Search

Philosophers have studied paradoxes for millennia. The term paradox is appearing increasingly outside of philosophy, and researchers seek to understand them in common situations. By understanding these phenomena, systems engineers may develop better strategies to deal with them when encountered in business or projects. However, what is meant by the term systems paradox and are there different types? Towards this goal, this paper will present definitions of systems from systems science and paradox from philosophy in a quest to define systems paradox. A paradox that impacts some objective of a system is designated a systems paradox. Then a typology of systems paradoxes will be proposed and described using set theory. Various examples provide a demonstration of the typology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on preliminary research of the experience of groups like the policy community, we believe that engineers, especially those developing systems of systems, may benefit from an appreciation of paradox. For example, the policy community embraces and leverages paradox to address problems that might otherwise prove intractable. We believe that policy makers will also benefit from systems thinking. We briefly review the definition of paradox, introduce its potential to generate "breakthrough" thinking for innovative solutions, and illustrate some contemporary engineering problems that contain paradoxes. We then recount several historical examples of successfully applied paradoxical thinking, illustrate the paradoxes inherent in two fundamental systems thinking constructs, and postulate a three-step approach to leveraging paradox in problem solving situations. We close by posing some key follow-on questions and a research program designed to support the development of paradox-related training in both systems engineering and policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on preliminary research of the experience of groups like the policy community, we believe that engineers, especially those developing systems of systems, may benefit from an appreciation of paradox. For example, the policy community embraces and leverages paradox to address problems that might otherwise prove intractable. We believe that policy makers will also benefit from systems thinking. We briefly review the definition of paradox, introduce its potential to generate "breakthrough" thinking for innovative solutions, and illustrate some contemporary engineering problems that contain paradoxes. We then recount several historical examples of successfully applied paradoxical thinking, illustrate the paradoxes inherent in two fundamental systems thinking constructs, and postulate a three-step approach to leveraging paradox in problem solving situations. We close by posing some key follow-on questions and a research program designed to support the development of paradox-related training in both systems engineering and policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowledge for managing projects, for the development of systems, has not kept pace with the increasing complexity and integration of the projects themselves. This increased complexity has permitted some to reason distinctions between systems projects and propose a form of system called a "system of system" (SoS). Faced with this situation, we argue that a single point solution cannot be the answer to how to manage these systems. We suggest the remedy is a form of project management predicated on four principles that underline SoS thinking: problem demystification, legacy assessment, state-space solutioning, and integration framework. Using these principles as a foundation, we provide a set of characteristics (i.e. autonomy, belonging, connectivity, diversity, and emergence) that can be applied as fundamental building blocks to actualize the management of an SoS, or any system. More importantly, we present an architecture predicated on the paradoxes that exist in realizing and formalizing these characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]