Concept development within the framework of the systems engineering concept
Search for objectives, comprising situation analysis and formulation of objectives: where do we stand? Where do we want to get to? Why?
Search for a solution, including the partial steps of synthesis (building creatively) and analysis (critical, checking); what possibilities are there for getting there (variants)?
Selection, including the steps of evaluation and decision; which option is the best, most appropriate, and should be pursued further (i.e., planned in more detail or executed)?
The steps of the PSC (situation analysis, formulation of objectives, synthesis/analysis, and evaluation/selection) are discussed in depth in the following sections.
6.1 Situation Analysis
Situation analysis as an information source in the problem-solving cycle (PSC)
The impulse can be more or less concrete. At the beginning of a preliminary study, it can be a fragmentary, perhaps even contradictory, description of a situation that is perceived as either desirable or problematic (i.e., inappropriate, not perfect, uncompetitive, risky). At the beginning of a detailed study, it may be the clear task to develop a solution module that is defined in terms of its function, performance characteristics, and interfaces.
Enable recognition of the embedding of the system within its environment
Heighten understanding of the problem for all parties concerned and help to clarify requirements
Help in the definition and formulation of objectives
Prepare for the development of solutions
6.1.1 Purpose and Terminology
- To make the situation with which one is confronted “easier to grasp,” i.e.,
To understand problems and their nature and to investigate causes and their relationships (problem)
To understand new ideas or solution approaches for as yet unidentified applications and their logic (opportunity)
- To recognize the aims and tasks and their initial situation, i.e., to clarify the requirements and line of thought for the nature and extent of the desired or required developments and changes
To structure and define the problem or area under examination
To set out the intervention and design areas for the solution search
To create an information base for the subsequent steps of defining objectives and searching for solutions (Fig. 6.2).
The term situation analysis is related to a situation assessment, as found in military vocabulary, and to diagnosis from medical terminology.
A situation assessment consists of the intellectual dismantling (analysis) of circumstances (location, situation), the compiling and ordering of relations, and the determining of causes. The aim is to gain the necessary information for one’s own plan of action, i.e., information about desirable alternative conditions and possible ways of achieving them.
In medicine, one tries to find, on the basis of existing symptoms, combinations of symptoms, so-called syndromes, on which to base a diagnosis. This diagnosis then determines the basis for possible therapies. The situation analysis can take on such a character.
As mentioned earlier, it is appropriate to separate the area to be examined from the intervention and design areas. Both of these areas are to be elaborated in a situation analysis, whereby one can use the approaches, model deliberations, and illustrative techniques of systems thinking (Part I, Chap. 1).
The area under examination will inevitably be larger than these, to be able to assess the requirements, opportunities, and limitations of integrating the subsequent solution. The definition of the design area is the result of a “skillful” restriction to what is suitable, necessary, and workable.
6.1.2 Guidelines and Principles for the Analysis of Situations
The difference between the ACTUAL condition and the notion of a TARGET condition was identified as a problem earlier, however vague that difference may be. Without any previous knowledge, idea, or vision of a TARGET condition, there is seldom cause for dissatisfaction with existing conditions. There is no awareness of a problem or an opportunity, and therefore no need for action. The definition of problem and solution areas is tied up with this thought. It will be taken up again here and dealt with in depth.
6.1.2.1 Factors That Influence the Understanding of a Problem
The problem area encompasses the actual condition that is embedded in its environment, the solution area, and the – often still unknown – target condition. The solution area also has an environment; it consists of the technical, economic, organizational, social, and ecological context in which the solution is to be sought and realized, but mostly out of the more developed environment that now encompasses the actual condition.
Subjective impressions, appraisals, and perceptions play just as much a role in the assessment of the actual condition as in that of the perceived target.
Too little insight into the problem area and its constraints
Too little familiarity with the solution area and its constraints (vague or threat of the unknown)
The focal points of activities in a situation analysis have to be geared toward this.
6.1.2.2 Operational View of a Problem
The impulses for desiring to act, for wanting to engage with an existing situation, and in the expectation of a new or improved solution
The operation of the relevant system and its key influencing factors
The relevant parts of the system environment
The strengths and weaknesses of a system
The causes of these strengths and weaknesses; what are the opportunities and risks for the system in the future?
Recognizing strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and risks presupposes a previous knowledge of average, normal, and attainable conditions. Further possible sources for ideas regarding targeted or desirable states are: guidelines (visions), different types of role model, objectives from higher levels, requirements from previous examinations, comparisons with related circumstances or systems, conclusions by analogy, expectations based on theory, intuitive expectations, etc.
6.1.3 Different Approaches in a Situation Analysis
Systems-oriented
Cause-oriented
Solution-oriented or
Time- or future-oriented
6.1.3.1 Systems-Oriented Approach
Establish the system and its environment and separate them from one other and also from nonrelevant areas (the tendency should first be to set the boundaries rather broadly)
Develop structural models for systems, parts of the system, and relevant parts of the environment
Take a structure-oriented approach (formation structures)
Black-box approach
Process-oriented approach (process structures)
Determination of the characteristics of elements
Identify current and, if applicable, earlier influencing factors
Develop functional models: rising from the instrumental (concrete = HOW) to a functional (abstract = WHAT) level of observation
Identify greater relationships and interactions between the system and its surroundings
- 1.
