Working Paper 8
The future of systems integration
within civil infrastructure
Jennifer Whyte
Centre for Systems Engineering and Innovation
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Imperial College London, UK
This paper is under review for INCOSE 2016.
Abstract
What is the future of systems integration within civil infrastructure? This paper
provides a background to systems integration; articulates the challenges of civil
infrastructure in the 21st century; and reviews the state-of-the-art in research on
systems integration in the delivery and operation of civil infrastructure. Building
on the literature review and the results of the author’s prior work, it highlights
opportunities that arise through reframing from projects to systems (and systems
of systems), and the era of ‘big data.’ It sets out a research agenda for next
generation tools to visualize and understand complex product systems; identify
risk and build in resilience and support collaborative decentralized working.
Introduction
Systems integration is the process of making a system coherent by managing
interactions across system elements. This has been neatly summarized as making
“the parts or components work together” (RAEng, 2007) or “building or creating a
whole from parts” (Langford, 2013). Integration can be viewed as a distinct phase
of the delivery process, which involves the integration of implemented
subsystems. The ISO standard reflects the phase-based view in its focus on
“implemented system elements” (ISO/IEC 15288 2015, p. 68). However in contrast
to this phase-based view, which is common in the formal process models, systems
integration can alternatively be viewed as an integral part of every phase
(Langford, 2013). From such a view, which is implicit in the ‘V-model’, integration
processes take place concurrently and repeatedly (as the assembly ascends the
layers of subsystem). From this perspective, project delivery itself involves an
1
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
iteration between integration (how the parts or components work together) and
partitioning (how each part or component is defined and built) (RAEng, 2007).
Delivery of civil infrastructure projects involves collaboration across different
kinds of firms including owners, delivery clients, consultants, contractors, and the
supply-chain. There is a need to synthesize knowledge across their different
professional expertise, roles and responsibilities to integrate elements. A systems
engineering approach to civil infrastructure thus has significant potential
(Blockley & Godfrey, 2000; INCOSE, 2012) where integration is important to
ensure that the parts, components, units, subassemblies, subsystems and systems
work together as a whole. Heathrow Terminal 5 and London 2012 are examples
of successful approaches to systems integration in infrastructure projects (Brady
& Davies, 2014; Davies, Gann, & Douglas, 2009; Davies & MacKenzie, 2014). Berlin
Brandenburg Airport is an example of the failure to achieve systems integration
in a civil infrastructure project: the airport was unable to open on time and three
years later is still not operational costing the German taxpayer €16 million per
month in maintenance (Hammer, 2015).
This paper reviews the challenges of civil infrastructure in the 21st century; the
state-of-the-art in research on systems integration and the opportunity to use this
systems engineering approach in the delivery and operation of civil
infrastructure. As a system, infrastructure has emergent properties, feedback
loops, non-linear dynamics and sensitivity to starting conditions. Infrastructure
involves open, rather than closed, systems with interdependencies between the
human-built (Hughes, 2005) and natural environments; and as new infrastructure
is built in urban settings it becomes part of a system-of-systems. The paper
highlights opportunities for reframing from projects to systems (and systems of
systems) and for using the potential of new forms of data analytics. It highlights
key results of the author’s prior work as the basis for a new trajectory of research,
setting out a research agenda for next generation tools to visualize and
understand complex product systems; to identify risk and build in resilience and
to support collaborative decentralized working.
Background: systems integration and civil infrastructure
History and theory of systems integration
Early history of systems integration. The notion of systems integration arises in
mid-20th century, through work on systems that is both practical and theoretical in
nature. Practically, systems engineering develops out of the need to deliver
projects in the USA military and aerospace industries that were novel and
complex in nature (Hughes, 2000; Johnson, 1997). In 1954 Ramo-Wooldridge
Corporation was employed as system integrator for the Atlas project (Hughes,
2000; Johnson, 1997; Morris, 2013), which developed ballistic missiles, with
responsibility to: “coordinate the work of hundreds of contractors and development
of thousands of sub-systems” (Mahnken, 2008: p.38). Operations research, systems
engineering and project management represent different approaches to this
increasing complexity of systems, and were variously promoted by military
2
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
officers, scientists, engineers and managers (Johnson, 2002). Hughes (2000) for
example, describes the challenges encountered in the diffusion of system
engineering concepts from seminal 20th century projects, such as SAGE and Atlas
to the Boston Big Dig infrastructure project.
A general theory of systems was sketched out in the mid-20th century by Boulding
(1956). Brady and Davies highlight how this and other early studies conceived of
systems as: “consisting of interacting components arranged in a hierarchical and
decomposable structure” (Brady & Davies, 2014: p. 22). Such early sources
continue to inform research. Work in the ‘Carnegie school’ has been influential,
particularly Simon (1981) on the architecture of complex systems and Thompson
(1967) on pooled, sequential and reciprocal interdependence. Thompson argues
that different forms of interdependence require different forms of coordination.
Pooled interdependence is coordinated through standardization (which requires
less frequent decisions and a smaller volume of communication); Sequential
interdependence is coordinated by plan, involving the establishment of schedules.
Reciprocal interdependence is coordinated through mutual adjustment within
local units that are autonomous within constraints established by plans and
standardization. Authors, such as Sapolsky (1972) and Sayles and Chandler
(1971) also recognized the importance of systems integration; and as Brady and
Davies (2014) note, later research by scholars such as Perrow (1999 [1984]),
describes organizations as tightly or loosely coupled systems.
Contemporary theory of systems integration. Three overlapping strands in the
contemporary theory of systems integration develop from research on innovation
studies, complex projects and engineering design. These perspectives all
recognize the technical and social nature of systems integration. Strategies for
achieving systems integration start either from the bottom-up (e.g. through
engineers coordinating and sharing models across sub-projects), or top-down
(e.g. through compliance to standards at the interfaces between the product and
work breakdown structures). This section focuses on contemporary theory of
systems integration in projects that have a physical end product, excluding
literatures on software (Barkmeyer et al., 2003; Osterlie & Wang, 2006), and
capabilities within the firm (Prencipe, 2003). Such work on innovation and
complex projects recognizes that human miscommunication and error are
involved in most technical failures, and hence their solutions, including systems
integration, are also social in nature (Johnson, 2003).
