IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v21y2018i3p259-281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building the tower without climbing it: Progress in engineering systems

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Broniatowski

Abstract

The Engineering Systems (ES) movement set a research agenda that transformed the field of systems engineering. By focusing on complex sociotechnical systems, the ES movement dramatically expanded the scope of the problems that could be addressed by systems engineers, drawing young scholars into the field. ES succeeded in focusing the scholarly community around the concepts of the “ilities”—nontraditional system lifecycle properties—sociotechnical complexity, and system architecture. In this article, I review some of the progress made by scholars in the field, outline directions for future work, and identify challenges facing future progress in systems engineering. Specific attention is given to approaches that emphasize the roles of abstraction hierarchies, contextual interpretation, knowledge sharing, and expertise. I also briefly address the perceived trade‐off between academic rigor and practical utility—a perennial concern in the field. In each case, a review of the literature is performed documenting the progress made by the ES community and other scholarly communities whose findings may be synergistic with ours. Finally, I conclude with a proposal for preserving the momentum started by the ES movement by suggesting a forum for diverse scholarly discourse in systems engineering.

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Broniatowski, 2018. "Building the tower without climbing it: Progress in engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 259-281, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:21:y:2018:i:3:p:259-281
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21426
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21426?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Gamba & Nicola Fusari, 2009. "Valuing Modularity as a Real Option," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(11), pages 1877-1896, November.
    2. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    3. Gaertner, Wulf, 2009. "A Primer in Social Choice Theory: Revised Edition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199565306.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:2:p:147-153 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, April.
    6. Esser, James K., 1998. "Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 116-141, February.
    7. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    8. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    9. Eppinger, Steven D. & Browning, Tyson R., 2012. "Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262017520, April.
    10. David A Broniatowski & Michael J Paul & Mark Dredze, 2013. "National and Local Influenza Surveillance through Twitter: An Analysis of the 2012-2013 Influenza Epidemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    11. Dan Braha & Yaneer Bar-Yam, 2007. "The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and Analytical Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1127-1145, July.
    12. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    13. Scott Deerwester & Susan T. Dumais & George W. Furnas & Thomas K. Landauer & Richard Harshman, 1990. "Indexing by latent semantic analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 391-407, September.
    14. Kenneth R. Hammond, 1996. "How Convergence of Research Paradigms Can Improve Research on Diagnostic Judgment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 281-287, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ekundayo Shittu & Geoffrey Parker & Nancy Mock, 2018. "Improving communication resilience for effective disaster relief operations," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 379-397, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel E. Sosa & Jürgen Mihm & Tyson R. Browning, 2013. "Linking Cyclicality and Product Quality," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 473-491, July.
    2. Christopher M. Schlick & Soenke Duckwitz & Sebastian Schneider, 2013. "Project dynamics and emergent complexity," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 480-515, December.
    3. David A. Broniatowski & Joel Moses, 2016. "Measuring Flexibility, Descriptive Complexity, and Rework Potential in Generic System Architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 207-221, May.
    4. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    5. Pedro Parraguez & Steven Eppinger & Anja Maier, 2016. "Characterizing Design Process Interfaces as Organization Networks: Insights for Engineering Systems Management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 158-173, March.
    6. Philipp Tuertscher & Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 2014. "Justification and Interlaced Knowledge at ATLAS, CERN," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1579-1608, December.
    7. John Hauser & Gerard J. Tellis & Abbie Griffin, 2006. "Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 687-717, 11-12.
    8. Gilbert Giacomoni, 2017. "How to design new representations and to innovate ?
      [Comment concevoir de nouvelles représentations et innover ? (]
      ," Working Papers halshs-01479201, HAL.
    9. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    10. Gilbert Giacomoni, 2017. "How to design new representations and to innovate ? [Comment concevoir de nouvelles représentations et innover ?]," Post-Print halshs-01479201, HAL.
    11. Daniele T. P. Souza & Eugenia A. Kuhn & Arjen E. J. Wals & Pedro R. Jacobi, 2020. "Learning in, with, and through the Territory: Territory-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Swan, Jacky & Goussevskaia, Anna & Newell, Sue & Robertson, Maxine & Bresnen, Mike & Obembe, Ademola, 2007. "Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 529-547, May.
    13. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    14. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    15. Kaushik Sinha & Seok‐Youn Han & Eun Suk Suh, 2020. "Design structure matrix‐based modularization approach for complex systems with multiple design constraints," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 211-220, March.
    16. Hunt, Chris & Bui, Binh & Fowler, Carolyn, 2008. "A Risk-focused Performance Management System Framework for Planning Change in Organisations: New Zealand 'Gentailers' and the ETS," Working Paper Series 4013, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    17. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    18. Siw M. Fosstenløkken, 2019. "The Role Of Plans In The Formation Of A New Innovation Practice: An Innovation Object Perspective," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-23, May.
    19. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.
    20. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:21:y:2018:i:3:p:259-281. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.