Effect analyses are based on a rough view of the system and should allow for a quick introduction to the problem situation. Here, the focus is especially on the effect of the system as a whole and the types of inputs and outputs, but not on the internal structure (see Part I, Sect. 1.2). This is basically a black-box approach.
- 2.
Structure analyses prepare, with the help of terms such as elements, relationships, superior ranked system, subsystems, environment, etc., the internal build-up of the sequences and processes, display them in their relationships, narrow them down, and thereby render them transparent and manageable.
Here, a conceptual distinction can be made between a formation structure and a process structure:
In the formation structure, the focus is notably on the (static) construction of a system in terms of its functional or spatial composition, and with this representation and analysis, one can gain an initial overview of the system. The following are helpful:Organization charts that reveal the structural characteristics and the hierarchical composition of a company/authority, etc.
Layouts or site plans that reflect the type, size, and formation of different functional areas and departments
Configuration illustrations of machines or facilities
Exploded views and parts lists that show the structure of a product
Thematic maps, etc.
In contrast, the process structure provides insights into the (dynamic) processes of a system. The functional mechanisms are more easily recognized and problems and their causes can be better localized. Examples are:Process maps
Material flow diagrams (stating amounts and frequencies)
Work flow diagrams, process descriptions (Fig. 6.3)
Macrostructures of processes
Microstructures, etc.
- 3.
Analyses of influencing factors (environment-oriented approach) help to determine and compile not only the sources, type, and extent of external influences on systems or plans (the ideas and requirements of involved parties or those affected with regard to the effects, behavior, and performance of systems), but also the reciprocal influence of systems and surrounding elements and, where applicable, the effects on third parties.
Influencing factors, depending on the type and condition of a system, can be of different kinds: natural, legal, political, macro (overall) economic, financial, personnel-related, social, technical, ecological, emotional, etc. This is illustrated in Fig. 6.4 with an example from the medical field.
Each system is embedded in surroundings with such influencing factors. However, being embedded does not mean that it simply exists in a state without relationships, but rather that it functions because of and/or in spite of these factors and the resulting relationships.
Activities of a process for creating value and customer benefit. (According to Schantin 2004: Macro modelling)
Analysis of influencing factors. Example: hospital
Influencing factors should be examined to ascertain if they are of a passive; active; supporting and strengthening, or hindering, diminishing, quantitative or qualitative type? Are they direct or indirect, individual or joint (combined, synergistic), linear or interlinked (influenced by third parties, neutralizing)?
Influencing factors are seldom apparent; their presence and effect are often only revealed through symptoms. Additionally, it should be noted that they normally do not remain stable; rather, they continue to develop either autonomously or because of the influence of outside forces.
The environment is also a source of knowledge for designing new systems or for redesigns. Its influences provide ideas for changing a system, point to opportunities and limitations for new structures, and reveal resources for realizing solutions; and they also supply facts for evaluations and decisions.
The influencing factors of a system and its environment that are considered in a situation analysis must be relevant for defining and solving problems.
By highlighting various aspects of the system, different views can be taken of the same system (see Sect. 1.1.2.9, Fig. 1.6).
Material flows in connection with medical care (medicines, equipment, medical reports, etc.)
Physical care (food, bed linen, etc.)
Movement of human traffic (patients, staff, visitors)
Allocation of treatment facilities, equipment, personnel resources
Information systems with regard to results of examinations, therapies, patient administration
The result of the situation analysis should provide the project group and the client with a uniform view of the object under consideration (the system to be created), its essential components, its boundaries, its influencing factors, etc. Thus, a systems-oriented view serves to prepare or support a cause-oriented view.
6.1.3.2 Cause-Oriented Approach
Identify and describe symptoms of an unsatisfactory situation, a looming threat, or opportunity
Collect and organize these symptoms and check them for completeness, duplication, or inconsistency
Assign them to the appropriate elements of a statement of the facts, and possibly to detect and connect elements that are still hidden
Reveal backgrounds
Ultimately, this should establish possible causes, causal chains, and interconnections. Those causes that are of greatest interest are those that reveal opportunities for action.
Approaches to cause–effect relationships
- 1.
We note; what failures are frequently mentioned or have been documented elsewhere, what failures can we see ourselves, etc. – and write them down. Thus, we create a catalog of failures that are made transparent and can be analyzed and discussed objectively.
- 2.
We reflect on possible causes, discuss them, and establish connections between causes and failures.
- 3.
The result is a catalog of measures that we can consider possible, sensible, etc.
Consideration of failures–causes–measures (example: seat reservation system of railway company)
The illustration itself is inconclusive. It merely serves the purposes of visualization; it has to be interpreted and supported by examples or numbers. But in spite of its simplicity, it can serve amazingly well by introducing disciplined thought and reasoning to a confused discussion.
System dynamics (see Part I, Sec. 1.4) is an efficient method of illustrating and modeling complex cause–effect relationships, as it also enables the modeling of dynamic relationships, i.e., those that change over time.
