IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
A Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering
(CASE) Methodology—The Ten-Year Update
B. E. White, Ph.D.
See Notes Page
Tuesday p.m., 18 April 2016
Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress Hotel
Copyright 2016 by Brian E. White. 1 4/14/2016
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL 4/14/2016 2
• Acronyms – CASE: Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering
– CS: Complex System – CSE: Complex Systems Engineering
– ESE: Enterprise Systems Engineering
– M&S: Modeling and Simulation
– SE: Systems Engineering
– SEA: Systems Engineering Activity
– SoS: System of Systems
– SoSE: System of Systems Engineering
– SSM: Soft Systems Methodology
• Statement of Objectives
• CASE Methodology – Advocate Workable Methodology
– Apply CASE Specifically to SoSE
– 25 Interrelated Activities
• References
Outline of Talk
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• A workable methodology is imperative in any
effective CSE framework.
• CSE, ESE, and SoSE theories are in early stages.
• We need to try them out in practice to see how well they work.
• Feedback from experience in CSE informs the theory.
• CSE theory will be refined by instituting lessons learned.
(Gorod et al. 2015)
3
Statement of Objectives (1/2) –
Advocate Workable Methodology
3 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• This latest version of the CASE is the most extensive so far. (especially compared to the original flow chart shown below; see next chart)
• Particular attention is paid to SoSE terms because of recent
popular emphasis on SoSs.
• Typical SoS instances are illustrated when citing examples of
specific CASE activities.
4 4/14/2016
Statement of Objectives (2/2) –
Apply CASE Specifically to SoSE
Legend: Segments that are on
The Main Path
An Alternative Path
Architect a
Strategy
2Create Climate
for Change
1
Reward Results
4Target Outcome
Spaces
3
Formulate
Decision-Making
Heuristics
5
Stimulate Natural
Processes
6
Assess, Learn,
and Re-Plan
8
Develop in
Operational
Environs
7
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
CASE (White 2015b) Systemigram (Boardman and Sauser 2008)
1b(Persistent)
Problem
2cStakeholders
3dIncentiveStructures
1aMindsights
4bArchitecture
4aSelf-OrganizedCollaborations
6a Behaviors of
PrimaryAlternatives
3b System Boundary
2dDesirableOutcomeSpaces
5b Potential
Approaches
2aOpportunities
and Risks
5a Specific
Interventions
5cDecisionTakers
3cAnti-Fragility
6b Users
6cAppropriate
Actions
9aIncrementalCapabilities
7 What
Happens
8 Results
9bLessonsLearned
10b Contributors
10aProgress
11Continued
Effort?
2bOrganizational
Efforts
3a Team andResources
Are Evaluatedand Dealt WithAppropriately
Are Postulated
AreChanged
Is BetterUnderstood
Is Decided
AreBrainstormed,Evaluated, and
Selected
Is Established
AreBalanced
AreStimulated
Are Helped WithHeuristics
IsMeasured
Are AssessedCollaboratively
Are Instilled
Is PublicizedIs Renewed Iteratively
Are Rewarded forUseful Results
Are Taken
AreProposed
Are Analyzed,Modeled, and
Simulated
Are Added toComplex System
IncludesIdentifying
IncludesConsidering
IncludesSharing
Information,Building Trust,
Competiton, andCooperation
AreAdjusted
IncludesLeadership
CreatingSelf-Organized,
Bottom-Up
IncludesMounting
Build
Encourage
ConveysFlexibleAttitudes
EmbracingMultiple
Perspectives
MayInclude
New
IncludesLeaders TakingInformed Risks
to PursuePromising
Opportunities
IncludesAnticipating Black
Swans andEncouraging Small
Pertubations
Is Created
IncludesEmbracing
Practitioners
Are ExperimentedWith Safely
Includes Observing
IncludesRecognition of
Includes LeadershipEstablishing Vision and Mission
IncludesCreation of
EffectiveMeasures and
Efficient Metrics
Includes InvolvingTeam Representation
to Consider
IncludesImpact ofEmergingEvents On
IncludesAgent-Based
ModelingConcepts
IncludesMore M&S?