First, there is a strong tradition of work on innovation in complex projects that
has examined the business of systems integration (Davies et al., 2009; Davies &
MacKenzie, 2014; Gann & Salter, 2000; Geyer & Davies, 2000; Hobday, Davies, &
Prencipe, 2005; Sako, 2003; Sapolski, 2003). High-tech, capital intensive
engineering projects are of a significant scale, relatively long duration, and
require firms to work collaboratively across firm boundaries in project delivery
(Davies and Hobday, 2006; Hobday, 1998; Miller et al., 1995). Such projects
eventually deliver complex product systems, such as aircraft, experimental
facilities and railways. Questions arise about the firms that act as the ‘systems
integrator’, with for example Prencipe (2003) drawing attention to the
3
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
capabilities that such firms need, to engage in systems integration on current
projects, while learning the new technologies and architectures that could form
the basis of future approaches to systems integration.
Second, within the broader literature on complex projects, there is research that
examines project complexity (Baccarini, 1996) and the challenges of integration,
drawing on the ‘Carnegie school’ – 20th century scholars such as Simon,
Thompson and Galbraith. There are now well established tools and techniques for
scheduling project tasks, (see discussion in Pich, Loch, & De Meyer, 2002), and for
establishing contingencies across design tasks (Eppinger & Browning, 2012;
Steward, 1981). Morris describes how early research focused on monitoring and
control, then later on the wider function of coordination; with ‘integration’ taken
to cover both coordination and control (Morris, 2013: p. 21). In such research
Thompson’s (1967) work on interdependence has been extended and discussed
by Levitt et al. (1999); and Hui et al. (2008), with Remington and Pollack (2008: p.
7) emphasizing the: “difficulty in managing and keeping track of the huge number
of different interconnected tasks and activities.” Inadequate information can lead to
significant numbers of alternatives. Remington and Pollack (2008) imagine a
project with fifteen different aspects, eight of which are uncertain and can be
resolved in one of four possible ways, showing how this project has 65,536
possible states. Galbraith’s (1973; 1977) work on information processing has
hence been used to examine issues of interdependence and coordination
(Gkeredakis, 2014; Hui et al., 2008; Senescu, Aranda-Mena, & Haymaker, 2013).
Turkulainen et al. (2013) draw on Galbraith’s work to examine integration
mechanisms across project phases. Recent scholars see complex projects as
‘complex adaptive systems’ (Aritua, Smith, & Bower, 2009; Chang, Hatcher, & Kim,
2013; Hass, 2009; Remington & Pollack, 2008) emphasizing their changing
nature. Researchers have also mathematically modelled complex projects
(Williams, 2002) and their emergent dynamics (Naderpajouh & Hastak, 2014)
and argued for understanding of governance to be extended across the life-cycle
(Locatelli, Mancini, & Romano, 2014). Thus the 20th century concerns with
hierarchy, interdependence and information processing are continuing to inform
contemporary research as it explores new topics such as the dynamics of
coordination; inadequate information and complex adaptive systems.
Third, there is work on systems integration in engineering design, both within
systems engineering and other engineering disciplines. From this perspective,
Table 1 summarizes key papers on and definitions of systems integration.
Systems are seen to have functions, behaviors and structure (Hamraz, Caldwell,
Ridgman, & Clarkson, 2015). The systems engineering community emphasizes the
potential of model-based systems engineering (MBSE); while other engineering
disciplines seek integration from the bottom up, combining performance models
or using tools such as the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) (Austin, 2001; Eppinger
& Browning, 2012; Steward, 1981). System properties, such as risk, reliability,
safety and resilience are considered in this literature and interactions are seen as
fundamental. Such interactions may be direct or indirect. Integration is not
achieved everywhere or at all times (Langford, 2011: p.112-113) and verification
and validation are important activities associated with integration. Engineering
4
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
systems are increasing in complexity, and can exhibit a potential for collapse, with
trade-offs between optimality and resilience (Fisk, 2004). At a system-of-systems
level, risk and risk management are central concerns (Langford, Osmundson, &
Lim, 2010) and there is a high degree of complexity when legacy systems need to
be integrated; humans are an integral part of the system; and resilience and
adaptability are required in operations (Madni & Sievers, 2014). Leveson (2011)
clarifies how safety and reliability are different properties of systems, where a
system with unreliable components may be safe; while through a ‘component
interaction accident’ one with reliable components may be unsafe.
Table 1: Research on (and/or definitions of) systems integration
Author
Contribution
Cases and
methods
Bolloju (2009) Conceptual modelling technique to elicit,
Digital information
represent and analyze system-wide
systems/databases;
integration requirements. The focus here is modelling
on the enterprise application integration
approach evaluated
needed for business integration.
through student
application.
Grady (1994) Early book on systems integration, defined Air vehicles;
as: “The art and science of facilitating the
advanced cruise
marketplace of ideas that connects the
missiles; nuclear
many separate solutions into a systems
waste disposal.
solution … ensures the hardware, software,
and human system components will interact
to achieve the system purpose or satisfy the
customer’s need. It is the machinery for
what some call concurrent development.”
(Grady, 1994: p. 3). The book covers both
product and process integration.
ISO/IEC
“Iteratively combines implemented system
Industry standard
15288
elements to form complete or partial system
configurations in order to build a product or
service. It is used recursively for successive
levels of the system hierarchy.” (ISO/IEC
15288 2015 68)
A general theory of systems integration,
Langford
Hubble Space
(2011, 2013)
defined as “the unification of the objects
Telescope and
and their interactions of energy, matter,
aerospace projects.
material wealth and information to provide
system level functionalities and
performances.” (Langford, 2011: p. 174)
Langford outlines seven principles of
systems integration: alignment;
partitioning; induction; limitation;
forethought; planning and loss (Langford,
2013).