6.1.3.3 Solution-Oriented Approach
A solution-oriented (therapeutic) approach should focus on opportunities for intervention and design and on their boundaries. It is often required for gaining an understanding of the problem in the first place and realistic ideas regarding the objectives (the problem as a difference between the ACTUAL condition and ideas regarding a TARGET condition). Solution-oriented approaches should not, however, get out of hand in the situation analysis, but should always take into consideration that the actual search for a solution should not take place until the later stages of a synthesis/analysis.
Function analyses: a situation analysis encompasses its functional level (focus: WHAT?) in addition to the use or justification level (focus: WHY?) alongside the instrumental view of the ACTUAL condition (focus: HOW? WITH WHAT?).
A solution-oriented approach to the situation analysis also contains an initial “thinking ahead” regarding the TARGET condition on the three levels (HOW/WITH WHAT? WHAT? WHY?), as shown in Fig. 3.10.
6.1.3.4 Time or Future-Oriented Approach
As the formulation of solutions is not generally concerned with a reconstruction of the past, but with a conscious shaping of the future, future developments can be assessed.
How will the situation develop in the short, medium and long term if there is no intervention (development of the problem area)?
What developments are to be expected in the surroundings? What does this mean for the solution and intervention areas?
What does this mean for the urgency for a solution?
What effects do possible interventions and solutions in the area under examination have? In what direction and in what way do they have an effect?
With these considerations, it is intended to reduce the uncertainty regarding future developments in the problem and solution areas in addition to their surroundings, or at least to make it easier to understand. Relevant statements may also be obtained in the form of prognoses based on past or current trends and facts, because many changes do not occur erratically or chaotically, but rather gradually and sometimes even regularly.
Predictions, of course, do not yield deterministic results. Generally, the longer the period of the prognosis, the lower the accuracy. Nonetheless, long-term prognoses can be meaningful as they focus attention on possible future developments and scenarios.
A better understanding of the problem and its urgency
A basis for establishing objectives
A “correct” rating of the later solution
6.1.4 Boundaries of the Problem Area, Solution Area, and Area of Intervention
As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to distinguish between the boundary of the problem area and those of the solution area, along with the area of intervention.
Boundaries of the problem area, intervention area, solution area, and area of activity
The problem area (problem area, area under investigation) is therefore that area within which problem relations are suspected and scrutinized in accordance with the appropriate level of observation.
At the beginning of a project, the boundaries of problematic systems are often not clear and have to be approached cautiously. They need not coincide with physical, organizational, or similar boundaries of an object. Even so, in many cases it can prove advantageous to adopt such empirical boundaries as initial working hypotheses to be able to identify the relevant area in the first place. A closer examination of relationships with the surroundings may then, however, lead to a later change to the boundaries of the area under investigation (a narrowing or an expansion).
The area of intervention is that part of the problem area within which opportunities for solving problems are recognized, established, and deemed plausible. Here, a competent narrowing down is important.
Where does one intervene because one is entitled, has been asked, or otherwise has influence?
Where are there potential technical and organizational solutions?
How urgent is it to realize a solution?
Where and how can one expect a good cost/benefit ratio?
The nature and extent of the problems identified on the one hand and the available framework on the other (engagement skills and objective, personnel, financial resources, time) will therefore be essential defining criteria.
Situational improvement: minor corrections, elimination of particularly disturbing failures
Redesign: major changes
New design: replace the old solution with a new one
If in doubt, the principle of subsidiarity should be applied; interventions are undertaken at the lowest possible level at which they can promise sufficient effects without significant drawbacks.
The solution area is generally more closely defined, as it arises in connection with the conception and definition of the effective solution. In the area of intervention, more practical solutions are to some extent still open. The solution that is to be developed later is effectively located in the solution area.
The area of activity comprises that part of the problem area in which effects are expected once the solution has been implemented. This area generally extends beyond the solution area. It may even be necessary to rethink the boundary of the problem area, owing to potentially negative effects that, for example, had not been foreseen at the outset. However, one should already try to define the problem area during a situation analysis in such a way that it includes the potential area of action to avoid uncontrolled interventions and to detect any unwanted side effects as early as possible (see the remarks on concept analysis in Sect. 6.3.4).
6.1.5 Identifying Boundary Conditions and Limitations of Design Freedom
Governmental directives, regulations, contractual agreements
Previous substantive decisions, but also those concerning time frames and financial resources
Planning results for relevant parts of the system and its surroundings
Immutable facts regarding the ACTUAL condition would continue to affect the TARGET condition
Physical phenomena that must be observed, etc.
Thus, boundary conditions may arise from the surroundings, from higher level systems, from upstream project phases, or from the ongoing study, and are often externally imposed on the planners.
Certain matters of fact can be recognized at the outset as unalterable boundary conditions, whereas others are the result of decisions. This second type of boundary condition is subject to the dictates of fitness for purpose (as with the establishment of organizational, spatial, and other system boundaries). On the one hand, they must be justifiable on the basis of logical argument; on the other hand, their effects on the course of systems creation should not run counter to the purpose of the system. It may also be necessary to call the prescribed specifications of the client into question if they interfere with finding a truly satisfactory solution (see Sect. 3.2.4.3 Anticipation or Regress (Repetitive Cycles, Iterations)).