Includes RespectingTime Delays
Preliminaries Positive Aspects(White 2015b)
Complex Adaptivce SystemEngineering (CASE) Methodology
People Involved Neutral AspectsRoutine ActionsCreative Aspects
5 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
CASE Methodology* (1/27) Various Activities
4/14/2016 6
1a - Changing mindsights
1b - Understanding persistent problem
2a - Balancing opportunities and risks
2b - Mounting organizational efforts
2c - Evaluating stakeholders
2d - Postulating desirable outcome spaces
3a - Building team and resources
3b - Deciding system boundary
3c - Creating anti-fragility
3d - Adjusting incentive structures
4a - Stimulating self-organized collaborations
4b - Establishing architecture
*(White 2010c) (White 2009) (White 2008)
(White 2008a); developed for (White 2015b)
5a - Proposing specific interventions
5b - Brainstorming potential approaches
5c - Helping decision takers
6a - Modeling and simulating behaviors
6b - Experimenting with users
6c - Taking appropriate actions
7 - Measuring what happens
8 - Assessing results
9a - Adding incremental capabilities
9b - Instituting lessons learned
10a - Publicizing progress
10b - Rewarding contributors for useful results
11 - Renewing continued effort?
There is insufficient time to discuss these here.
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
CASE Methodology (2/27) –
1a - Changing Mindsights
• A proper mindsight is helpful in complex
domains and in practicing SoSE.
• Traditional SE mindsets* focused on
requirements, reductionism, optimization,
etc., do not work with CSs.
• Mindsight is conveys a more flexible attitude
that embraces multiple perspectives.
• Self-organized collaborations yield a much better
understanding of the problem and what to do about it.
__________
* “Mindsights” is a better word (Hawn 2011, p. xiv).
7 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• In Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) understanding the problem is a primary goal.
• Each level of understanding triggers intervening action.
• Problem understanding is a continual process that is re-exercised after observing each result.
• In SoSs reaching mutual understanding, among component system organizations is not easy.
• This collaboration warrants extra effort in establishing sustainable SoS mechanisms and pathways for this purpose.
CASE Methodology (3/27) –
1b - Understanding Persistent Problem
8 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Traditional SE focuses on risk mitigation.
• With CSs it is all about opportunities.
• But pursue opportunities only with informed risk.
• Reward those that seek improvements this way.
• Protect against Black Swans (Taleb 2007) and stimulate anti-fragile development (Taleb 2012).
• Risks can lead to opportunities and vice versa.
• Balance risks and opportunities.
• Reasonable balance between all competing factors, not separate sub-optimizations, is fundamental in SoSE.
• Ensure SoS adaptability in advance with a management process for the unexpected.
CASE Methodology (4/27) –
2a - Balancing Opportunities and Risks
System of Systems View
Systems View
Enterprise View
Risk
Risk
Opportunity
Opportunity
UnknownUn-assessable
Uncertainty
9 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
CASE Methodology (5/27) – 2b - Mounting Organizational Efforts
• Simple problems can often be addressed by individual efforts on a more or less ad hoc basis.
• More often than not, complex problems require additional effort, usually of an organizational variety, typically involving multiple organizations.
• Good leaders, faced with serious problems, are able to envision, formulate, negotiate, and eventually obtain buy-in participation from relevant organizations, including their own, that can potentially contribute to problem solutions.
• Initial goals include creation of an inter- organizational structure that is flexible and resilient enough to assure, to extent possible, continual effort from each organization involved.
10 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• There are certainly many stakeholders in a typical SoS, not only because of the SoS level and environment participants but also due to those involved with the component systems.
• As with simpler systems it is advisable to – Identify – Assess – Evaluate
all the key stakeholders to determine who will – Assist – Resist – Oppose – Just need to be informed of the
o Effort
o Progress.
• Those stakeholders that are – Supportive must be continually nurtured – Against the effort must be
o Neutralized
o Marginalized.
• Clearly – Psychology – Sociology – Organizational change management – Politics – Economics – Ethics – Morality
are relevant trans-disciplines that need to be applied.
CASE Methodology (6/27) –
2c - Evaluating Stakeholders
11 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• One of the initial tasks of the SoS leadership is to
establish an overall vision or mission (for military
SoS) for the SoSE team.
• This should be something that – Is compelling
– Can be internalized
to motivate and enable daily personal assessments
as to the extent common-cause contributions have been made.
• Early on the team must establish desirable outcome spaces and
measures so that it will be clear whether postulated solutions
developed later fit into at least one of these spaces.