5
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
Suh (2015)
Madni and
Sievers
(2014)
Royal
Academy of
Engineering
(RAEng)
Sage and
Lynch (1998)
Perspectives as different approaches to
systems architecture decomposition. A
contribution is to use metrics for the
degree of modularity to analyze system
architecture. Decisions made during
decomposition impact on representations
of the architecture; with different views for
different system development purposes
including assembly-based, function-based
and service-based decompositions.
Overview of systems integration, defined
as: “Forming a coherent whole from
component subsystems (including humans)
to create a mission capability that satisfies
the needs of various stakeholders.” (Madni
& Sievers, 2014). This covers different
forms of systems architecture and
integration including a layered
architecture or plug and play.
Six principles for integrated systems
design: to 1) “debate, define, revise and
pursue the purpose”; 2) “think holistic”, 3)
“follow a disciplined procedure”; 4) “be
creative”; 5) “take account of the people:
To err is human” and 6) “manage the
project and the relationships.” (RAEng,
2007).
Overview of technical and managerial
aspects of systems integration and
architecting: the technical, enterprise and
systems engineering and management
systems.
Xerox Docucolor
250; quantitative
analysis of systems
architecture using
the Design
Structure Matrix
(DSM).
Review article
Industry report
Review article
Challenges of civil infrastructure in the 21st century
There is a significant need to improve civil infrastructure in the 21st century.
Population estimates suggest the planet will be home to more than 8 billion
people by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Ernst and Young (2012) predict 3 billion
new middle class consumers from 2011-2030. McKinsey estimate global
infrastructure requires an investment of $57 trillion between 2013 and 2030 to
keep up with growth and support the world’s population (McKinsey 2014).
However, population growth and demographic changes present challenges for
sustainable development. There are concerns about loss of habitats and
biodiversity as urban land increases suggest there will be triple the urban land
globally in 2030 that there was in 2000 (Seto, Güneralp, & Hutyra, 2012).
Construction is also resource intensive. The construction industry accounts for
36% of raw materials consumption in Organization for Economic Collaboration
and Development (OECD) countries (OECD, 2015), with nearly 72 billion tons of
6
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
raw materials entering the world’s economic system in 2010; and a projected rise
to 100 billion tons of raw materials a year by 2030 (OECD, 2015).
The track record in delivery of megaprojects is poor. Industrial mega-projects
have an average cost growth of 88%; and schedule slippage of 17% (Merrow,
2011); and large IT projects run 45% over budget and 7% over time; while
delivering 56% less value than promised (Flyvberg 2012). Improving delivery of
infrastructure megaprojects is important as annual megaproject spending has
been calculated as $6-9 trillion or 8% of GDP globally (Flyvbjerg 2014a). Research
examines the front-end decision-making regarding complex infrastructure
projects in developing countries, the geo-political nature of this decision-making
for major global projects, and the challenges of integration across supply chains
involve many different nations and cultures (Scott, Levitt, & Orr, 2011). Such
projects bring particular challenges, but there are also failures in the delivery of
infrastructure projects in developed countries. Berlin Brandenburg Airport is an
example. Not long after the projected opening date, officials noted 20,000
problems. This later rose to 150,000 issues to be addressed before opening
(Schofield, 2015).
Infrastructure is delivered in the context of extant systems, both natural and
human-built. For example, the Tideway tunnel interfaces with water mains,
bridges, river walls, gas mains, listed buildings, buildings and tunnels. There is
increasing awareness of this systems-of-systems context, with growing attention
to environment; waste, resource use and ethical resourcing across supply-chains
and critical and resilient infrastructure (Satumtira & Dueñas-Osorio, 2010). A
particular challenge in infrastructure delivery is that the industry is focused on
the delivery of physical assets, while infrastructure projects now have dual
physical and virtual deliverables. Digital information is used in the process of
infrastructure delivery, through Building Information Modelling (BIM) and other
technologies; and in the systems, which are now software intensive or cyberphysical in nature. This cyber-physical nature of new infrastructure raises new
questions, such as the cyber-security of BIM data (PAS 1192-5, 2015).
Research on systems integration in civil infrastructure
There is relatively little research that is narrowly focused on systems integration
in civil infrastructure, though there is a growing literature in related areas such as
interdependencies between infrastructures and systems of systems (Satumtira &
Dueñas-Osorio, 2010). The review in this section focuses on the work which
exceptionally does examine systems integration. There is also substantial
industry interest in integration, with commercial and policy organizations, such
as FIATECH, and broader related literature on relevant topics such as modularity,
parts and lean construction; construction IT; and the comparisons between
construction and manufacturing (Emes, Smith, & Marjanovic-Halburd, 2012). The
next subsection considers the stands in the extant literature that examine systems
integration and innovation in infrastructure projects; and the following section
examines engineering systems integration. The final sub-sections explore the new
directions and insights associated with this work, particularly in relation to the
7
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
shift from projects to systems; and the uptake of computer integrated
construction.
Systems integration and innovation in infrastructure projects
Examining systems integration in infrastructure projects including Heathrow
Terminal 5 and the London 2012 Olympics, Davies and co-authors (Geyer and
Davies 2000, Davies et al. 2009, Davies and MacKenzie 2014) draw on the strong
tradition of work on innovation in complex projects that has examined the
business of systems integration (Gann and Salter 2000, Hobday et al. 2005,
Prencipe 2003), and articulate the integration challenges at systems and systemsof-systems levels. Winch (1998) highlighted the innovation systems and
questions the identification and role of the ‘systems integrator’ in construction.
Also examining the London 2012 Olympics, Lundrigan et al. (2014) argue that
megaprojects are organizations that are composed of other organizations (i.e.
meta-organizations) and have two structures: a “core” that shares control over
goals and high-level design choices and a “periphery” that is the supply-chain that
delivers but lacks authority to change high-level goals and design choices.
Research on policy and governance issues relating to infrastructure have
mobilized a range of modelling and simulation approaches. Model Based Systems
Engineering (MBSE) has been used to examine user-infrastructure
interdependencies through research on new infrastructure business models
(Bouch et al., 2015). An interaction model has been developed to understand
emergent dynamics and risks in institutionally complex projects (understood as
systems-of-systems) that involve international organizations, public and
community groups (Naderpajouh, 2014; Naderpajouh & Hastak, 2014). There is
also research seeking to optimize project delivery and finance configuration
(Miller, 1997). Key papers are summarized in Table 2, with details of their
methods and cases.
