The proliferation of functions: Multiple systems playing multiple roles in multiple supersystems

AbstractWhen considering a system that performs a role, it is often stated that performing that role is afunctionof the system. The general form of such statements is that “the function ofSisR,” whereSis the functioning system andRis the functional role it plays. However, such statements do not represent how that single function was selected from many possible alternatives. This article renders those alternatives explicit by revealing the other possible function statements that might be made when eitherSorRis being considered. In particular, two forms of selection are emphasized. First, when we say “the function ofSisR,” there are typically many systems other thanSthat are required to be in operation for that role to be fulfilled. The functioning system,S, does not perform the role,R, all by itself, and those systems that supportSin performing that role might also have been considered as functioning. Second, when we say, “the function ofSisR,” there are typically many other roles thatSplays apart fromR, and those other roles might also have been considered functional. When we make function assignments, we select both the functioning system,S, and the functional role,R, from a range of alternatives. To emphasize these alternatives, this article develops a diagrammatic representation of multiple systems playing multiple roles in multiple supersystems.This work  was partly supported by an Early Career Fellowship (EP/K008196/1) from the  UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and by an  Interdisciplinary Fellowship in Philosophy (Crausaz Wordsworth 2013/14)  from the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities  (CRASSH) at the University of Cambridge. This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9520930&fileId=S0890060414000626

Resilience: A multi-stakeholder perspective

Socio-technical systems are often designed with the explicit intention that those systems will exhibit ‘resilience’ in the face of unpredictable change. But there is often great uncertainty about what resilience really means in this context and how it can be achieved. This paper explores what can be learnt about resilience by eliciting, combining and contrasting the perspectives of multiple stakeholders of a socio-technical system. Communicating about resilience is challenging because the term means different things to different people, both within and across domains. Therefore, in this study a system mapping exercise was used with stakeholders in one-to-one interviews to structure conversations about resilience. The system maps produced with stakeholders were used to analyse the system according to three characteristics of resilience. The findings of the study draw out key themes, including the way in which stakeholders’ perspectives are influenced by their ideas about system boundary, system purpose and system timescale. This gives rise to a better understanding of the nature of change in socio-technical systems and how to design for the resilience of such systems

Resilience in Sociotechnical Systems: The Perspectives of Multiple Stakeholders

Abstract We often design sociotechnical systems with the explicit intention that they will exhibit “resilience” in the face of unpredictable change. But there is often great uncertainty about how to de ne resilience—or achieve it. This article explores what design can learn about resilience by eliciting, combining, and contrasting multiple stakeholder perspectives within a single sociotechnical system. During one-on-one interviews, we asked participants to structure their ideas about resilience into a map of the overall system they work within. The maps were then used to analyze the system according to three key resilience characteristics. We found that the nature of their viewpoints was in uenced by their ideas about the sys- tem’s boundaries, purpose, and timescale. Our ndings give rise to a better understanding of the nature of change in sociotechnical systems and how to design for their resilience

Structured analysis of conservation strategies applied to temporary conservation

Peer reviewe

basic concepts on systems of systems

A System of System (SoS) stems from the integration of existing systems (legacy systems), normally operated by different organizations, and new systems that have been designed to take advantage of this integration

Cyber-Physical Systems of Systems: Foundations – A Conceptual Model and Some Derivations: The AMADEOS Legacy

Computer Systems Organization and Communication Networks; Software Engineering; Complex Systems; Information Systems Applications (incl. Internet); Computer Application

Change or be changed: understanding resilience in socio-technical systems

The world we live in is increasingly complex, interconnected and unpredictable. We face social and technological challenges, which must be overcome through the maintenance and redesign of existing systems, as well as the design and integration of new systems. Each of these systems has stakeholders at different levels and across domains, from those governing societies, to technical experts working on well-defined tasks. These stakeholders generally want their system to survive, or even thrive, in the face of uncertainty and unexpected influences. To describe this desire, people, from politicians to CEOs, use the word resilience. Resilience is a term that is referred to across domains in academic and public discourse. However, the exact definition of resilience is elusive, and it is not clear how to apply resilience in the context of socio-technical systems. To design resilient systems, we must first be able to answer questions including: Does a resilient system change to accommodate influences or stay the same? If the system changes, where should this change take place? How do we decide which system, or sub-system, to make resilient and at what level of abstraction? In this research I show how we can answer these questions by eliciting, combining and contrasting the perspectives of multiple stakeholders of socio-technical systems. In order to talk to these stakeholders, in interviews and workshops, I had to overcome communication barriers. Communicating about resilience is challenging because the term means different things to different people, both within and across domains. In this research I use diagrams to develop our understanding of resilience as a concept, prompt discussions with stakeholders, represent examples of resilience, and compare stakeholder perspectives across domains. Using these diagrams, I present three characteristics of resilience that have emerged from the literature and empirical studies: resisting, recovering and changing in response to influences. I also show how resilience is framed by stakeholders’ perspectives and depends on how a system’s boundary, purpose and timescale is defined. The characteristics of resilience are related to system dimensions, structure and function, with a focus on the similarities and differences between social and technical sub-systems. This research contributes a new understanding of resilience in the context of design practice, which moves us closer towards being able to design resilient socio-technical systems.This research was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through a Doctoral Training Award. In addition, conference travel costs were supported by the EPSRC from Dr Crilly’s fellowship grant (EP/K008196/1)