• At this stage it is premature to focus on specific solutions and their
possible outcomes.
• As the SoSE effort proceeds, these outcome spaces need to be
continually adjusted in a fashion analogous to a vehicle’s headlights
in moving down a road; one does not want to be so – Narrow as to miss opportunities for good solutions
– Wide that the solution challenge is far too great.
CASE Methodology (7/27) –
2d - Postulating Desirable Outcome Spaces
12 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
CASE Methodology (8/27) – 3a - Building Team and Resources
• The inter-organizational structure is leveraged initially to – Locate, consider, select, and assemble talented and/or
qualified individuals that will compose the team
– Identify, qualify, and obtain other material and financial resources to support the effort
• Important processes are planned and emplaced to assure
– A methodology for dealing with unanticipated events
– The smooth and inevitable transition of alternative staff members into/out of the program for various good reasons
– Sensitivity to external developments and outreach to others that may usefully become involved
13 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• A CS boundary is usually very fuzzy. • Boundaries must be decided via thorough discussions while
– Trying to understand the problem
– Exercising other CASE activities already discussed.
• Rationale: If the boundary is too
– Restricted, then the real problem may not be solved
– Ambitious, then the difficulties escalate rapidly
• Establish the SoS boundary by consensus with representatives from
– The SoS level
– Each system component
– A subset of key stakeholders
but only with people with authority to commit.
• Make known the boundary to
– The rest of the SoSE team
– Their affiliates
to help guide their collaborative work.
• Agree that the boundary might be adjusted based on future events.
CASE Methodology (9/27) –
3b - Deciding System Boundary
14 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Protect the SoS from catastrophic events that may occur.
• If the approach is no longer viable, then go with a backup.
• Focus on what might go wrong, and have a fallback.
• Traditional SE assumes things will work as intended, a flawed assumption with CSs. (Perrow 1999)
• After protections, subject the SoS to small random perturbations that can increase its – Resilience – Robustness – Strength.
• An example: Ensure that acquisition contracts
– Admit a wider selection of vendors – Increase competition – Pay for results not perceived promises.
This is a way of “stirring the pot” to ensure good results.
CASE Methodology (10/27) –
3c - Creating Anti-Fragility (Taleb 2012)
15 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• People behave as they are measured and rewarded.
• In military system acquisition, officers in charge of SoS
programs are short-term oriented because they – Change jobs every two-three years
– Are not accountable for previous assignments.
• We need incentive structures that reward – Leadership styles that
o Create conditions for self-organization, bottom-up efforts
o Discourage autocratic, hierarchical, top-down approaches
– Informed risk taking in pursuing promising opportunities
– More integrated career accountability.
CASE Methodology (11/27) –
3d - Adjusting Incentive Structures
16 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Early organizational efforts are appropriate – A leader and/or manager, are/is put in charge – An initial action team is assembled – Resources are provided or requisitioned – An overall vision/goal is established.
• Establish spirit of collaboration among the participants to help facilitate
– Information sharing – Trust building – Individual exchanges
o Perceptions o Viewpoints o Opinions
– Cooperation – Competition.
• Collaboration enables self-organization critical in achieving solutions.
• This is difficult in SoSs, for component systems’ self-interests dominates.
CASE Methodology (12/27) –
4a - Stimulating Self-Organized Collaborations
17 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• SoSE needs a good guiding architecture.
• Establish a stable architecture early.
• This architecture can be modified when unexpected events
indicate a different direction.
• In some frameworks there is a temptation to create “views”
“check a box” required by management.
• This is dangerous if views are promulgated
before the underlying architecture has been
fully developed.
CASE Methodology (13/27) –
4b - Establishing Architecture
18 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• The SoSE team is often almost ready to try something else.
• These would be interventions that have uncertain outcomes.
• First propose each intervention to key stakeholders to obtain
their reactions.
• Some additional M&S may also be
indicated.
• Before fully committing to
implementation some experimentation
would also be advisable.
CASE Methodology (14/27) –
5a - Proposing Specific Interventions
19 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Brainstorming is a too casual term for this important activity but it conveys proper meanings.
• Here the SoSE team, hopefully in a high-performing, collaborative state, shares ideas about how the problem might be solved, mostly from a technical point of view.
• However, they must still be mindful of the non-technical aspects, however, considering all the trans-disciplinary areas that apply.