Table 2: Key research papers on systems integration in relation to policy,
governance and innovation in civil infrastructure
Author
Contribution
Approach,
methods and
cases
Bouch (2015)
User-infrastructure interdependencies:
Policy: MBSE,
research on new infrastructure business
core9
models (called iBUILD) including local
modelling from
business opportunities deriving from highinfrastructure
speed rail, proposing novel business models
2013 as a key
as ‘enabler’ in “complex, multiply-conflicting policy
future city agendas.”
document.
Davies and coDrawing on innovation the strong tradition
Innovation
authors (Davies of work on complex projects that has
studies, case
et al., 2009;
examined the business of systems
studies:
Davies &
integration (Gann & Salter, 2000; Hobday et
Heathrow
MacKenzie,
al., 2005; Prencipe, 2003) this work
Terminal 5;
2014; Geyer &
examines systems integration in
London 2012
Davies, 2000)
infrastructure projects, contributing by.
Olympics.
8
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
Lundrigan et al.
(2014)
Miller (1997)
Naderpajouh
and Hastak
(Naderpajouh,
2014;
Naderpajouh &
Hastak, 2014)
Winch (1998)
Argues that megaprojects are organizations
that are composed of other organizations
(i.e. meta-organizations) and have two
structures: a “core” that shares control over
goals and high-level design choices and a
“periphery” that is the supply-chain that
delivers but lacks authority to change highlevel goals and design choices
Optimization of project delivery and finance
configuration at project and system levels
based on analysis of more than 3000
infrastructure projects in the US and Hong
Kong; detailed case of a multimodal
transportation facility.
Modelled emergent dynamics and risks in
institutionally complex projects (understood
as systems of systems) that involve
international organizations, public and
community groups. Methodology proposed
and applied to cases of social opposition in
infrastructure: railway: Stuttgart 21; dams:
Belo Monte Dam (Brazil), Bujagali Dam
(Uganda); and pipelines: Keystone (N.
America, Nabucco (Central Asia and Europe).
Innovation systems and questions about the
identification and role of the ‘systems
integrator’ in construction.
Complex
projects:
London 2012
Olympics.
Finance: Large
set of projects;
USA
transportation
case.
Policy:
Mathematical
model of risk
based on theory
of bargaining
games.
Examples focus
on
hydroelectric
projects
Innovation
studies:
Engineering systems integration in civil infrastructure
Within buildings, motivated by sustainability, there is a review by Baudains et al.
(2014) seeking to examine ‘hidden’ connectivity by treating the building as a
‘complex adaptive system’. Related work by Geyer (2012) goes further to provide
a parametric systems modelling approach to sustainable building design using
SySML, complementing IFC and gbXML standards that address information by
seeking to represent multidisciplinary dependencies for performance-oriented
planning, exploring the possible variations, physical–technical interdependencies,
evaluation information, flows and behaviors. Matar et al. (2015) provide an
approach to SySML modelling for sustainability in infrastructure involving 1)
natural systems that make up an environment SoS, the atmosphere, lithospheric
system (material resources); hydrosphere; biosphere and energy; 2) construction
product SoS, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical; 3) business
management, design management, project planning and management,
construction and facilities management.
There is a strand of research that looks at integration through the digital systems
that are now used in construction. Shen et al. (2010) focus on integration of two
or more construction software systems “to communicate, share or exchange
information, and then to inter-operate in order to achieve a common objective.” Tao
9
Working Paper 8, v1.,1 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration – January 2016
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/csei
(2000) used an asset management model and systems integration approach to
integrate asset management of components at different stages of their
development life cycles. Zhu and Mostafavi (2015) seek to prospectively identify
vulnerability to uncertainty through analysis of construction projects as
networks. Key papers are summarized in Table 3, with details of their methods
and cases.
Table 3: Key research papers on engineering systems integration in civil
infrastructure
Author
Contribution
Focus,
methods and
cases
Buildings:
Baudains et al.
Approaches to examining ‘hidden’
Review
(2014)
connectivity by treating the building as a
complex adaptive system.
Geyer (2012)
Parametric systems modelling approach to
Buildings: MBSE
sustainable building design, complementing using SySML
IFC and gbXML standards that address
modelling as a
information by seeking to represent
basis for
multidisciplinary dependencies for
integrating
performance-oriented planning, exploring
design.
the possible variations .physical–technical
interdependencies, evaluation information,
flows and behaviors.
Matar et al.
SySML model for sustainability in
Infrastructure:
(2015)
infrastructure involving 1) natural systems
MBSE using
that make up an environment SoS, the
SySML
atmosphere, lithospheric system (material
modelling
resources); hydrosphere; biosphere and
energy; 2) construction product SoS,
architectural, structural, mechanical,
electrical; 3) business management, design
management, project planning and
management, construction and facilities
management.
Focus on integration of two or more
Shen et al.
Software:
(2010)
construction software systems “to
Review of
communicate, share or exchange
research on
information, and then to inter-operate in
construction
order to achieve a common objective.” This is software
considered from the perspective of data and integration
frameworks interoperability.
Tao (2000)
Asset management model and systems
Data:
integration approach to integrate asset
Developed
management of components at different
asset
stages of their development life cycles.
management
Business, system requirements, logical
model and
10
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
Zhu and
Mostafavi
(2015)
design, physical design, development and
implementation considered to ensure
interoperability and effective asset
management.
Prospective identification of vulnerability to
uncertainty through analysis of construction
projects as networks. Uncertain events
impact through perturbation of nodes
(humans, information, resource and task)
and their links, changing topological
structure with negative effects on project
efficiency. Extent of variation is used to
indicate vulnerability across different event
scenarios.
operational
scenario tool.
Resilience:
Dynamic
network
analysis and
Monte Carlo
simulation;
worked
example of a
tunnelling
project.
