A conceptual system design and managerial complexity competency model

This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.Complex adaptive systems are usually difficult to design and control. There are several particular methods for coping with complexity, but there is no general approach to build complex adaptive systems. The challenges of designing complex adaptive systems in a highly dynamic world drive the need for anticipatory capacity within engineering organizations, with a goal of enabling the design of systems that can cope with an unpredictable environment. This thesis explores this question of enhancing anticipatory capacity through the study of a complex adaptive system design methodology and complexity management competencies. A general introduction to challenges and issues in complex adaptive systems design is given, since a good understanding of the industrial context is considered necessary in order to avoid oversimplification of the problem, neglecting certain important factors and being unaware of important influences and relationships. In addition, a general introduction to complex thinking is given, since designing complex adaptive systems requires a non-classical thought, while practical notions of complexity theory and design are put forward. Building on these, the research proposes a Complex Systems Life-Cycle Understanding and Design (CXLUD) methodology to aid system architects and engineers in the design and control of complex adaptive systems. Starting from a creative anticipation construct - a loosening mechanism to allow for more options to be considered, the methodology proposes a conceptual framework and a series of stages to follow to find proper mechanisms that will promote elements to desired solutions by actively interacting among themselves. To illustrate the methodology, a financial systemic risks infrastructure systems architecture development case study is presented. The final part of this thesis develops a conceptual model to analyse managerial complexity competency model from a qualitative phenomenological study perspective. The model developed in this research is called Understanding-Perception-Action (UPA) managerial complexity competency model. The results of this competency model can be used to help ease project manager’s transition into complex adaptive projects, as well as serve as a foundation to launch qualitative and quantitative research into this area of project complexity management

House of Project Complexity – Understanding Complexity in Large Infrastructure Projects

This paper describes our conceptualization of complexity in Large Infrastructure Projects (LIPs). Since complexity itself is an emergent concept that is hard to pin down, we focus on the relationship between various project features and, particularly, properties associated with complexity such as difficulty, outcome variability and non-linearity, and (non) governability. We propose a combined structural and process-based theoretical framework for understanding contributors to complexity in this particular substantive context – the “House of Project Complexity” (HoPC). The HoPC addresses the impact of inherent technical and institutional project features, the process of project architecting, the structural relationship between various project features and these “designed” constructs, and the emergence of risks and life-cycle properties (‘ilities’). The HoPC is first applied to two trial samples and then to the main data set of detailed case studies of infrastructure projects prepared for the IMEC study. We believe that the “House of Project Complexity” can be generally extended to other substantive contexts that exhibit similar properties as Large Infrastructure Projects (LIPs), in the extractive industries, large manufacturing projects, or other industrial megaprojects

An Empirical Investigation of System Changes to Frame Links between Design Decisions and Ilities

Maintaining system performance in the presence of uncertainties in design and operating environments is both challenging and increasingly essential as system lifetimes grow longer. In response to perturbations brought on by these uncertainties, such as disturbances, context shifts, and shifting stakeholder needs, systems can continue to deliver value by being either robust or changeable. These lifecycle properties, sometimes called “ilities”, have been proposed as means to achieve system value sustainment in spite of changes in contexts or needs. Intentionally designing for these lifecycle properties is an active area of research, and no consensus has formed regarding how these and other “ilities” might trade off. This paper describes ongoing research that investigates empirical examples of system changes in order to characterize these changes and to develop a categorization scheme for framing and clarifying design approaches for proactively creating ilities in a system. Example categories from the data for system changes include: the perturbation trigger for the change, the type of agent executing the system change, and the valid lifecycle phase for execution. In providing a structured means to identify system change characteristics, this paper informs future research by framing possible relationships between ilities and design choices that enable them.Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Systems Engineering Advancement Research Initiativ

Defining System Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility, Adaptability, Scalability, and Robustness for Maintaining System Lifecycle Value

Designing and maintaining systems in a dynamic contemporary environment requires a rethinking of how systems provide value to stakeholders over time. Classically, two different approaches to promoting value sustainment may include developing either alterable or robust systems. The first accomplishes value delivery through altering the system to meet new needs, while the second accomplishes value delivery through maintaining a system to meet needs in spite of changes. The definitions of flexibility, adaptability, scalability, and robustness are shown to be different parts of the core concept of “changeability,” which can be described by three aspects: change agents, change effects, and change mechanisms. Cast in terms of system parameter changes, flexibility and adaptability are shown to relate to the origin of the change agent (external or internal to a system boundary respectively). Scalability and robustness, along with the additional property of modifiability, are shown to relate to change effects. The extent of changeability is determined by the number of possible change mechanisms available to the system as accepted by decision makers. Creating changeable systems, which can incorporate both classical notions of alterability and robustness, empowers systems to maintain value delivery over their lifecycle, in spite of changes in their contexts, thereby achieving value robustness to stakeholders over time