Some boundary conditions influence the demarcation of the problem area; others come into effect as limitations to the scope for a solution during the solution search.
- Institutional regulations to be observed:
Organizational guidelines
Guidelines for executing projects
Procedures for loan approval
Available personnel resources
Company standards that have to be complied with, etc.
In addition, there are self-imposed restrictions (either conscious or unconscious) that influence the assumed or available design freedom . These include issues such as the extent of the desired changes and the design principles to be used, in addition to technical and methodical know-how and the ethical attitude of the planners, designers, system architects, and concept designers.
6.1.6 Openness Toward Objectives, Neutrality Toward Solutions and Transparency
The guiding principle in performing a situation analysis is to render, as objectively as possible, an interpretation of a situation that is supported by facts, is open in regard to objectives and neutral in regard to solutions; and then to present this in a transparent manner. Later decisions, particularly those of a fundamental nature (at the end of the preliminary study or possibly the main study), require this solid base.
Situation analyses cannot meet these requirements if there is a fixed view of the problem, or if the client and/or the planners are biased. By taking on a predetermined and uncritical view of the problem, the contractor runs the risk of supporting a change of course toward a purely instrumental corrective action.
Suggested solutions that are developed on such a basis, possibly using specified means, may even be poor, as they build upon an inadequate or unsuitable definition of the problem.
The results of situation analyses should be transparent and easily comprehended with regard to the sources of information. Conclusions drawn from them should be clear and credible, as they represent the basis for the formulation of objectives and the search for solutions.
6.1.7 Techniques for Situation Analysis
Acquiring information regarding present, past, or expected conditions
Processing information
Presenting information
In particular, techniques for presenting information aid the assessment of past, present, and future situations by making circumstances, hypotheses, and approaches to solutions transparent.
There are a variety of techniques that may be applied to different steps within the PSC. They are briefly outlined here, particularly with regard to their relevance in connection with the situation analysis. For further descriptions, we refer the reader to Part VI, Methods, Techniques and Tools (Chap. 15), and the literature cited therein.
6.1.7.1 Techniques for Acquiring Information
These include in particular1 ➔ interviews , in which people are questioned who one feels are capable of supplying information regarding present conditions, desires, and future developments, or even solutions. Depending on the kind of questioning, a distinction is made among standardized, nonstandardized, and semi-standardized interviews.
Similar functions are fulfilled by a ➔ questionnaire, which has the advantage of being less expensive in the case of extensive surveys. On the other hand, a questionnaire usually yields less differentiated information and impressions.
So-called ➔ observation techniques are applicable only when conditions can be detected and evaluated by visual inspection. A ➔ work sampling study is an observational procedure based on statistical sample surveys, which requires little effort.
A roundtable, for example, in the form of ➔ brainstorming can provide the comments and ideas of several people simultaneously. In this instance, reciprocal information and proposals are especially valuable. The ➔ card technique achieves a similar result.
➔ Polling panels or ➔ Delphi surveys make it possible to obtain information regarding expected future conditions or developments by interviewing different experts. The ➔ scenario method pursues a similar goal.
➔ Prediction methods, such as ➔ correlation or ➔ regression analyses, can support an estimation of possible future developments, insofar as the appropriate data are available.
The ➔ analogy method enables the transfer of insights and findings from unrelated areas.
Internet research, supported by efficient search engines (Google and others), is becoming increasingly important. Here, however, the volume and credibility of the information and data can increasingly become a problem.
➔ Checklists can support or regulate the acquisition of information.
Information can frequently be derived from existing documents and notes, i.e., secondary surveys.
As the acquisition of information can be very expensive and sometimes not particularly productive, it is advisable to develop an ➔ information acquisition plan that is adapted to each problem.
6.1.7.2 Methods and Tools for Processing and Representing Information
Black box illustration for reducing complexity by limiting observation, for the time being, to effects and inputs and outputs
System illustrations (elements, relationships, boundaries, environment, etc.), for example, in the form of bubble charts
System-hierarchical tree diagrams in terms of supra- and subsystems
Implementation of the idea of different system aspects (observation through different lenses)
So-called ➔ ABC analyses enable one to target focal points, as in the Pareto principle (or 80:20 rule; for example, 80% of the difficulties are caused by 20% of the cases).
➔ Process diagrams, ➔ process analyses, etc., create insights into concrete processes and possibly related flaws or bottlenecks.
Matrix illustrations, for example, in the form of cause or influence matrices or allocation matrices, make it possible to structure a set of facts clearly and establish them in mutual relationships.
Charts, matrices, ➔ and histograms enable a visualization of the facts and circumstances by subdividing and arranging them.
In addition, every kind of plan, drawing, diagram, or chart is obviously a form of illustration and thus facilitates analysis.
Therefore, spreadsheet programs simplify the manipulation of charts (correction, addition, expansion, reduction, etc.) in a convenient manner.
➔ Key indicators of various types compactly describe existing or desirable conditions and enable ➔ benchmarks or plausibility reflections.
➔ Polarity profiles can be used to characterize situations in respect of fulfilling or developing important properties.
So-called ➔ security-management, ➔ risk analyses can not only be implemented by assessing solutions, but also applied to existing conditions.