• As in normal brainstorming, the free-flow of ideas should run its course before anyone on the team attacks any particular idea.
• Then the more evaluative phase begins, where the offered ideas are – Criticized – Rejected – Retained – Refined.
• The remaining potential approaches should all fit within the agreed
– Vision/Mission – Desired outcome space – System boundary.
• Finally, there should be decisions on which approaches to
– Pursue most vigorously – Bring along with lesser degrees as backup options.
CASE Methodology (15/27) –
5b - Brainstorming Potential Approaches
20 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• “Taker” indicates a more proactive attitude.
• SoS decision taking is more complex with larger numbers and variety of stakeholders involved.
• In CSs decision makers take decisions too early.
• Time delays are an important factor.
• Better advise decision takers to wait a while.
• Provide decision takers with good heuristics.
• Example heuristic: When any component system is (too much) deemphasizing the SoS in favor of their own system.
CASE Methodology (16/27) –
5c - Helping Decision Takers
21 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• After selecting a few viable approaches, an analysis of primary alternatives begins.
• M&S augment analytical capabilities.
• When people are part of the CS intentionally, one benefits from agent-based modeling.
• Autonomous, independent agents follow a small set of rules while interacting with other agents and their environment.
• An SoS provides a particularly rich opportunity for this.
• Thousands of iterations including tens or hundreds of agents can be run with only modest memories and computational power.
• Much can be learned from what emerges.
• Rules can be modified or added/subtracted with experimentation.
• Outcomes inform the SoS development.
CASE Methodology (17/27) –
6a - Modeling and Simulating Behaviors
22 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Again, because of uncertainties associated with most SoSs, the
SoSE team should experiment with promising ideas in multiple
venues.
• Rather than confining these experiments to laboratory
environments typical of traditional SE efforts, one should
embrace practitioners and experiment with users in the field, as
it were, to the extent possible.
• Users know better what is needed operationally, and much
progress can be made by leveraging their
expertise and experience.
• This is much better than – Developing something in a “vacuum”
– “Throwing it over the wall”
– Having users reject or misuse the supposedly
additional capability.
• However, these operational type experiments
must be done safely, so that no one is put in
jeopardy.
CASE Methodology (18/27) –
6b - Experimenting With Users
23 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Complex systems operating where they should, at the edge of
chaos, continue to evolve whether one intervenes or not.
• That is why, before taking further action, decision takers should
objectively observe what is happening over some period of time,
as previously mentioned.
• Interventions are necessary; after all, that is what decision takers
are expected to do.
• These actions should be taken in the spirit of pursuing an
opportunity while being informed of potential risks, again, as
already discussed.
• Whatever actions are taken within an SoS, it is
quite appropriate to tell other key stakeholders at
the SoS level, within the SoS environment, and
across all the component systems.
• Then they have increased abilities to consider their
own actions to hopefully improve the SoS situation.
• This sharing of information is not so typical in traditional SE
environments, where it seems that most are punished, rather than
rewarded, for sharing information across organizations.
CASE Methodology (19/27) –
6c - Taking Appropriate Actions
24 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Fundamentally, the SoSE team must be interested in results that fit into the desired SoS outcome space.
• There should already be measures in place to better determine whether outcomes fall within that desired space.
• Better yet, each measure should include metrics that are easily available for gathering relevant data.
• For example, component system managers might report their contributions to the SoS level along with why they think each contribution will fit into the SoS’s outcome space, and those instances would be recorded and shared.
• Some care should be expended to be assured that whatever data gathered is actually used to help avoid a waste of resources.
CASE Methodology (20/27) –
7 - Measuring What Happens
25 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Here the main challenge may be in reaching consensus across the SoS as to whether improvements have indeed been made.
• The key stakeholders within any component system may not agree on the relative tradeoffs between their local objectives and those of the SoS level stakeholders.
• Stakeholders within the environment of the SoS but not directly engaged in the SoS should also be consulted to see whether they have noticed improvements.
• If the SoS is to provide a public service, progress might also be assessed by – Conducting limited
o Polls o Surveys
– Contacting selected o Government
Officials Lawmakers
A sense of accomplishment
would do well in continuing the improvement efforts.
CASE Methodology (21/27) –
8 - Assessing Results
26 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Traditional SE focuses on requirements.
