4.5;5 Foundations for Future Work: Our Understanding of Complex Systems;27
4.5.1;5.1 The Critical Role of Emergence;27
4.5.2;5.2 Epistemology Versus Ontology;30
4.6;6 Conclusions;31
4.7;7 Addendum: An Additional Example from the First Responder System;33
4.8;References;34
5;So It´s Complex, Why Do I Care?;36
5.1;1 Introduction;36
5.1.1;1.1 The Rising Cost of Aerospace Systems with Complexity;38
5.1.2;1.2 What to Do About Complexity;40
5.2;2 Complexity;40
5.2.1;2.1 A Survey of Complexity Definitions;40
5.2.2;2.2 The Consequences of Complexity;42
5.3;3 Ideas to Build on;45
5.3.1;3.1 Process of Design and Design of Process;47
5.3.2;3.2 The Cynefin Framework;48
5.3.3;3.3 Agile Development;52
5.3.4;3.4 Risk and Uncertainty;54
5.4;4 Common Threads;55
5.4.1;4.1 Implications of Complexity Definitions;55
5.4.2;4.2 Recommendations;55
5.5;5 Summary;57
5.6;References;58
6;Designer Systems of Systems: A Rational Integrated Approach of System Engineering to Tailored Aerodynamics, Aeroelasticity, Ae...;60
6.1;1 Introduction;60
6.2;2 General Considerations;63
6.3;3 System Engineering Influence on Designer SoS: Flight Vehicle Synthesis and Analysis;64
6.4;4 Identification of Systems, State Variables, Parameters, Constraints, etc.;66
6.4.1;4.1 Materials and Structures;66
6.4.2;4.2 Aerodynamics;68
6.4.3;4.3 Propulsion, Stability and Control, etc.;68
6.5;5 Designer SoS Analysis: A Generalized System Engineered Synthesis Case;68
6.6;6 Designer/Tailored/Engineered SoS Protocol;71
6.7;7 Structural/Material/Sizing Examples;72
6.8;8 A FGM Manufactured to Order;75
6.9;9 Cause and Effect: A Brief Case Study of a Structural Weight Change;76
6.10;10 Probability of Failure, Redundancies and Weghing Functions;76
6.11;11 Approaches to SoS Cost Estimation;77
6.11.1;11.1 Components of Cost;77
6.11.2;11.2 Approaches to Cost Estimation;78
6.11.3;11.3 Cost Functions in Economics;78
6.11.4;11.4 Specification of Cost Functions;79
6.12;12 Discussion;81
6.13;13 Future Expansions to Entire Vehicles: Designer SoS;84
6.14;14 Conclusions;85
6.15;References;86
7;Digital Twin: Mitigating Unpredictable, Undesirable Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems;96
7.1;1 Introduction;96
7.2;2 Conventional Approaches and Current Issues;97
7.2.1;2.1 Defining Complex Systems;97
7.2.2;2.2 Complex Systems and Associated Problems;98
7.2.3;2.3 Defining Emergence and Emergent Behavior;100
7.2.4;2.4 Four Categories of System Behavior;101
7.2.5;2.5 Emergence, Emergent Behavior, and the Product Lifecycle;102
7.3;3 The Digital Twin Concept;103
7.3.1;3.1 Origins of the Digital Twin Concept;104
7.3.2;3.2 Defining the Digital Twin;105
7.3.3;3.3 The Digital Twin Model Throughout the Lifecycle;106
7.3.4;3.4 System Engineering Models and the Digital Twin;109
7.3.5;3.5 The Digital Twin and Big Data;111
7.4;4 Value of the Digital Twin Model;112
7.4.1;4.1 Evaluating Virtual Systems;114
7.4.2;4.2 Virtuality Test Progress;116
7.4.2.1;4.2.1 Visual Tests;116
7.4.2.2;4.2.2 Performance Tests;116
7.4.2.3;4.2.3 Reflectivity Tests;118
7.5;5 Digital Twin Obstacles and Possibilities;118
7.5.1;5.1 Obstacles;119
7.5.2;5.2 Possibilities;120
7.6;6 A NASA Approach to the Digital Twin;121
7.7;7 Conclusion;122
7.8;References;123
8;Managing Systems Complexity Through Congruence;125
8.1;1 Introduction;125
8.2;2 Background and Motivation for Better Systems Management;126
8.2.1;2.1 Systems and People;126
8.2.2;2.2 Systems Defined;128
8.2.3;2.3 Organizational Learning and Systems Management;131
8.2.4;2.4 System Congruence of Organizational Thinking and Doing;132
