MANAGING COMPLEX TECHNOLOGY PROJECTSSystems methodologies help meet the formidable challenge of managing increasingly

complex engineering systems so they deliver the specified requirements.

Simon P. Philbin

OVERVIEW: A survey of United Kingdom-based indus-trial companies has identified the development ofsystems architectures and the use of a robust approach tointegrated systems design as important contributors tothe successful delivery of today's complex technologyand engineering projects. A new conceptual framework,called the four-frames systems view, has been developedas a tool for the management of such projects. This inno-vative framework brings together different systems-related methodologies and tools in order to reduce riskin project design, implementation and management. Theframework is based on a view that different systemsmethodologies are needed in order to accommodatedifferent levels of complexity. The development of a UAV(unmanned aerial vehicle) system for the civil sector isan initial application of the framework.

KEY CONCEPTS: four-frames systems view, systemsengineering, system-of-systems, project management.

Technology and engineering projects are becomingincreasingly complex, both from a technical and man-agement perspective. This, in tum, is driving the need fornew tools and techniques that can facilitate the design,implementation and management of such programs (/).Although systems engineering (2) and the related subjectof systems integration (J) have been developed to meetthis need, there continues to be discussion over the mostappropriate methods to use when undertaking systems-level research or technology activities. Moreover, this is

Simon Philbin is a program manager within the facultyof engineering of Imperial College London in the UnitedKingdom. He manages business and corporate develop-ment programs in support of research for the defense andaerospace industries. Philbin has worked with Imperialfor four years and before that for nine years in researchand technology management at QinetiQ (formerly anagency ofthe UK Ministry of Defence). He holds a B.Sc.from the University of Birmingham in chemistry and aPh.D. from Brunei University in energetic materialschemistry and has recently completed a part-time M. B.A.s.philbin@imperial.ac.uk

not limited to engineerings—systems approaches are nowbeing extended to biological and fmancial systems aswell as social system applications.

This article describes the findings from an industrysurvey designed to identify the main industrial problemareas where systems approaches could be brought to bearand consequently add value to the technology and engi-neering management process for complex projects. (See"How the Survey was Conducted," next page.) Thesurvey results indicated that system architectures and arobust approach to achieving integrated system designwere both important factors in the delivery and ultimatesuccess of systems-based technology and engineeringprojects. The survey also identified that the use ofsystems integration and system-of-systems approacheshad a major impact on the potential success of suchcomplex projects.

The survey frjrther revealed the need for systems engi-neering capabilities to include both quantitative or math-ematical aspects as well as qualitative or descriptiveaspects. Within the computer sciences and engineeringresearch domains, the generation of a mathematicalformalism in order to provide a representation of asituation is commonplace. The generation ofthe solutionto this formalism then provides an appropriate math-ematical model, or algorithm, for the application underinvestigation. The challenge for systems-based ap-proaches would therefore appear to be the ability to linkthese algorithmic-type approaches to qualitative frame-works that technology and engineering managers canutilize to add engineering value and reduce technical andmanagement risk.

Managing Complexity

Systems engineering has been evolving for many yearsand the development ofthe four-frames system view isan attempt to continue this evolutionary process. Thisnew framework, which has been developed at ImperialCollege, integrates fundamental systems engineering ap-proaches, such as integrated system design and require-ments engineering from the traditional "V approach" (7),with more recent methodologies and approaches, which

Research • Technology Management2lH)t(liKlusrnnl Rf

How the Survey Was Conducted Chart 2

The purpose ofthe survey was to obtain industrial perspec-tives on the use of systems methodologies for managingcomplex teehnology projects. Twenty-five completedsurveys were obtained from a broad range of differentUK-based companies (150 surveys were sent out tocompany contacts ofthe author). Over half of the completedsurveys came from defense organizations but the remainingcompleted surveys reflected a number of other industrialsectors, including the pharmaceutical, energy, transport andtelecommunications sectors. The survey eontained 14questions, including multiple-choice questions and openquestions that provided an opportunity for descriptiveanswers. There were a number of general questions, sueh asquestion (a), which sought views on quantitative versusqualitative systems approaches. Chart 1 shows the results.

ia). Which of the following dimensions of systems engi-neering do you feel is the most important for managingcomplexity?1. Quantitative, mathematical or computatiortal D2. Qualitative or descriptive D3. Both D

Chart 1

60

jS 50M

16 3 0 -5? 20 H

10 -

0 -1 2 3

The responses to this question elearly show a preference forsystems engineering approaches that embrace both quanti-tative and qualitative approaches. Question (b) sought toaddress a specific point on the use of systems modeling andChart 2 provides the data obtained.