The methods of ➔ correlation- and ➔ regression calculations not only serve the procurement of information, but they also illustrate the information by characterizing its actual or suspected development.
The IT field offers modeling techniques, such as ➔ UML or SysML, which can also be used to show actual situations.
6.1.7.3 Types of Information Procurement/Acquisition
Concerning the Degree of Detail
The phase model recommends a process from the general to the particular. Of course, this is also pertinent to information procurement. In practice, however, it is not always easy to find the right degree of detail.
The extent and degree of detail of the information to be procured and the requisite expenditure are in fact correlating factors. Therefore, one should take as a guideline the motto: as little as necessary, i.e., as little detail as necessary instead of as much as possible, i.e., as much detail as possible.
This can, however, produce contradictions. If one is satisfied by working with relatively general and global information in the preliminary study (which makes sense), one might consequently have to ascertain, in more depth and detail, the same content during the later phases. This may cause unnecessary overheads and test the patience of those persons who (have to) serve as information sources. Therefore, it is quite reasonable in particular cases to gather the required information about a circumstance only once, if possible, and then in detail. It is easier for experienced individuals to recognize and assess this correctly.
Primary or Secondary Sources?
Information or records from primary sources are those that are generated in the context of surveys (oral, written), observations or specific inquiries with regard to a concrete investigation or study. They usually make it possible to receive more precise answers to the questions posed. The drawback is that they require more expenditure.
Hence, it is advisable, before beginning a larger inquiry, to ascertain whether or not the desired answers could be derived, at least partially, from existing records. These may have been produced for any number of reasons and without any connection to the present purpose; they are referred to as secondary sources.
Therefore, one should ask oneself not only what information is needed to what degree of detail, but also how best to get this information with the least amount of expenditure and yet with sufficient reliability. Before the start of information gathering, it is generally worthwhile to hold an exploratory talk with those persons who are familiar with the problem – and possibly also the solution field – and who can help with creating an ➔ information procurement plan. They will be all the more willing to cooperate if one is able, as one should be, to justify why and for what the information is needed.
Information sources can be rendered accessible by means of an extensive survey (for example, over a certain period of time) or in the form of random sampling. By and large, extensive surveys are considered, for reasons of expenditure, only when the records have been stored in an IT system. Otherwise, samples have to suffice, whereby a random selection must be guaranteed.
Given the options of today’s standard software for evaluating data (for example, spreadsheet programs), it is recommended to compile primary volumes as far as possible (for example, in the industrial sector, annual consumption, price, inventory per item) and only then, in a second step, to calculate the derived values (for example, revenue per item, inventory range, etc.). This enables data to be evaluated in a more nuanced manner, whereas the primary volumes reveal regularities that can no longer be reconstructed from the derived values. In the most general sense, multi-dimensional evaluations and illustrations yield deeper insights.
6.1.8 Procedural Steps in a Situation Analysis
6.1.8.1 Use of Working Hypotheses
Experienced planners enter into situation analyses with a kind of premonition. It would be reasonable for them to articulate this premonition in the form of working hypotheses – thereby rendering it verifiable. Often elements and relationships, cause–effect relations, environmental influences, etc., can initially be shown only qualitatively (for example, graphically, by arrows) and, at best, justified as plausible, but not proven in a concrete sense.
Drawing up graphic illustrations forces one to reveal one’s own opinion about problem fields, their elements and relations, and so make the opinion a subject for discussion. Arguments can then be made for or against it, and one is stimulated to search for the facts.
One’s basic attitude has to be nondogmatic. The point is not to prove hypotheses, but to view them as opportunities, to substantiate, and thereby to test them. If other structures (factors and relations) prove to be more plausible because of new information, the original hypotheses must of course be discarded or corrected.
6.1.8.2 Action Steps
We order the previous reflections according to a simplified sequence of steps. Certain steps may of course be skipped in a specific case when they prove to be unnecessary, or the situation is clear anyway, or at least looks that way at the outset.
1. Analyzing the starting position and the scope of the task
Crystallizing important aspects of the initial situation (difficulties, inadequacies, chances, etc..)
Looking at the impulse for engaging in the problem
Discovering models or ideal concepts
Clarifying unclear terms
Clarifying free spaces for development
Identifying processes and contact persons for procuring information
2. Roughly structuring and delimiting the baseline scenario
Information collected during initial inquiries makes it possible to roughly structure the baseline scenario and its surroundings. This can result in a problem map that reveals, in the sense of a working hypothesis, the problem field, its system-building elements and relationships, and the relevant surroundings and their boundaries. Thus, the area of investigation is defined. Discussing the problem map and the problem boundary with the commissioning party will prove expedient.
3. Taking analysis deeper
The task here is to collect and structure concrete facts and data, using the different techniques for procuring, preparing, and representing information.
This not only creates an information base for a quantitative evaluation of the situation, it also lays the foundation for a correction or refinement of the previous working hypotheses. The previously mentioned methods of approach (system-, cause-, solution-, time-, and development-oriented) create a deeper understanding of the problem and more refined, meaningful structures.