8.2.5;2.5 Testing Congruence Through System Metrics;135
8.3;3 The CX Tool;136
8.3.1;3.1 The Need for the CX Tool;136
8.3.2;3.2 The CX Tool and Continuous Improvement;136
8.3.3;3.3 The CX Tool Design and Method;137
8.4;4 Case Studies of the CX Tool;140
8.4.1;4.1 Midwestern University Tier 1 CX Tool Case Studies;140
8.4.2;4.2 Northwest Pacific University Tier 2 CX Tool Case Studies;141
8.5;5 Conclusion;147
8.6;Appendix: The CX Tool;148
8.6.1;Description of the CX Tool;148
8.6.2;Directions for the CX Tool;149
8.6.3;Definitions for the CX Tool;150
8.6.3.1;Two System Areas;150
8.6.3.2;Six System Elements;150
8.6.3.2.1;Organizational Intelligence;150
8.6.3.2.2;Performance Management;150
8.6.3.3;Three Congruence Metrics;151
8.7;References;151
9;Additive Manufacturing: A Trans-disciplinary Experience;155
9.1;1 General Principles of Additive Manufacturing;155
9.1.1;1.1 Overview of Additive Manufacturing;155
9.1.2;1.2 Systems in AM;156
9.1.3;1.3 The Bigger Picture;157
9.2;2 Defining the Disciplines: Design, Materials, Processes, Qualification;158
9.2.1;2.1 AM Design;158
9.2.2;2.2 Materials;160
9.2.3;2.3 Process;161
9.2.4;2.4 Qualification;162
9.3;3 Exploring the Interactions: Systems Principles in AM;164
9.3.1;3.1 The Digital Spectrum;164
9.3.2;3.2 The Design Phase;167
9.3.2.1;3.2.1 Designing Simple Parts;167
9.3.2.2;3.2.2 Designing Complex Parts;168
9.3.3;3.3 Process Planning Phases;169
9.3.3.1;3.3.1 Process Planning and Part Geometry Models;170
9.3.3.2;3.3.2 Process Parameters and Material Properties;170
9.3.4;3.4 AM Process Control;172
9.3.4.1;3.4.1 How Does It Work;172
9.3.4.2;3.4.2 Process Control and Modeling;172
9.3.5;3.5 AM Qualification;173
9.4;4 Beyond the Plant Floor: The Tran-disciplinary Nature of AM;174
9.4.1;4.1 In the Lab;175
9.4.2;4.2 In the Field;176
9.4.3;4.3 The Maker Movement;177
9.4.4;4.4 At the Core;178
9.5;5 Systems for Trans-disciplinary Perspectives in AM: Moving Forward;179
9.6;6 Conclusion;180
9.7;References;181
10;Expanding Sociotechnical Systems Theory Through the Trans-disciplinary Lens of Complexity Theory;186
10.1;1 Introduction;186
10.2;2 Background: Early Research from the Sociotechnical Systems Perspective;187
10.3;3 Human and Social Behavioral Challenges to Organizational Design and Performance;190
10.4;4 The Organization as an Open System: Setting the Stage for Normal Accidents;194
10.5;5 New Methodological Approaches to Address Sociotechnical Complexity;196
10.6;6 Conclusion;199
10.7;References;199
11;On Complementarity and the Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach in Addressing Emerging Global Health Issues;202
11.1;1 Introduction;202
11.2;2 On Perspectives in Complex Problems;204
11.3;3 Emerging Diseases;205
11.4;4 Viewing the Outbreak of Emerging Diseases Through an Engineering Lens;206
11.5;5 Viewing the Outbreak of Emerging Diseases Through a Global Health Lens;208
11.6;6 Viewing the Outbreak of Emerging Diseases Through an Education Lens;210
11.7;7 A Framework for Uniting Disparate Perspectives Through a Transdisciplinary Perspective;213
11.8;8 Illustrative Example;214
11.8.1;8.1 Examining the Ebola Virus Disease through an Engineering Lens;214
11.8.2;8.2 Examining the Ebola Virus Disease through a Global Health Lens;215
11.8.3;8.3 Examining the Ebola Virus Disease through an Education Lens;216
11.8.4;8.4 Examining CMs Across Disciplines;217
11.9;9 Conclusions;218
11.10;References;219
12;On the Perception of Complexity and Its Implications;222
12.1;1 Executive Summary;222
12.2;2 Chapter Roadmap;224
12.3;3 On Complexity and the Deep-Rooted Assumption;224