(b). Which of the following areas of multi-scale system.smodeling is most relevant to your area of work?1. Simulation D2. Optimisation Di. Control n4. Design n5. Risk analysis and management D

Chart 2 highlights significant interest in systems modelingfor simulation applications although there is also someinterest in risk analysis and management. Simulation ofsystem performance ean be a key activity to help reduceproject risk and this is incorporated in the four-frames

March—April 2008

2 3 4 5

Answer number

systems view. Question (c) was open-ended to give theopportunity for descriptive answers.

(c). Can you provide a short description of the key chal-lenges that your organisation faces and how systemsengineering can help?

Many replies to this question focused on common needs,such as the management of increasingly complex projects.This increasing complexity was associated with a numberof different factors, including the development of new tech-nologies and a greater prevalence of networked organiza-tional structures to deliver complex programs.

Many answers also mentioned the specifie problems asso-ciated with systems integration of new teehnologies onexisting platforms. This was especially the case for defensecompanies, for example, involving "through life capabilitymanagement" of military platforms and the sub.sequcntrequirement for technology insertions to extend the opera-tional life and capability ofthe platform.

Finally, the development of tools and techniques to managethe complexity of system-of-systems was a commonrequirement.

A number of themes can be discerned from the survey, suehas the ongoing challenges around systems integration andthe complexity of so-ealled system-of-systems. Interest insystems engineering research included both quantitativeand qualitative aspects; mathematical systems that do notinclude descriptive or semantic elements are less favored.

Within the area of systems modeling, the main focus ofinterest appears to be on simulation of real-world events,although there was also interest in the provision of asystems capability that reproduces experimentation as partof a low-cost solution, e.g.. using modeling and simulationto reduce product development costs.

Interestingly, the survey highlighted that there are manydifferent perspectives on what constitutes systems engi-neering, but despite these ditTerences there was agreementon the need for more robust systems tools, models and tech-niques for the management of complex technology proj-ects.—S.P.P.

have been designed to address the inereasing complexityassociated with the need for systems integration andsystem-of-systems.

Additionally, the framework references a theoreticalfoundation, through the systems theory level, whichseeks to emphasize the need for skills, expertise andexperience of systems practitioners. It is also linked tothe enterprise level, which addresses the need to providea bridge between technology management approachesand traditional business management.

Systems engineering and project tnanagement are sys-tematic methodologies that have been designed tomanage technical and organizational complexity;however, the failure of complex technology projectscan be linked to both technical and social causes {4). Fur-thermore, the increasing complexity of large technicalsystems can be associated with larger orgatiizationa!structures as well as greater tiumbers of dependenciesand distributed networks of people and organizationsthat are related to the system under investigation.

This increased complexity, together with the nonlinearnature of technology-based projects and the tighter con-nectivity between subsystems, is leading to a greater riskattached to the delivery of projects and programs. Forexample, in the defense sector, there are numerous caseswhere program costs have not been properly controlledon high-value platform procurements programs. Thesecost increases have often arisen due to the increasingcomplexity of technologies in general but specificallythrough rapid advances in information and communica-tions technologies.

The discipline of systems engineering and traditionalapproaches to integrated systems design, such as the "Vapproach/' fomi a solid basis for tackling these complex-ity issues, but the challenges do remain. One approach tomeeting this need is the adoption of greater modularity ofthe complex system (5). However, modularity cansimply increase complexity through introducing furtherinterconnectivity within the technology system.

Four-Frames Systems View

The four-frames systems view is a conceptual frame-work that has been designed as a tool for the managementof complex technology projects. The too! differs fromother approaches by providing a route map for managersto help reduce technical and management risk forcomplex projects. This route map is based on a progres-sion through the different frames and by reference to thetwo levels {systems theory and enterprise) so thateffective systems management routines and behaviorsare established. The use of this approach cannotguarantee the success of any technical project but itshould help to reduce risks and help the manager of

The failure efcomplex fechnology

projects can belinked to beffiteciinicai andsociai causes.

complex technology projects to "cover as many bases aspracticably possible."