4. Delimiting the area of intervention
The area of intervention or design must be defined. Which parts of the problem field should and may be changed? With what intention? What are the expected effects? What are the existing approaches to a solution? This step, too, should be agreed upon with the commissioning party.
5. Consolidating the results
Essential core assertions, such as determinations of the actual condition, articulation of established problems, difficulties, opportunities, expected developments and the rationale for them, tendencies in the solution field, etc., should all be consolidated, with the help of graphic illustrations, charts, etc.
This step generates a solid basis, both credible and confidence-inspiring, for the formulation of objectives and the search for solutions.
6. Iterative procedure
Of course, these steps cannot be traversed in a strictly linear sequence. Instead, as demanded in each case, they must pass through the appropriate feedback and repetitive cycles.
7. Documentation
Results of a situation analysis must be documented so that other planners, commissioning parties, participants, or persons concerned can reproduce and continue to use the hypotheses, conclusions, and calculations made. These results will facilitate the work of the planner when he has to reopen the facts and circumstances. Documentation is the basis for monitoring the development of essential factors that describe the problem or solution field. Moreover, it is easier to manage personnel changes in the processing teams when work results have been retained.
6.1.9 The Varying Significance of Situation Analysis in the Phase Sequence
Because various project phases have different tasks, there is also a change in the scope of the observed area and in the degree of detailing where existing or obtainable information potential has to be fully developed and processed. Therefore, in a situation analysis, the main purpose, scope, and degree of detailing vary widely during the different phases of a project.
In a preliminary study, the boundaries of the problem and solution field and of the intervention area are, for the most part, more open to choice; in a main study, the selected solution principle already imposes restrictions; and in detailed studies, the boundaries are already defined relatively precisely (the overall concept and master plan are already established).
Change in the degree of knowledge over the course of the development of a system
The increase is especially significant in the preliminary study and levels off in later phases. The preliminary study is therefore critical for system boundaries, the formulation of objectives, the selection of the solution path/architectural design, and the compatibility of the solution with its surroundings. Thus, situation analysis is of particular importance during this phase.
During later phases, its focus is on pursuing (monitoring) the development of the expectations for systems design that have been generated by the preliminary study. It also concentrates – if need be – on a deeper procurement and processing of information for each of the successive steps of the PSC.
The curve for possible interventions lies below that of the known problem-solving possibilities (Fig. 6.8), as usually, not all solution possibilities can be applied or executed in a specific case.
Preliminary studies concentrate heavily on external information pertaining to the problem field, the solution field and its environment, expectations, and prospects for the future, in addition to opportunities and risks. Information procurement in the main and detailed studies, in contrast, are more strongly oriented toward solutions and means.
A solution strategy must be applied principally in the preliminary and main study, where it has an impact on the areas examined in a situation analysis. In a new systems concept, it generally makes little sense to engage in detailed structural aspects of the actual condition, as this structure has to be changed fundamentally in any event. Of special interest are the overall effects of the existing system on external factors. In a systems melioration (improvement), by contrast, the internal effect mechanisms have to be treated much more closely, because a number of these remain unchanged.
As some problems have already been solved repeatedly in a similar fashion, they are therefore known through one’s own experience, through publications, or through the experience of externally consulted experts. For these problems, one can fall back on checklists, information procurement plans, and other records to determine the type of information that is to be collected and the plan of action. In such cases, it is also conceivable that a problem- and solution-oriented collection of information can be partially combined in the interests of an efficient method.
If the concern is not with routine problems, it is recommended to think about the situation analysis independently without relying on available records. If models are available, these should be critically screened before being adapted to one’s own problem. The same applies to information procurement.
Situation analyses exhibit the largest scope during the developmental phases (preliminary, main, and detailed studies). However, if a plan is marked by a high degree of innovation, problems may yet arise in the realization phase (establishment and introduction of the system) as well, which makes it seem reasonable to implement the PSC.
6.1.10 Summary
- 1.
A situation analysis consists of a systematic screening and representation of a situation that is intuitively perceived as problematic or rich in opportunities, or of a set of facts that are given in the mandate. Here, the spectrum ranges from a vague discomfort all the way to a specific explanation or definition.
- 2.
A situation analysis does not merely record the actual condition. An unstructured, aimless, and too-detailed involvement in existing or even past circumstances may actually hinder rather than promote an understanding of the problem and the search for solutions.
- 3.
A situation analysis is first of all concerned with compiling accounts about the current condition. Thus, it is intended to discern the differences among the actual condition, prospective developments, and a vague target condition, and thus help to define the problem.
- 4.The purpose of a situation analysis is:
To structure and examine the problematic area (system and environment) with the objective of discerning the “correct” problem, understanding it better, and being able to work on it
To demarcate the area of intervention for the necessary measures
To create an information base for the subsequent steps of formulating objectives and developing solutions, for reviewing possibly pre-existing problems or tasks, and for revising ideas about a target condition that may already have been established
- 5.Four typical approaches are applicable in a situation analysis:
A systems-oriented approach whose attention is directed to a better understanding of the system that is to be developed or changed
A cause-oriented approach whose immediate focus is on working out in a concrete manner the symptoms and deficiencies of an existing condition. Once these are relatively clear, questions should be asked about their causes. This too should be made an unambiguous matter within the project group. It is only when these prerequisites have been met that it makes sense to speak of appropriate measures capable of rectifying the causes.