12.3.1;3.1 On Complexity in System Design;225
12.3.2;3.2 On the Change-Prevention System and the Deep-Rooted ``Big Assumption´´ of the System Design Community;228
12.3.2.1;3.2.1 On the Change-Prevention System;228
12.3.2.2;3.2.2 Historical Example: The Geocentric Solar System Model;230
12.3.2.3;3.2.3 Synthesis: The System Design Community´s Deep-Rooted ``Big Assumption´´;231
12.3.3;3.3 On a Comparative Study Approach to Assess the Validity of the Deep-Rooted Assumption;233
12.3.3.1;3.3.1 A Normative Comparative Study Approach;234
12.3.3.2;3.3.2 On the Consequences of the Assessment of the Deep-Rooted Assumption;235
12.4;4 Framework for the Normative Comparative Study to Assess the Validity of the Deep-Rooted Assumption;236
12.4.1;4.1 The Evaluation Criteria;236
12.4.1.1;4.1.1 Generalizing the Intent of Systems Design;236
12.4.1.2;4.1.2 Understanding Facilitation to Meet the Intent of Systems Design;237
12.4.1.3;4.1.3 Deriving the Minimally Sufficient Form of Design Approach and Its Success Criteria;237
12.4.1.4;4.1.4 Deriving the Minimally Sufficient Form of Design Solution and It Success Criteria;238
12.4.2;4.2 The Basis of Similarity: A Viewpoint Pattern Directed Toward Meeting the Intent of System Design;238
12.4.3;4.3 Defining and Applying the Prevailing Viewpoint;240
12.4.3.1;4.3.1 Querying the Prevailing Viewpoint;240
12.4.3.2;4.3.2 On the Form of the Design Approach Within the Prevailing Viewpoint;240
12.4.3.3;4.3.3 On the Form of the Design Solution Within the Prevailing Viewpoint;243
12.4.4;4.4 Defining and Applying the Alternative Viewpoint;243
12.4.4.1;4.4.1 Defining the Alternative Viewpoint;243
12.4.4.2;4.4.2 On the Form of the Design Approach Within the Alternative Viewpoint;245
12.4.4.3;4.4.3 On the Form of the Design Solution Within the Alternative Viewpoint;249
12.5;5 Comparative Study of the Viewpoints to Facilitate System Design;250
12.5.1;5.1 Comparative Analysis of the Viewpoints and Their General Forms;250
12.5.1.1;5.1.1 Agreement with Comparative Study Evaluation Criteria: Disposition Towards Meeting Intent;250
12.5.1.1.1;The Prevailing Viewpoint;250
12.5.1.1.2;The Alternative Viewpoint;251
12.5.1.2;5.1.2 Agreement with Comparative Study Evaluation Criteria: Assurance;252
12.5.1.2.1;General Form of the Prevailing Viewpoint;252
12.5.1.2.1.1;Conditions for Sufficiency or Insufficiency to Satisfy Criteria and Meet Intent;253
12.5.1.2.2;General Form of the Alternative Viewpoint;254
12.5.1.2.2.1;Conditions for Sufficiency or Insufficiency to Satisfy Criteria and Meet Intent;255
12.5.1.3;5.1.3 On the Agreement with Comparative Study Evaluation Criteria: Correct and Complete;256
12.5.1.3.1;General Form of the Prevailing Viewpoint;256
12.5.1.3.2;The General Form of the Alternative Viewpoint;257
12.5.2;5.2 Assessment of the Validity of the Deep-Rooted Assumption;258
12.5.2.1;5.2.1 On the Validity of the Deep-Rooted Assumption;258
12.5.2.2;5.2.2 On the Nature of Complexity in System Design;259
12.5.2.3;5.2.3 On the Viewpoints and Their Relationships;259
12.5.2.4;5.2.4 On the Potential for Additional Viewpoints;260
12.6;6 Suppositions Concerning the Evolution of the Observed Misalignment;261
12.6.1;6.1 On the Trajectory of Growing Misalignment;262
12.6.1.1;6.1.1 A Brief History of Technology Development;262
12.6.1.1.1;Level 1: Passive Extension Development;262
12.6.1.1.2;Level 2: Amplifying Extension Development;263
12.6.1.1.3;Level 3: Collaborative Extension Development;263
12.6.1.2;6.1.2 On the Emergence of the ``Craftsman´´ Mentality;264
12.6.1.3;6.1.3 On Comprehension of Natural Systems and the Perception of Complexity;265