The four-frames systems view is based on tour descrip-tive frames, which allow increasing levels of complexityto be managed (see diagram, next page). Each framecontains its own subset of tools and techniques that canbe used to tnanage complexity and reduce project risk.Although this approach infers a linear progressionthrough the frames in a sequential manner, it is recog-nized that in certain applications this may not bepossible. In this case, the activities associated with eachframe should be undertaken in a sequence that is contin-gent on the properties of the particular technologyproject.

Certain technology projects may only require progres-sion though a subset of all four frames; for example, thedevelopment of a new structural bearing for an automo-tive application may require systems engineering to becarried out in the first two frames: integrated systemdesign (Frame I) and systems architecture development(Frame 2). However, significantly more complex engi-neering systems may require progression through all fourframes.

For example, the development of an aircraft avionicssoftware package will need to involve all four frames inorder to cope with the high degree of complexity withinthe system. In such a case, the overall architecture willneed to be designed in conjunction with the effective useof integrated system design as part of the engineeringprocess (Frames I and 2). The software package willneed to be integrated with existing hardware andsoftware configurations, such as the engine managementsystem that controls the perfonnance characteristics ofthe aircraft engine (Frame 3). It will also need to bealigned to other (partially and non-federated) systems,such as the aircraft maintenance systems (Frame 4).

Although the model does not explicitly include feedbackmechanisms, it is recognized that feedback is an essential

Research • leclinology IVIanajionient

part of the control cycle for technology projects.Therefore, progression according to the four-framesframework may be accompanied by appropriatefeedback loops. For example, once the system arehitee-tiire has been developed for a particular IT system(Frame 2), before systems integration can occur (Frame3), additional systems design and testing may need to becarried out (Frame I) in order to enhance the systemarchitecture (Frame 2).

Systems Theory Level

Within the framework, the four frames are supported bythe systems theory level. This level provides the genericsystems skills, techniques, semantics, and language,together with the requisite understanding of systemsmethods, which are required for any systems-based tech-nology project to be undertaken. Appropriate systemstechniques could include approaches to systems dia-gramming, such as systems maps (useful for mappingstakeholders), fishbone or Ishikawa diagrams {useful fordisplaying linear systems relationships) and multiple-eause diagrams (useful for displaying non-linear andcyclic systems relationships). In order for the engineer-ing system to be implemented, both the project managerand the project team will need sufficient awareness andrelevant experience in the application of systems toolsand approaches.

The systems theory level can be further enhanced by theuse of systems dynamics. Originally developed in the1960s (6), this discipline provides conceptual tools andtechniques to help understand the structure and dynamicsof complex systems (7). Tools such as multiple-causediagrams are used to map the structure of complexsystems and to investigate the dynamics of thesesystems. There have been applications in various areas,such as supply chain management and disease epi-demics as well as industry and market changes. System

There wasagreement en the

need fer mererehust systemsteels, medels

and techniq^uesfer managing

cemplex prejects.dynamics helps provide the context for system modeling,which is focused on developing an understanding of aparticular problem area connected with the functioningofthe system. As part ofthe modeling process, the math-ematical fonnalism ofthe model will be based on thetheory of dynamic hypothesis, which essentiallyprovides a description ofthe system behavior.

Enterprise Level

Within the framework, all four frames are linked to theenterprise level. This connection emphasizes the impor-tance of managing engineering systems in the eontext ofthe overall organization: its structure and composition,aims and objectives, as well as strategic and operationalcharacteristics. This linking to the enterprise level also

ENTERPRISE LEVEL

Frame 1:Integrated

systemdesign

Frame 2:\ \ Systems/ / architecture

development/ /

Frame 3:Systems

integration

Frame 4:System-of-

systemsmanagement

SYSTEMS THEORY LEVEL

The four-frames systems fratnework consists of four de.scriptive frames thataccommodate increasing levels of complexity. All four frames are supported by thesystems theory level and linked to the enterprise level, thus emphasizing the need toconsider a project's business as well as technical aspects.