• This must continue in CSs because requirements are incomplete, unclear, unstable, and/or unknown.
• In SoSs rely on vision/mission and desired outcome space.
• Decision takers continually assess whether the SoS enjoys additional capabilities – or not.
• If the SoS moves in the positive direction, the next intervention targets additional capability.
• If not, try something else.
• This is incremental, where one builds a little, tests a little, and fields a little.
• Gradually the SoS situation improves.
CASE Methodology (22/27) –
9a - Adding Incremental Capabilities
27 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Learning lessons is good.
• Sometimes lessons are given short shrift.
• Often lessons are not really learned.
• Retain and institute lessons for all applicable projects.
• Instill this importance throughout the SoS.
• Systemically collect SoS-related lessons
from all component systems.
• Share with other SoSs.
CASE Methodology (23/27) –
9b - Instituting Lessons Learned
28 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• Publicize rewarding recipients for results.
• These publications need not be detailed.
• This motivates accomplishing similar outcomes.
• Investments by SoS component system stakeholders are
necessary when only rewarding results because contractors
– Would not receive up-front funding
– Promises to deliver “goods” would be irrelevant
– Would be compensated/given bonuses only if only
successful
• Those successful contractors would develop
“deep pockets” and be able to invest again.
• Contractors that cannot deliver would “dry up and go away”.
• Individual contributors within organizations tend to be
rewarded with raises, bonuses, and promotions only after
the fact, so this is merely being extended upwards.
CASE Methodology (24/27) –
10a - Publicizing Progress
29 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
Will enough stakeholders “warm” to these ideas?!
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• This is the most important CASE activity, at least in
terms of improving acquisition processes.
• Too often, programs or projects fail when rewards are given up-front
or with award fees when very little is accomplished.
• Stronger incentives are needed to ensure desired outcomes.
• Reserving rewards for achievement is especially challenging in SoSs.
• Existing incentive structures cannot be changed “overnight”.
• Governing bodies could improve the system over
decades, by moving funding later in the programs.
• Innovative contracts can help accommodate this
systemic change of rewarding for results.
CASE Methodology (25/27) – 10b - Rewarding Contributors for Useful Results
30 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• The work is never done in a CS which evolves on its own.
• This was established in Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology
(SSM) (Checkland 1999).
• CASE as an interative process that revisits its activities – During each cycle of activities
– After cycling through all activities
• A multi-wheel vehicle analogy of the SEA profiler (White 2012b)
should be adopted by each SoS component system, so that some
portion of the SoS can be renewed at appropriate milestones.
• In this case, CASE can be applied again but on a
smaller scale.
• Extending this, the entire SoS can also be continually
rejuvenated.
CASE Methodology (26/27) –
11 - Renewing Continued Effort?
31 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
Define the System Problem
Analyze Alternatives
Utilize a Guiding Architecture
Consider Technical
Approaches
Pursue Solutions
Manage Contingencies
Develop Implementations
Integrate Operational Capabilities
Learn by Evaluating
Effectiveness
Systems
Engineering
System 1
Define the System Problem
Analyze Alternatives
Utilize a Guiding Architecture
Consider Technical
Approaches
Pursue Solutions
Manage Contingencies
Develop Implementations
Integrate Operational Capabilities
Learn by Evaluating
Effectiveness
Systems
Engineering
System 3
Define the System Problem
Analyze Alternatives
Utilize a Guiding Architecture
Consider Technical
Approaches
Pursue Solutions
Manage Contingencies
Develop Implementations
Integrate Operational Capabilities
Learn by Evaluating
Effectiveness
Systems
Engineering
System 2
Define the System Problem
Analyze Alternatives
Utilize a Guiding Architecture
Consider Technical
Approaches
Pursue Solutions
Manage Contingencies
Develop Implementations
Integrate Operational Capabilities
Learn by Evaluating
Effectiveness
Systems
Engineering
System 4
System 1System 2
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
• To reiterate CASE activities are
– Not exercised in series.
– In parallel and iterative.
– Applicable within any SoS subset.
• CASE is a fresh, practical approach to deal
with complex problems, especially SoSs.
– There is no theoretical “proof” that this works.
– We still need to rely on case studies for viability.
• People, i.e., key stakeholders, are included intentionally.
– This makes SoSE particularly difficult.
– Good technology is still necessary for success.