12.6.1.4;6.1.4 Brief Summary of Evidence in Support of Suppositions;266
12.6.2;6.2 On Two Potentially Harmful Mental Constructs for ``Complex´´ System Design;268
12.6.2.1;6.2.1 Systems Are Defined by Boundaries;268
12.6.2.2;6.2.2 Systems Have Emergent Behavior;271
12.7;7 The Path Forward;272
12.7.1;7.1 Principles and Practices to Improve Alignment;273
12.7.1.1;7.1.1 Coupling and Cohesion Principles;273
12.7.1.2;7.1.2 Proper Sufficiency Principle;274
12.7.1.3;7.1.3 The Surgeon Principle;274
12.7.2;7.2 Concluding Remarks;275
12.8;References;276
13;Early Phase Estimation of Variety Induced Complexity Cost Effects: A Study on Industrial Cases in Germany;279
13.1;1 Variety Induced Complexity: Causes and Effects;279
13.1.1;1.1 Complexity Is Induced by Different Causes;279
13.1.2;1.2 The Challenges of Individualization and Globalization in Mechanical and Plant Engineering;280
13.1.3;1.3 Trans-disciplinary Complexity Cost Effects;280
13.2;2 Scientific Contributions on Reducing Internal Variety;281
13.2.1;2.1 Complexity Management and Variant Management;281
13.2.2;2.2 Development of Modular Product Families and Platforms;282
13.2.3;2.3 Complexity Cost Analysis;283
13.3;3 Hypotheses on the Reduction of Variety Induced Complexity Cost;284
13.4;4 Industrial Application of the Integrated PKT-Approach for Developing Modular Product Families;285
13.4.1;4.1 General Means to Enable Industrial Application;285
13.4.2;4.2 As Is Analysis;286
13.4.3;4.3 Product Program Integration;288
13.4.4;4.4 Design for Variety;289
13.4.5;4.5 Life Phases Modularization;291
13.4.6;4.6 Complexity Cost Effect Estimation;292
13.5;5 Insights on the Nature of Variety Induced Complexity Cost: Industrial Cases;294
13.5.1;5.1 Hypothesis 1: Modularization Is a Useful Approach to Reduce Complexity Cost;294
13.5.2;5.2 Hypothesis 2: Modularization Can Influence Production Cost Positively or Negatively;295
13.5.3;5.3 Hypothesis 3: Modular Concepts Show Different Cost Effects in Different Disciplines;297
13.5.4;5.4 Hypothesis 4: The Cost Effects of Modularization Depend on the Lot Size and Are Thus Different for Different Segments and ...;298
13.5.5;5.5 Resulting Need for Improvement;299
13.6;6 Proposal for a Method to Estimate Trans-disciplinary Complexity Cost of Modular Concepts;299
13.6.1;6.1 Factors to Be Reconsidered for a Trans-disciplinary Complexity Cost Estimation;300
13.6.2;6.2 Enhanced Breakeven Analysis of Complexity Cost;301
13.6.3;6.3 Product Life Induced Complexity Cost;302
13.6.4;6.4 Holistic Approach for an Early Phase Estimation of Complexity Cost;304
13.6.5;6.5 Discussion of the Proposed EPECC Approach;305
13.7;7 Success Factors of Modularization in Branches and Segments with High Lot Sizes;306
13.8;8 Success Factors of Modularization in Branches and Segments with Low Lot Sizes;306
13.8.1;8.1 Modularization Factors for Plant Engineering;306
13.8.2;8.2 Modularization Factors for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises;307
13.9;9 Summary and Conclusion;308
13.10;References;310
14;Problem Solving and Increase of Ideality of Complex Systems;312
14.1;1 Introduction;312
14.2;2 Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ);314
14.3;3 Complex Systems Problem Solving in Trans-disciplinary Context;316
14.4;4 Law of Systems Evolution and Ideality of Complex Systems;325
14.5;5 Case Study: Ideality and Problem Solving of a Process for Complex Projects Management;329
14.6;6 Case Study: Ideality and Application of Ideality Matrix to a Complex Product Problem Solving;332
14.7;7 Conclusions;333
14.8;References;333