Marth—April 2008

Systems Engineering

The 2004 INCOSE (International Council on SystemsEngineering) handbook describes systems engineeringas "an interdisciplinary approach and means to enabiethe realisation of successful systems," where a systemis "an integrated set of elements that accomplish a definedobjective. These elements include products (hardware,software and firmware), processes, people, informa-tion, techniques, facilities, services and other supportelements."

Although this definition is comprehensive, in order tohighlight the key features of this discipline, it is useful toprovide some ofthe underlying principles, and these are asfollows:

• Systems engineering is about managing complexity andaehieving an operational capability. Complex systemscould include the manufacture of an aircraft, ship or auto-mobile or the development of a telecommunicationssystem.

• Central to the systems engineering approach, especial-ly for very complex systems, is the need to establishan overall systems architecture that provides theframework for the systems engineering acdvities to takeplace, which in tum leads to delivery of the operationalcapability.

• The systems engineering approach involves the decom-posidon ofthe system into smaller subunits or subsystemsand then the management of these subsystems through anappropriate system life cycle.

• The systems engineering process is iterative by natureand encompasses generic phases in the resulting systemlife cycle, such as requirements specificadon or capture(requirements management), analysis, design, implemen-tation, integration, acceptance, and evaluation.

• Systems engineering can be seen as a technical and amanagerial discipline, as well as being interdisciplinaryacross, for example, different engineering areas, such aselectrical engineering and mechanical systems design.

• Project management through the project life cycle canembrace many ofthe same activities that are carried out aspart of effective systems engineering. However, projectmanagement is specifically focused on the production ofthe project deliverables according to time, cost and perfor-mance (quality) criteria, whereas systems engineeringtakes a more holistic view, which includes factors outsideofthe scope of traditional project management.

Systems engineering is practiced widely in the defensesector, such as procurement programs for naval vessels.Such programs often involve many subcontractors andsuppliers that deliver products and services to a prime con-tractor, which is responsible to the relevant governmentorganization for the overall program. Due to the complexand broad range of components, products and servicesthat are required to deliver these defense systems andplatforms, there will often be an extensive network ofsuppliers in place (i.e., a supply ehain) in order to supportthe prime contractor.

There are, of course, other industrial sectors where systemsengineering is practiced, sueh as the software engineeringindustry. The design of software systems can require therigorous application of systems engineering but holisticapproaches can also be applied at the software architecturelevel, such as the end-to-end design of a secure transactionsystem. Such a system may require a multi-layered archi-tecture that includes a software assurance process, policymanagement center, user trustworthiness system; togetherwith relevant hardware systems, such as secure servers,PCs and mobile phones. Further subsystems to be managedcould include training requirement packages and risk man-agement systems, together with an overall consideration ofboth the technical and human aspects ofthe wider systemof interest (WSOI).—S.P.P.

needs to ensure that not just the technical aspects of anyproject are considered. There needs to be clear recogni-tion of any social dimensions ofthe work system. Exami-nation ofthe social dynamics within the system shouldtake account ofthe cognitive or human sciences aspects,as failure to ftiUy understand the human component ofany subsystem can hurt performance of the overallsystem.

The enterprise level analysis should not be limited to theorganizadon itself but should also include its partners,both suppliers and customers. This holistic view oftheenterprise should address the needs of both intemal andexternal stakeholders.

Frame I: Integrated System Design

The first frame involves the integrated system designprocess and essentially incorporates the traditional

systems engineering V approach. Progression of theengineering project according to the V approach ensuresthat the requirements are fully captured and subsequentlyincorporated into the system development phase, whichis followed by validation, verification and testing ofthesystem.

During the requirements capture stage, it is important tohave a defined set of requirements from the outset ofthedevelopment process. These requirements can form thebasis for the customer/supplier relationship and for sub-sequent decision-making. Failure to have properlydefined requirements., or alternatively where the require-ments are subject to frequent change, can have a detri-mental effect on the system development process.