New directions and insights from a systems perspective
Researchers have approached systems integration using model based systems
engineering approaches such as SySML, derived a theoretical basis for systems
integration, and developed ex-ante and post-facto tools. Within the research on
interdependencies in infrastructure systems, there is history of using inputoutput models (transfer of resources; reactions to disturbances in flows) and
agent based simulation; with recent work also using network and graph theory
and a range of emerging techniques including petri-nets, Monte Carlo simulations,
genetic algorithms, Markov or Semi-Markov processes and multi-model
simulators (Satumtira & Dueñas-Osorio, 2010). Table 4 summarizes some of the
main tools, techniques and approaches for systems integration.
Table 4: Summary of the main tools, techniques and approaches for systems
integration
Tools,
Focus and uses
techniques and
approaches
SySML
Using the Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), SysML is
a modelling language based on UML that can be used to
describe systems and their interconnections. It has been used
in research on integrated and sustainable design in buildings
(Geyer, 2012) and infrastructure (Matar et al., 2015).
GTSI
A general theory of systems integration (GTSI), in which
systems consist of objects and processes that have nonreciprocal emergence. An object has mechanisms that have
logic structures, enacted in processes involving energy,
matter, material wealth and information (EMMI). Interactions
between objects may lead to stable or metastable objects; and
take place through EMMI creating constraints on objects,
which change their boundaries and boundary conditions
precipitating emergence (Langford, 2011, 2013). General
equations are used to calculate systems properties and loss.
11
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
DSM
Network analysis
Systems
dynamics
STAMP
Montecarlo
simulation
Scenario
planning
An ex-ante tool: the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is a matrix
used to consider the interdependencies between different
components of the process in order to sequence design
activities, or of the product in order to understand ex-ante
components with high levels of interdependence and to
cluster these (Austin, 2001; Eppinger & Browning, 2012;
Steward, 1981).
A post-facto tool, which is beginning to be used along with
Monte Carlo simulation for ex-ante prediction. Software tools
such as UCINet and Gephi are used in social network analysis
(SNA), with other programming tools such as igraph, which
can be programmed in r language and python, and can take
data from pajek. Recent work has used SNA to examine the
heterogeneous networks involved in projects and their
dynamics (Guo, 2015; Zhu & Mostafavi, 2015). There is an
opportunity to link this understanding with performance.
This approach is used in understanding the dynamics of
management in complex projects (Lyneis, Cooper, & Els,
2001); and for understanding error propagation and rework
(Love, Edwards, Irani, & Goh, 2011).
System theoretic accident model, developed by Leveson
(2011), this treats accidents as a chain of events rather than
seeking root causes, and sees reliability and safety as different
properties of systems.
This is used by Zhu and Mostafavi (2015) to get probabilities
of different outcomes occurring, with respect to the
perturbations of a defined network. Unlike the DSM, this
approach cannot consider the case where it would be possible
to change the shape of the network, but can provide
information about the resilience of a given network to
particular types of events.
An operational scenario tool proposed as part of the
implementation strategy for asset management (Tao et al.,
2000).
From projects to systems and systems of systems. As projects become
delivered through public-private partnerships, a perspective on ‘infrastructure as
a system’ shifts attention from project to life-cycle of development and use, with
Locatelli et al. (2014), for example, arguing for understandings of governance to
be extended across the life-cycle. There is the potential to consider interactions
across the supply chain in relation to the different replacement rates and lifecycles of different components. Some scholars frame infrastructure as a complex
adaptive system. At the level of the delivery client or the owner operator the focus
is on risk, configuration management and data as they apply across systems; and
the synchronization across development cycles of the systems (Davies &
MacKenzie, 2014). For the client the project can be seen as an investment. Civil
infrastructure involves long-lived assets, so in recent research the author has
considered the hand-over of information to owner operators; and configuration
12
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
management through life. The literature on critical and resilient infrastructures
extends this to examine the interactions across infrastructure systems or
systems-of-systems, which are independently operated and managed.
Systems integration in an era of ‘big data’. The use of integrated software is
leading to a convergence of practices on complex projects. Merrow (2014)
suggests that there are three relevant streams of information: a) basic data
(scientific foundation and underpinning conditions); b) shaping data (business
objectives and commercial context) and c) project data. As BIM becomes used,
researchers are exploring the use of model checkers to automate the verification
of information; and using BIM together with discrete event simulation in
scheduling. The challenge in the digital era is to empower engineers to question
and interrogate information, behaving mindfully and probing and experimenting
rather than rely on what they are shown. In the Columbia Disaster, for example,
the team relied on a single source of data, in which they had classified a foam loss
event as not safety critical. Additional images on the shuttle were requested
within the earth-based support organization, but this request was not transmitted
to the shuttle, with reliance instead on the digital simulations which showed no
safety problem (Weick, 2005). The data-bases and software tools that support
delivery; the ownership and maintenance of infrastructure has become more
software intensive and infrastructure itself can increasingly be seen as a cyberphysical system. There are questions about whether to integrate all the software
or to standardize the interfaces; templates etc. A platform with standard
interfaces may simplify the integration activity, though creates the potential for
common mode failure; for example in the bus architectures rather than point-topoint wiring on airplanes.
Next generation tools for system integration throughlife
There is the potential for a new generation of tools for systems integration that
use data analytics to visualize and understand relationships between parts and
the systemic consequences of changes in complex product systems. To radically
improve delivery of complex infrastructure projects thus requires research that
brings mathematicians and computer scientists together with scholars of
engineering; brings learning and innovation from other industries into
construction; and explores fundamentally new approaches using a range of
machine learning, graph theory, systems dynamics and scenario planning
techniques. The challenge involves combining data-sets and model based systems
engineering, BIM and performance-based models; and using data-analytics to
reveal new patterns. This section considers how the author’s existing work
suggest a new research agenda in relation to visualizing and understanding civil
infrastructure; identifying risk in and building resilience into engineered systems
and supporting collaborative decentralized working.