– Dealing with the human element is ever more critical in today’s
increasingly complex world.
CASE Methodology (27/27) – Summary
32 4/14/2016
See Notes Page
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
Takeaways
4/14/2016 33
• Understand – Complexity – Complex Systems – Complex Systems Engineering
• Examine mindsights to – Approach serious problems differently – Think how one might be more successful
• Create conditions for
– Engineering the environment – Stimulating self-organization
• Watch what happens and be prepared to
– Try other intervention(s) – After suitable delays
• Elevate your goals to help solve world problems! (White 2016c)
Thank You All! Please provide me with your E-mail address if you would
like a soft copy of all the charts and Notes Pages.
The creation of the world did not take place once and for all time, but takes place every day. Samuel Beckett
(Fitzpatrick 2012)
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL
References (1/2)
4/14/2016 34
(Boardman and Sauser 2008) John Boardman and Brian Sauser, Systems Thinking – Coping With 21st Century Problems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 2008. (Checkland 1999) Peter Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice – Soft Systems Methodology: A 30 Year Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1999. (Gorod, White, Ireland, Gandhi, and Sauser 2015) A. Gorod, B. E. White, V. Ireland, S. J. Gandhi, and B. J. Sauser, Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 2015. (Hawn 2011) Goldie Hawn (with Wendy Holden), 10 Mindful Minutes. New York: Penguin Books. 2011. (Perrow 1999) Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents – Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1999. (Taleb 2012) Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile―Things that Gain from Disorder. New York: Random House. 2012. (Taleb 2007) Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan – Impact of the HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. New York: Random House. 2007. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly Improbable/dp/1400063515/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6890811- 9526543?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192905688&sr=8-1. (White 2016c) B. E. White, Leadership Under Conditions of Complexity,” IEEE SoSE Conference, Kongsberg, Norway, 12-16 June 2016. (White 2016b) B. E. White, “On a Maturity Model for Complexity, Complex Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering,” Complex Systems Conference, New Forest, UK, 1-3 June 2016. (White 2016a) B. E. White, “Systems Engineering Beliefs: Contemplating Personal Perceptions regarding State of the Art.” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Special Issue on Complex Systems Applications. Papers from Complex Systems 2015 conference. New Forest, UK. 12-14 May 2015. Vol. 11. No. 1. 2016, 10-23. (White 2015) B. E. White, “Complex Systems: How to Recognize Them and Engineer Them.” Tutorial- Workshop. American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM ) International Annual Conference. 7-10 October 2015. Indianapolis, IN. 8 October 2015.
IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon)
18-21 April 2016 – Orlando, FL 4/14/2016 35
(White 2015a) B. E. White, “On Leadership in the Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering of Enterprise
Transformation.” Journal of Enterprise Transformation. Vol. 5. No. 3. 192-217. 11 September 2015.
Supplementary Material (Appendices):
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/19488289.2015.1056450; ISSN: 1948-8289 (Print)
1948- 8297 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujet20;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19488289.2015.1056450.
(White 2015b) B. E. White, “System of Systems (SoS) Course.” Developed for the Worcester Polytechnic
Institute (WPI). For potential offering in WPI’s graduate program in Systems Engineering. February 2015.
(White 2010c) B. E. White, “Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering (CASE).” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic
Systems Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 12. December 2010. 16-22, ISSN 0885-8985.
(White 2010) B. E. White, “A Personal History in System of Systems.” Special Session on System of Systems
(SoS). International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems (ICUMT-2010).
Moscow, Russia. 18-20 October 2010.
(White 2010b) B. E. White, “Systems Engineering Activity (SEA) Profiler.” 8th Conference on Systems
Engineering Research (CSER). 17-19 March 2010, Hoboken, NJ. 18 March 2010.
(White 2009) B. E. White, “Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering (CASE).” 3rd Annual IEEE International
Systems Conference. Vancouver, Canada. 23-26 March 2009.
(White 2008) B. E. White, “Complex Adaptive Systems Engineering (CASE).” 3rd System of Systems
Conference, National Institute of Standards & Technology, 9-10 December 2008, Gaithersburg, MD. 10
December 2008.
(White 2008a) B. E. White, “Complex adaptive systems engineering.” 8th Understanding Complex Systems
Symposium. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. 12-15 May 2008.
http://www.howhy.com/ucs2008/schedule.html.
References (2/2)