As part of the integrated system design process, themanager of the technology or engineering project will

Research • Technology

need to ensure that the user requirements are adequatelycaptured and properly recorded in project planningdocuments. These requirements can then be used as thebasis for quality assurance (QA) activities that are under-taken later in the project life cycle. Such QA acdvitieswill be further supported by a number of underpinningaspects, such as appropriate organizatiotial structuresand control systems, which will need to be aligned sothat the system perfonnance and quality standards arerealized.

Frame 2: Systems Architecture Development

The systems architecture is essentially a representationofthe systems components (e.g., both the hardware andsoftware subsystems for a new IT system) and an expres-sion of the relationship or connectivity between thesesubsystems. Establishment ofthe architecture allows acomprehensive understanding of the system to be de-veloped. This understanding can be enhanced furtherthrough more detailed systems studies, sueh as the use ofmodeling and simulation. For example, the manufactureof an aerospace subsystem, such as a mechanicalactuator, could involve simulation of the performancecharacteristics ofthe actuator.

Previous studies have identified the need to establishinformadon systems architectures that include high-levelbusiness strategies in addition to computer code (<V). Thisapproach highlighted parallels between informationsystem architectures and real-world scenarios, such asthe design and constmction of buildings. A descriptivemodel was developed that provided new tools and tech-niques, which can inform the architecture develop-ment process. The model included consideration ofthebusiness perspective and the informadon system per-spective, depicted as data columns. The four-framessystems view is an attempt to reinforce this type oflinking of the technical and architecture developmentactivities with the enteiprise level, which includes orga-nizational aspects as well as business strategy.

Frame 3: Systems Integration

This frame highlights a particular case for systems thatare highly complex and where there can be speeific dif-ficulties with the implementadon ofthe system once ithas been designed, validated and tested. Operationaltesting ofthe system can require the integration aspectsto be addressed; however, integration with existingsystems as well as with other new systems can becomeproblematic for different types of engineering projects.Systems integration was identified by the industrysurvey as a major source of problem areas in complextechnology projects. In this context, the development ofversatile and robust mathematical models and algo-rithms, together with descriptive frameworks that al-low systems integration to be achieved, continues tobe a major challenge for systems-oriented aeademicresearehers and systems practitioners.

Ultimately, the success of any systems integrationactivity will be based on the ability of the system todeliver the required functional capabilities. The inte-gration process is likely to benefit from a thoroughappreciation of the system attributes together with anunderstanding of how the system will function in relationto the environment outside the system's definedboundary (this may include the wider system of interestview). Similarly, in military terms it may be useful torelate the system to the appropriate concept of opera-tions, in order to ensure that the system pertbnns effec-tively once it has been integrated with other systems andsubsystems.

Various generic tools can be used in support of thesystems integration proeess, including modeling, simu-lation and visualization techniques. Furthermore,applying a network-centric approach to systems integra-tion can have particular benefits. Such a frameworkcould involve regarding each system as a node on aninformation network. Consequently, the integration andresulting management of these systems can be achievedthrough the use of established network managementmodels, such as root cause analysis, active network man-agement or agent-based teehniques (9).

Frame 4: System-of-Systems Management

The system-of-systems (SoS) approach addressesspecific issues associated with systems implementationand management for highly complex systems. In thiscase, such systems may be only loosely federated witheach other or alternatively may be non-federated; theyare therefore not considered as a series of systems andeorresponding subsystems. Effective SoS managementcan require a more in-depth analysis ofthe requirementsbeeause there are multiple systems to consider and therequirements engineering can become significantly morecomplex {10).

Establishment of a requirements matrix can help thisprocess and the increased number of systems can lead tothe need for a broader eonsideration of a larger group ofstakeholders. The literature on SoS management appearsto be fragmented but there are studies that have high-lighted the need for new processes and techniques to bedeveloped in order to cope with the increased complexityof SoS-type situations {11).

In order to idendfy some ofthe key issties that may ariseas part of a systems-based technology project, and con-sequently to highlight how to effectively use the four-frames systems view, it is suggested that a number ofquestions be posed in relation to the project (see"Questions To Ask," next page ). These questions shouldhelp the project team to identify which systems-basedtools and techniques will potendally be of most benefitand thereby provide an initial checklist for planningcomplex technology projects.