A solution-oriented approach allows one to engage in solutions as early as during the situation analysis. However, this should not be taken in the sense of arriving at specific solutions. The aim is merely to become familiar with the state of technology, with what is possible or impossible, and to create an appropriate problem awareness in those persons who only know the present situation and therefore do not have any notions of a better one in the future.
A time-oriented approach should focus on developments in the problem field and those in the solution field.
- 6.A situation analysis should be:
Forward-looking and environment-oriented
Open with regard to objectives, solutions, and applicable resources
Serviceable in character for the successive procedural steps of formulating objectives and developing solutions
Capable of distinguishing facts from assumptions and opinions, and comprehensible or sufficiently secure with regard to information sources, information processing, and conclusions
- 7.A situation analysis contains descriptions and illustrations with sufficient information for:
The boundary of system and environment (with respect to the problem field, the solution field, and the area of intervention)
The structures and processes, the functioning methods, relationships, element properties
The deficiencies, problems, causes, and influencing factors (for example, in the form of a plausible, comprehensible catalog of weaknesses and strengths)
The developmental tendencies of relevant influencing factors in the problem and solution field
The risks and opportunities (in the form of a catalog similar to the catalog of weaknesses and strengths)
The interest in a project. Different interests are often due to the different persons representing them, frequently because of their different functions. Although different interests are permissible, they should be transparent and thus open to discussion and manageable
The possibilities for intervention
Restrictions that must be observed, freedom for design, and other realities
Possible approaches to a solution, also looking at the desired effects, drawbacks, and side effects
An assessment of the situation and possible ideas for a solution offered by participants and persons concerned (as a basis for a joint understanding of the problem)
- 8.
Finally, a situation analysis contains a comprehensive representation of the problem and documentation, in addition to references to those aspects in the system and environment that should be subject to monitoring during the further phases of treatment.
6.1.11 Self-Check for Knowledge and Understanding: Situation Analysis
- 1.
What is the purpose of a situation analysis? Is it equivalent to a review of the current situation?
- 2.
Which views in the situation analysis do you know about and consider characteristic and important?
- 3.
How are detected weaknesses or failures, conceivable causes, and measures to resolve the problems mentally and logically interconnected?
- 4.
Is it acceptable to discuss solutions as early as in the situation analysis?
- 5.
Is it possible that there are different boundaries one has to observe within a special task?
- 6.
Which techniques and tools do you know about for situation analysis?
- 7.
Does it make sense to use a working hypothesis in the situation analysis? Does this not mean that one works with prejudices?
- 8.
Does the situation analysis have the same significance during all phases of a project?
6.2 Formulation of Objectives
6.2.1 Purpose and Terminology
A formulation of objectives is initiated by the question, “What is to be achieved or avoided?” The answers one may receive to this question are called objectives; for example, “Cost effectiveness or performance should be increased, hazardous emissions should be reduced,” etc.
6.2.1.1 Objectives
Objectives are statements about what a solution should achieve or avoid.
Formulating objectives is of great importance to the problem-solving process. Objectives are meant to govern the search for a solution; they should not be invented retroactively to justify a solution. To fulfill their purpose, they must be formulated and made known to and accepted by the participants in the problem-solving process.
Objectives are not self-evident; they must first be worked out. It therefore makes sense to apply methods and techniques that support the process of finding and formulating objectives.
The following sections are primarily concerned with the requirements for well-formulated objectives and offering practical advice.
6.2.1.2 Place in the Problem-Solving Cycle
Formulation of objectives in the PSC
(a) Relation to situation analysis:
As ideas about objectives already occur when the impulse for a project is given, objectives often are already contained in a rough formulation of the project mandate. Especially during a situation analysis, important impulses occur; when the participants recognize deficiencies, difficulties, or opportunities, their ideas about possible and desirable changes also become more precise.
In addition, a solution-oriented perspective during situation analysis provides suggestions about role models/paragons or the state of technology that could or should influence the objectives.
(b) Relation to the search for solutions:
In the problem-solving process usually various people are working together. The their activities are advantageously aligned by using explicitly stated and broadly accepted objectives.
Different expectations frequently play a role concerning solutions, and usually different interests exist. It is therefore reasonable to clarify conflicts about the objectives before beginning to search for solutions. Failing to do so only leads to a false peace of mind. Problems arise at the latest during the evaluation, because divergent expectations cannot normally be met all at the same time.
(c) Relation to the steps of evaluation and decision
Decisions about possible solution variants have to be made at the end of the PSC. Objectives are the basis for developing assessment standards (criteria) to compare and evaluate different variants. The saying of Marcus Aurelius, “For someone who does not know his harbor, no wind is favorable,” means in respect of a project: if I do not know the objectives of a project, I have no standard for assessing solutions.
An important principle of rational decision-making is to prefer those solutions that meet objectives as far as possible. Therefore, in formulating objectives, one should summarize already expressed expectations or objectives and systematically work on those that may be imprecise, unclear, or contradictory; this means to supplement and structure them, to check them for completeness, and examine them for contradictions. The objectives should count for all stakeholders – the project team and the commissioning party – as an obligatory/mandatory basis for further action.