13
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
Visualizing and understanding civil infrastructure
Visualizing and understanding civil infrastructure as complex product systems
may enable proactive rather than retroactive decision-making about civil
infrastructure. Immersive and augmented visualization technologies enable
groups to make collective decisions within the model. The author and her
collaborators have examined visual practices; virtual and augmented reality
(Ewenstein & Whyte, 2009; Parfitt & Whyte, 2014; Whyte & Broyd, 2015; Whyte,
2002), building a 3D Mobile Visualization Environment (3D MOVE) to take
immersive capabilities out to project teams (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The 3D Mobile Visualization Environment (3D MOVE) in use at the 2014
Crossrail Young Professionals Conference
For systems integration, such visualization may: 1) characterize the civil
infrastructure and its performance; and 2) represent information about the
underlying processes and dynamics of developing and using civil infrastructure.
There is a need for new visual interfaces to digital asset information to enable
engineers to intuitively interact with and navigate through large data-sets, which
integrate performance information from different design disciplines, to focus on
task-relevant information.
Identifying risk in/build resilience into engineered systems
There are opportunities to collect and aggregate data and use new forms of
analysis to identify underlying patterns and visualize these to identify risk in and
build resilience into engineered systems. Heterogeneous forms of data can be
synthesized and here the construction sector can learn from the military, which
uses command, control, communications and intelligence (C3I) to bring on site
visuals back into the model. The author has studied digital-physical connections
(Whyte, 2013); and worked with colleagues to understand leading practices of
configuration management (e.g. Whyte, Stasis, & Lindkvist, 2015). There are new
directions of research examining the verification of digital data in digital-physical
systems; issues of cyber-security; control systems, configurations and their
vulnerabilities; taking forward the STAMP approach to understanding safety;
using the DSM; considering resources; the circular economy; different rates of
replacement, etc. and examining complex interdependencies across infrastructure
14
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
systems and with the environment to addressing the complexity of systems-ofsystems and cities.
Supporting collaborative decentralized working
Integrated software suggests the potential for an aggregation of information and a
decentralization of decision-making. Decentralized decision-making can be low
latency, and this has advantages, as engineers and managers do not have the time
to build up the commitments to particular positions that can make decisionmaking difficult in long-term delivery projects. Research by the author and her
colleagues argues that digital technologies are breaking the mold of 20th century
approaches to delivering complex projects (Whyte & Levitt, 2011) and has looked
at the challenges of achieving reliability across transnational teams
(Ramalingham, Lobo, Mahalingham, & Whyte, 2014). There is a need for research
to examine collaborative decentralized approaches to systems integration within
projects and through the life-cycle of the asset, in which there may be different
sub-systems and components with different rates of replacement. This builds on
research with NASA (Chachere, Kunz, & Levitt, 2008) and a rethinking of the role
of hierarchy in the USA military (Alberts & Hayes, 2003).
Conclusions
This paper suggests a new agenda for research on systems integration within civil
infrastructure. Current research on systems integration draws on innovation
studies, complex projects and systems engineering. Development of civil
infrastructure in the 21st century addresses challenges of providing for quality of
life of a growing global population that is changing demographically, while
developing sustainable solutions that conserve biodiversity and raw materials,
adequately anticipating climate change and potential natural disasters or terrorist
attacks; and improving delivery performance by using integrated software and
cyber-physical systems.
Recent research on systems integration in civil infrastructure highlights
opportunities that arise from reframing from projects to systems (or systems of
systems) and recognizing the new potential in an era of ‘big data’ to move from
retrospective to prospective visualization of interconnections, interactions,
interdependencies. Drawing on the author’s prior research, the research agenda
set out in the paper is for next generation tools to visualize and understand
complex product systems; identify risk and build in resilience and support
collaborative decentralized working.
A first step is to take the recent theory of, and latest tools for, systems integration
(e.g. GTSI, STAMP, DSM); apply them to construction context and assess the
results. This might involve taking data from an existing project; and using it to
analyze dependencies; interconnections and rework to inform the set-up of future
projects. With a large data-set of existing project information it may also be
possible to develop an algorithm for machine learning to search for patterns
within and filter data; as a first step towards developing proactive tools.
15
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
References
Alberts, D. S., & Hayes, R. E. 2003. Power to the Edge: Command... Control... in the
Information Age: CCRP Publishing.
Aritua, B., Smith, N. J., & Bower, D. 2009. "Construction client multi-projects – A
complex adaptive systems perspective." International Journal of Project
Management, 27(1): 72-79.
Austin, S. A., Baldwin, A.N., Hammond, J.W. and Thorpe, A. 2001. Design Chains - a
handbook for Integrated Collaborative Design. London: Thomas Telford.
Baccarini, D. 1996. "The concept of project complexity." International Journal of
Project Management, 14(4): 201-204.
Barkmeyer, E. J., Feeny, A. B., Denno, P., Flater, D. W., Libes, D. E., Steves, M. P., &
Wallace, E. K. 2003. Concepts for Automating Systems Integration: NIST.
Baudains, P., Bishop, S., Duffour, P., Marjanovic-Halburd, L., Psarra, S., & Spataru,
C. 2014. "A systems paradigm for integrated building design." Intelligent Buildings
International, 6(4): 201-214.
Blockley, D., & Godfrey, P. 2000. "Doing It Differently: Systems for Rethinking
Construction ".
Bouch, C., Rogers, C., Dawson, R., Baker, C., Quinn, A., & Walsh, C. 2015. A SystemsBased Approach to the Identification of User/Infrastructure Interdependencies as
a Precursor to Identifying Opportunities to Improve Infrastructure Project
Value/Cost Ratios. In T. Dolan, & B. Collins (Eds.), International Symposium for
Next Generation Infrastructure Conference Proceedings 141-144. International
Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA),Schloss Laxenburg, Vienna, Austria:
UCL STEaPP: London, UK.
Boulding, K. E. 1956. "General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science."
Management Science, 2(3): 197-208.
Brady, T., & Davies, A. 2014. "Managing Structural and Dynamic Complexity: A
Tale of Two Projects." Project Management Journal, 45(4): 21-38.