March—April 2008

Application ofthe Framework

To illustrate the utility of this framework, the four-frames systems view will be applied to an emergingbusiness opportunity that is technologically intensiveand has complexity both on a teehnology and organiza-tional level. The application is the development ofunmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for commereial uses.such as eargo transport or environmental monitoring.

The first frame of the framework (integrated systemdesign) can be applied to the development of the UAVplatform. Initial identification of the system require-ments, such as the load capacity, range and endurance ofthe vehicle, together with propulsion and other per-formance characteristics will establish the vehicle'soperating parameters. The established V approaeh canthen be used, from requirements capture and manage-ment to system development and then validation, verifi-cation and acceptance testing. This initial systems workrepresents traditional approaches to systems develop-ment.

The second frame involves rigorous development of thesystems architecture and, in this example, could start oncethe initial system has matured sufficiently, i.e., before thefirst frame is complete. In order to understand how the airvehicle will operate, a detailed systems architecture willneed to be established, which includes an understand-ing of how the platform's subsystems (e.g., softwaresubsystem, propulsion, landing gear, etc.) interact witheach other and how they contribute to the performance ofthe overall UAV system.

The systems architecture will need to ineorporatevalidated data and information on the UAVs flight char-acteristics, guidance and control aspects as well asvarious informadon and communicadon technologies,such as sensor integration systems. Modeling and simu-

ladon can be carried out on the performance ofthe UAV,involving development of a real-time synthetic environ-ment (72) that is based on a mathematical description ofthe system attributes. The synthetic environment can beused to model the operadon ofthe UAV and then, whenthe UAV is operational, real-time data from the UAV canbe used in the computer simulation to further enhance theUAVs performance.

Progression to the third frame can occur once a robustsystems architecture has been developed and the perfor-manee ofthe UAV is fully understood. The third framewill require integration ofthe UAVs subsystems andwith related systems (e.g., the ground-based controlsystem) whieh together would represent an operationalUAV system. The integration process will ensure that theconnectivity of the UAV subsystems is fully achievedand the system delivers the operational capabilities.

This process would need to address hardware andsoftware eonsiderations, with the latter being dependenton associated interface protocols, etc. Integration ofsystem software could be achieved through the applica-don of critical, metrics-based success factors {13). Thisapproach benefits from allowing deeisions on systemconformity and acceptability to be taken as part oftheplanning.

Finally, progression to the system-of-systems (SoS)frame will be required in order to integrate the opera-tional UAV system with non-federated or only loosely-federated systems. In the case of an application for cargotransport, forexample, there will be a need to manage theUAV system in the context of airport operations. Theairport itself can be considered a system-of-systems,which would inelude the air traffic management, eargohandling, law enforcement, and homeland securitysystems as well as the airport's management systems.

Questions To Ask

1. Will the engineering system be open or closed, i.e., towhat extent is there an interaction with the external envi-ronment?

2. Are there any quantitative or algorithmic-based modelsthat have suitability and relevance to the engineeringsystem?

3. Does the engineering system have a social or people-oriented dimension that needs adequate coverage?

4. Has an initial view been formed on where the main areasof complexity will arise within the engineering system andits subsystems?

5. To what extent is the engineering system based on acomprehensive integrated system design process, includ-

ing requirements engineering, system development andtesting?

6. How adapdve does the system architecture need to be;will the success ofthe engineering system depend on thelevel of adaptability ofthe architecture?

7. Will the engineering system need to be integrated withexisting systems or other newly developed systems?

8. Will the engineering systems need to be managed in thecontext of other loosely federated systems, thereby repre-senting a system-of-systems?

9. Do the project team members have the required systemsskills and understanding of system theories, tools and teeh-niques?

10. Have the enterprise level aspects ofthe engineeringsystem been properly considered?

Research • Technology Management

Specific SoS activides could include linking togethermultiple information and eommunication networksusing the Pajek Plot network analysis tool {14).However, in order to retain flexibility and for technologyupgrades to occur, there may be a need for sueh networksto be only loosely federated together. This would retainflexibility, so that software and hardware enhancementscan be undertaken for individual networks (systemlevel), without compromising the capabilities oftheentire communication apparatus (SoS level).