Investigating Relationships and Semantic Sets amongst System Lifecycle Properties (Ilities)

The ilities are properties of engineering systems that often manifest and determine value after a system is put into initial use (e.g. resilience, interoperability, flexibility). Rather than being primary functional requirements, these properties concern wider system impacts with respect to time and stakeholders. Over the past decade there has been increasing attention to ilities in industry, government and academia. Our research suggests that investigating ilities in sets may be more meaningful than study of single ilities in isolation. Some ilities are closely related and do in fact form semantic sets. Here, we use two methods to investigate over twenty ilities in terms of their prevalence and their interrelationships. We look for trends related to ilities of interest in relation to system type and an understanding of their collective use. First, we conducted a prevalence analysis of 22 ilities using both the internet as well as the Compendex/Inspec database as a source. We found over 1,275,000 scientific articles published between 1884 and 2010 and over 1.9 billion hits on the internet, exposing a clear prevalence-based ranking of ilities. Two questions we seek to address are: why and how are the ilities related to one another, and what can we do with this information. Initial steps to answer the first question include a 2-tupel-correlation matrix analysis that exposes the strongest relationships amongst ilities based on concurrent usage. Moreover, we conducted some preliminary experiments that indicate that a hierarchy of ilities with a few major groupings may be most useful. The overall objective for this research is to develop a formalframework and prescriptive guidance for effectively incorporating sets of ilities intothe design of complex engineering systems

Tradespace and Affordability – Phase 1

One of the key elements of the SERC’s research strategy is transforming the practice of systems engineering – “SE Transformation.” The Grand Challenge goal for SE Transformation is to transform the DoD community’s current systems engineering and management methods, processes, and tools (MPTs) and practices away from sequential, single stovepipe system, hardware-first, outside-in, document-driven, point-solution, acquisition-oriented approaches; and toward concurrent, portfolio and enterprise-oriented, hardware-software-human engineered, balanced outside-in and inside-out, model-driven, set-based, full life cycle approaches.This material is based upon work supported, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Department of Defense through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) under Contract H98230-08- D-0171 (Task Order 0031, RT 046).This material is based upon work supported, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Department of Defense through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) under Contract H98230-08- D-0171 (Task Order 0031, RT 046)

AN SE BASED MARITIME VESSEL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGEABLE PROPULSION SYSTEMS

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from vessels is one of the greatest challenges the maritime industry is currently facing. International Maritime Organization has set the goal of reducing CO2 emissions from international shipping by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 2008. Emissions regulations are also leading to a progressive reduction of ships life span, together with a decrease in economic value. To cope with these challenges, the preferred strategy suggested by IMO for new vessels -Energy Efficiency Design Index- aims at increasing the energy efficiency over time by stimulating innovation and continuous development of technical elements. In this context, ship builders are indirectly led to develop vessels that will be “changeable” in terms of propulsion systems over time. This paper presents a conceptual framework to maritime vessels for propulsion system changeability, which integrates contributions from literature review with the knowledge of design thinking experts and precious insights of maritime industry professionals. The aim of this framework is support the integration of renewable fuel sources for vessel propulsion systems through an extended value approach, while improving propulsion efficiency over time

A Joint Planning, Management and Operations Framework for Airport Infrastructure

Many airports around the world are actively considering development or expansion projects. Such projects can spur tremendous benefits but are investment-intensive and span several decades from conception to completion. We formulate the associated dynamic, complex decision-making problems using a broad systems frame. We propose a conceptual framework that links airport infrastructure investments and airport management and operations in a time-expanded, state-contingent problem. To develop this framework we consider the social and policy objectives for well functioning air transportation infrastructure, the decision levers available to stakeholders, the influence of the institutional field and regulatory context on these decisions, and the key performance measures that operationalize system ilities. Our framework integrates literature from investments under uncertainty, airport demand management, and airport operating procedures. Four case examples of airports in Delhi, Charlotte, London and New York illustrate decision-making in the context of our framework. We argue for a more integrated approach to decision-making while evaluating investments in greenfield airports or capacity expansions