Chachere, J., Kunz, J., & Levitt, R. 2008. The Role of Reduced Latency in Integrated
Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 116. Stanford University: CIFE - Center for
Integrated Facilities Engineering.
Chang, A., Hatcher, C., & Kim, J. 2013. "Temporal boundary objects in
megaprojects: Mapping the system with the Integrated Master Schedule."
International Journal of Project Management, 31(3): 323-332.
Davies, A., Gann, D., & Douglas, T. 2009. "Innovation in Megaprojects: Systems
Integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5 " California Management Review,
51(2): 101-125
Davies, A., & MacKenzie, D. 2014. "Project complexity and systems integration:
Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games." International
Journal of Project Management, 32: 773-790.
Emes, M. R., Smith, A., & Marjanovic-Halburd, L. 2012. "Systems for construction:
lessons for the construction industry from experiences in spacecraft systems
engineering." Intelligent Buildings International, 4(2): 67-88.
Eppinger, S. D., & Browning, T. R. 2012. Design Structure Matrix Methods and
Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ernst and Young. 2012. "Innovating for the next three billion: The rise of the
global middle class and how to capitalize on it."
16
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. 2009. "Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual
representations as 'epistemic objects'." Organization Studies, 30(1): 7-30.
Fisk, D. 2004. "Engineering complexity." Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29:
151-161.
Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing Complex Organization. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Organization Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. 2000. "Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced
firms: the construction of complex products and systems." Research Policy, 29(78): 955-972.
Geyer, A., & Davies, A. 2000. "Managing project-system interfaces: case studies of
railway projects in restructured UK and German markets." Research Policy, 29:
991-1013.
Geyer, P. 2012. "Systems modelling for sustainable building design." Advanced
Engineering Informatics, 26(4): 656-668.
Gkeredakis, E. 2014. "The constitutive role of conventions in accomplishing
coordination: Insights from a complex contract award project." Organization
Studies, 35(10): 1473-1505.
Grady, J. O. 1994. Systems Integration: CRC Press.
Guo, G. 2015. "Information Exchange using Digital Collaboration Technology: Five
Cases of the Social Networks in Approvals."
Hammer, J. 2015. How Berlin’s futuristic airport became a $6 billion
embarrassment: Inside Germany’s profligate (Greek-like!) fiasco called Berlin
Brandenburg, Bloomberg Businessweek.
Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N. M. H., Ridgman, T. W., & Clarkson, P. J. 2015. "FBS Linkage
ontology and technique to support engineering change management." Research in
Engineering Design, 26(1): 3-35.
Hass, K. B. 2009. Managing Complex Projects: A New Model. Vienna: Management
Concepts.
Hobday, M., Davies, A., & Prencipe, A. 2005. "Systems integration: a core capability
of the modern corporation." Industrial and Corporate Change, 14: 1109–1143.
Hughes, T., P. 2005. The human-built world: How to think about technology and
culture. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hughes, T. P. 2000. Rescuing Prometheus. New York: Vintage Books.
Hui, P. P., Davis-Blake, A., & Broschak, J. P. 2008. "Managing interdependence: The
effects of outsourcing structure on the performance of complex projects." Decision
Sciences, 39(1): 5-31.
INCOSE. 2012. Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering in Large
Infrastructure Projects. In main contributors:, Askalsen, E. W., deLamare, M.,
Fehon, K., Godau, R., Knott, A., Koussi, A., de Liefde, J. (Ed.): INCOSE.
Johnson, S. B. 1997. "Three approaches to big technology: operations research,
systems engineering, and project management." Technology and Culture, 38(4):
891-919.
Johnson, S. B. 2002. The Secret of Apollo: Systems Management in American and
European Space Programs. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
Johnson, S. B. 2003. Systems Integration and the Social Solution of Technical
Problems in Complex Systems. In A. Prencipe, A. Davies, & M. Hobday (Eds.), The
Business of Systems Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
Langford, G. O. 2011. Engineering Systems Integration: Theory, Metrics, and
Methods: CRC Press.
Langford, G. O. 2013. "Toward A General Theory of Systems Integration: Research
in the Context of Systems Engineering." University of South Australia.
Langford, G. O., Osmundson, J. S., & Lim, H. L. 2010. Integration Frameworks for
Command and Control, Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Systems Engineering
(APCOSE 2010).
Leveson, N. G. 2011. Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levitt, R. E., Thomsen, J., Christiansen, T. R., Kunz, J. C., Jin, Y., & Nass, C. 1999.
"Simulating project work processes and organizations: Toward a microcontingency theory of organization design." Management Science, 45(11): 14791495.
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., & Romano, E. 2014. "Systems engineering to improve the
governance in complex project environments." International Journal of Project
Management, 32: 1395-1410.
Love, P. E. D., Edwards, D. J., Irani, Z., & Goh, Y. M. 2011. "Dynamics of rework in
complex offshore hydrocarbon projects." Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 137(12): 1060-1070.
Lyneis, J. M., Cooper, K. G., & Els, S. A. 2001. "Strategic management of complex
projects: a case study using system dynamics." System Dynamics Review, 17(3):
237-260.
Madni, A. M., & Sievers, M. 2014. "Systems integration: key perspectives,
experiences, and challenges." Systems Engineering, 17(1): 37-51.
Mahnken, T. G. 2008. Technology and the American way of war since 1945:
Columbia University Press.
Matar, M., Osman, H., & El-Said, M. 2015. "A systems engineering approach for
realizing sustainability in infrastructure projects." HBRC Journal.
Merrow, E. 2011. Industrial megaprojects: concepts, strategies and practices for
success. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Merrow, E. 2014, Bentley Year in Infrastructure Conference. London.
Miller, J. B. 1997. "Engineering systems integration for civil infrastructure
projects." Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(5): 61-69.
Morris, P. 2013. Reconstructing Project Management. Chichester: Wiley.
Naderpajouh, N. 2014. "Interactional analysis of emergent risks in institutionally
diverse construction projects." Purdue.
Naderpajouh, N., & Hastak, M. 2014. "Quantitative analysis of policies for
governance of emergent dynamics in complex construction projects." Construction
Management and Economics, 32(12): 1222-1237.