The four frames view is underpinned by the systemstheory level. In this example, at all stages ofthe systemsdevelopment program, it will be essential for the peopleinvolved to have adequate systems skills and experi-ence. Moreover, and in relation to the framework'senterprise level, a clear and attractive business casewill be required in order for UAVs to be developed forapplication in the civil airspace. With UAVs already inoperation in the military environment, as both sur-veillance and combat platforms, their application in thecivil sector would benefit from previous researeh andtechnology investment in the defense sector. The use ofcivil UAVs for cargo transport will be dependent onservice demand and consequently integration withcustomer relationship management (CRM) systems willbe needed.

Future WorkThis conceptual framework is an innovative approach tohelp improve the level of understanding ofthe problemareas and the resulting trade space for engineeringprojeets. It has not been designed to be overly prescrip-tive but is instead a tool that should be of benefit in theplanning, implementation and management of eomplextechnology and engineering projects.

Further research will be required in order to provide addi-tional linking mechanisms for the different approaches tosystems methodologies. Future work could include anextension of the four-frames systems view in order toincorporate a quantitative dimension and thereby helpprovide a bridge between algorithmic-based solutionsand more descriptive engineering frameworks. It is also

recommended that a set of performance metrics bedeveloped to help measure the effeetiveness of systemsframeworks. The generation of a numerical measure-ment tool that could be applied to the different parts ofthe four-frames systems view would offer the potential toassess its effectiveness for different technology and engi-neering projects ®

Acknowledgments

The author thanks colleagues from Imperial College,including Stratos Pistikopoulos, Elena Kulinskaya andMichael Hill-King, who gave helpful advice on thesurvey. Grateful aeknowledgment is also made to RTM^sBoard of Editors for advice on this article.

References

t. Buedc. D. M, 1999. The Engineering De.\ign of Systems: Modelsami Methods. .lohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.2. Stevens, R., Brook, P.. Jackson, K.. Arnold, S. 1998. SystemsEngineering. Coping with Complexity. Pearson.3. Prencipe. A.. Davies, A.. Hobday, M. eds. 2005. The Business ofSystems Integration. Oxford University Press.4. tvory. C. and Alderman. N. 2005 Can Project Management LearnAriylhing from Studies of Failure in Complex Systems? Project Man-agement Journal Vol. 36, Issue 3, pp. 5-16.5. Ethiraj, S. K. and Lcvinthal, D. 2004. Modularity and Innovationin Complex Systems. Management Science Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 159-173.6. Forrester, J. W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge; MITPress.7. Stermaii, J. D. 2000. Busine.ss Dynamics. Systems Thinking andModeling for a Complex World. McGraw-FIill Higher Education.8. Zachman, J. A. t987. A Framework for Information SystemsArchitecture. IBMSy.stems Joitnial Vo\. 26, Issue 3, pp. 276-292.9. Gupta. A. 2006. Network Management: Current Trends andFuture Perspectives. Journal of Network & Systems ManagementVol. 14. Issue 4, pp. 483-491.10. Hooks. 1.2005. Managing Requirements for a System of System.Journal of the Qualit}' .Assurance Institute Vol. 19, Issue 4, pp. 16-20.11. Keating. C et al. 2003. System of Systems Engineering. Engi-neering Management Journal Vol. 15, Issue 3. pp. .36-45.12. Abdelguerfi, M., ed. 2001. 3D Synthetic Environment Recon-struction. Series: The Springer International Series in Engineeringami Computer Science Vol. 611.13. Mendoza. L. E., Perez, M., Griman, A. 2006. Critical SuccessFactors for Managing Systems Integration. Information SystemsManagement Vol. 23. Issue 2. pp. 56-75.14. Batagclj, V. and Mrvar. A. 2003. Pajek—Analysis and Visual-ization of Large Networks in Junger, M. and Mut/el. P. (eds.), GraphDrawing Software, Springer: Berlin, p. 77-103.

Reprints

PROMOTING BREAKTHROUGH INNOVATION

Sixty-seven RESEARCH • TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT artieles on this subject are now available inpaperback. To order, see inside back cover.

3000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial SuccessHow Management Can Influence the Generation of IdeasManaging Human Resources for Innovation

and Creativity

New Produets: What Distinguishes the Winners?Fostering Breakthrough Innovations

. . . AND MORE

March—April 2008