OECD. 2015. Material Resources, Productivity and the Environment: The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Osterlie, T., & Wang, A. I. 2006. Establishing maintainability in systems integration:
Ambiguity, Negotiations, and infrastructure. Paper presented at the ICSM 2006:
22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, Philadelphia, PA.
Parfitt, M. R., & Whyte, J. 2014. Developing a Mobile Visualization Environment for
Construction Applications, ICCCBE and W78 Construction. Florida, USA, 23-25
June.
18
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
PAS 1192-5. 2015. "Specification for security-minded building information
management, digital built environments and smart asset management."
Perrow, C. 1999 [1984]. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A. 2002. "On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management." Management Science, 48(8): 1008-1023.
Prencipe, A. 2003. Corporate Strategy and Systems Integration Capabilities:
Managing Networks in Complex Systems Industries. In A. Prencipe, A. Davies, & M.
Hobday (Eds.), Business of Systems Integration. Oxford University Press.
RAEng. 2007. Creating systems that work: principles of engineering systems for
the 21st century: Royal Academy of Engineering.
Ramalingham, S., Lobo, S., Mahalingham, A., & Whyte, J. 2014. "Achieving
reliability in transnational work on complex projects: New directions for
research." Engineering Project Organization Journal, 4(4): 193-208.
Remington, K., & Pollack, J. 2008. Tools for Complex Projects Gower.
Sage, A. P., & Lynch, C. L. 1998. "Systems Integration and Architecting: An
Overview of Principles, Practices, and Perspectives." Systems Engineering, 1(1):
176-227.
Sako, M. 2003. Modularity and outsourcing: the nature of co-evolution of product
architecture and organisation architecture in the global automotive industry. In A.
Prencipe, A. Davies, & M. Hobday (Eds.), Business of Systems Integration. Oxford
University Press.
Sapolski, H. 2003. Inventing systems integration. In A. Prencipe, A. Davies, & M.
Hobday (Eds.), The Business of Systems Integration: 15-34. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sapolsky, H. M. 1972. The Polaris System development: Bureaucratic and
programmatic success in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Satumtira, G., & Dueñas-Osorio, L. 2010. Synthesis of Modeling and Simulation
Methods on Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies Research. In K.
Gopalakrishnan, & S. Peeta (Eds.), Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure
Systems: Simulation, Modeling and Intelligent Engineering. Berlin: Springer.
Sayles, L., & Chandler, M. K. 1971. Managing large systems. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Schofield, M. 2015. How many Germans does it take to plan an airport?
Apparently, more than exist, McclatchyDC: McclatchyDC.
Scott, R. W., Levitt, R. E., & Orr, R. J. (Eds.). 2011. Global Projects: Institutional and
Political Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Senescu, R. R., Aranda-Mena, G., & Haymaker, J. R. 2013. "Relationships between
project complexity and communication." Journal of Management in Engineering,
29(2): 183-197.
Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. 2012. "Global forecasts of urban expansion
to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools." Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), 109(40): 16083-16088.
Shen, W., Hao, Q., Mak, H., Neelamkavil, J., Xie, H., Dickinson, J., Thomas, R.,
Pardasani, A., & Xue, H. 2010. "Systems integration and collaboration in
architecture, engineering, construction, and facilities management: A review."
Advanced Engineering Informatics, 24(2): 196–207.
Simon, H. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
19
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre
Steward, D. 1981. "The design structure matrix: A method for managing the
design of complex systems." Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 28(3):
71-74.
Suh, E. S., Chiriac, N., & Hölttä-Otto, K. 2015. "Seeing Complex System through
Different Lenses: Impact of Decomposition Perspective on System Architecture
Analysis." Systems Engineering, 18(3): 229-240.
Tao, Z., Zophy, F. G., & Wiegmann, J. 2000. Asset management model and systems
integration approach, Transportation Research Record: 191-199.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action: social science bases of
administrative theory. New York: McGrawHill.
Turkulainen, V., Kujala, J., Artto, K., & Levitt, R. E. 2013. "Organizing in the context
of global project-based firm: The case of sales-operations interface." Industrial
Marketing Management, 42(2): 223-233.
United Nations. 2015. Population, Consumption and the Environment 2015:
United Nations (UN) Department of Economic Affairs, Population Division.
Weick, K. E. 2005. Making Sense of Blurred Images: Mindful Organizing in Mission
STS-107. In W. Starbuck, & M. Farjoun (Eds.), Organization at the Limit: Lessons
from the Columbia Disaster: 159-177. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Whyte, J. 2013. "Beyond the Computer: Changing Medium from Digital to
Physical." Information and Organization, 23: 41-57.
Whyte, J., & Broyd, T. 2015. Viewing Asset Information: Developments in
Augmented Reality, CIB W78 Conference on IT in Construction. Eindhoven.
Whyte, J., & Levitt, R. 2011. Information Management and the Management of
Projects. In P. Morris, J. Pinto, & J. Söderlund (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Project
Management: 365-387. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whyte, J., Stasis, A., & Lindkvist, C. 2015. "Managing change in the delivery of
complex projects: Configuration management, asset information and ‘big data’."
International Journal of Project Management, in press - corrected proof
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006.
Whyte, J. K. 2002. Virtual Reality and the Built Environment. Oxford: Architectural
Press.
Williams, T. 2002. Modelling complex projects. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Winch, G. 1998. "Zephyrs of creative destruction." Building Research &
Information, 26(4): 268-279.
Zhu, J., & Mostafavi, A. 2015. Ex-ante assessment of vulnerability to uncertainty in
complex construction project organizations, 5th International/ 11th Construction
Speciality Conference. Vancouver, British Columbia.
Biography
Jennifer Whyte is Laing O’Rourke / Royal Academy of Engineering Professor of
System Integration in the Centre for Systems Engineering and Innovation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London.
Her research interests are in the coordination of work and visualization of design
interfaces across large complex engineering projects.
20
Working Paper 8 Jennifer Whyte – Future of Systems Integration - November 2015
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/lorsystemscentre