6.2.2 The Formulation of Objectives at Different System Levels
As the problem-solving process traverses different concretization levels in accordance with the systems engineering procedural principle “from the general to the detail,” objectives have to be worked out and dealt with at different levels. Objectives for partial concepts are derived from each of their higher-level concepts or supplemented by additional considerations. Thereby, the objectives become increasingly more concrete, that is, they contribute increasingly as building blocks of the overall concept. Here, higher-level concepts help to give orientation to a more detailed design.
6.2.3 Mental Approaches, Principles, and Guidelines for an Action-Oriented Formulation of Objectives
The requirements described in the following are characterized as principles that should be observed when formulating objectives. They can also be regarded as quality criteria for well-formulated objectives. As this view is detached from concrete tasks, only the formal quality can be evaluated.
6.2.3.1 Operational Formulation of Objectives
Unclear or imprecise requirements, such as “improve the personnel situation” or “simplify operating procedures,” should be regarded merely as impulses for directing one’s thinking and subsequent action. They need to be made more concrete, that is, specified more clearly. For what is meant by personnel situation, or improve, or simplify?
It names the target subject that is ready for change or a new design. To WHAT are the objectives tied? Which subject is to be changed or designed? Frequently, the beginning of a preliminary study merely speaks of a “solution” or a “system.”
It formulates the qualities or the substance of the objectives pertinent to the object. WHAT is to be achieved or avoided (for example, reduction of pollution, increase in range, etc.)?
It says something about the degree to which these qualities are achieved. HOW MUCH is to be achieved (for example, at least 25%)?
It is clear about the temporal aspect: WHEN do the objectives have to be achieved (for example, within 1 year)?
It addresses the matter of location: WHERE should the desired effect occur or become discernible? (Within the system that is to be influenced/designed, or outside of it, or both?)
- 1.Indication of a clearly factually stated condition: only if the solution possesses this quality can a subobjective be counted as valid, for example:
The solution should not require any structural changes.
The solution should be realized by (date).
- 2.Indication of the target direction, without restriction (open formulation of objectives): Only the target direction is stated but no quantitative criterion, for example:
Profitability (return on investment, ROI) should be as high as possible.
Amount of investment should be as small as possible.
- 3.
Indication of the target direction, with a restriction (restrictive formulation): a scale is used (such as monetary units), a target is indicated (as low as possible), and additionally a limit (a restriction) is formulated (the maximum amount tolerated …).
For example, the investment should be as low as possible, but at the most …
Of course, there are cases in which the achievement of the objectives is not readily discernible, much less measurable, unlike the cases above. This sometimes leads to the temptation of omitting the objective altogether. But we think that this is neither necessary nor useful because most of the time it is quite possible to define replacement measurements or indicators that ascertain the degree to which objectives are fulfilled.
For example, to specify the objective of a user-friendly solution for a machine, a replacement measure could be specified as the training of a technician for a maximum of 1 day to learn how to use the tool. The time limit would be determined and later assessed by an expert (technician).
We advise that an important objective should not be excluded if it cannot be measured. It gives information about the values of the stakeholders, what seems to be important for them, even if they cannot or do not want to name this precisely.
6.2.3.2 Formulation of Desirable or Expressly Undesirable Effects
Objectives may consist of both the achievement of desirable and the avoidance of undesirable effects.
Desirable effects might be, for example, low acquisition and/or operating costs, high profitability, high performance, high flexibility, long lifespan, great user-friendliness and acceptance, easy changeability, etc.
Undesirable (negative) effects might be, for example, high acquisition costs, high operating costs, major noise pollution, limited mobility, flexibility or expandability, etc.
Neither a maximum achievement of all the desired effects nor a complete avoidance of all the undesirable ones is realistic. Instead, an acceptable limit can be set, above or below which a solution should not pass (for example, operating costs a maximum of … $/€, performance minimum …kilowatt, etc.); see also Sect 6.2.3.10 (The Principle of the Freedom from Contradictions in Subobjectives).
6.2.3.3 Difference Between System Objectives and Project Course (Procedural) Objectives
The question “What should be achieved or avoided?” pertains especially to what the new system, when it comes to be utilized, is intended to effect or avoid. Therefore, we speak of system objectives or design objectives.
However, it is just as reasonable to formulate important objectives that have an impact on the path to project completion and thus serve as a foundation for establishing a project plan. We refer to these as project course or procedural objectives. Formulations of these kinds of objectives are concerned with intermediate goals that must be adhered to (for example, the deadline for completing the main study), resources of a financial nature (for example, the project budget that has to be adhered to) or of a personnel nature (for example, those persons who absolutely must be included/made to participate).
6.2.3.4 Structure of a Catalog of Objectives
Because in most cases a target object is required to have several necessary characteristics (effects/demands/features), there are usually not just one but several subgoals involved.
Example of a structured catalog of objectivesCatalog of ObjectivesProject: Improving efficiency in purchasingPhase: Detailed studyTarget subject* Ordering process
Objective class | Standards | Condition/restriction | Priority | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Financial objectives | ||||
Cost-effectiveness | High savings in purchasing | At least 10% | R | |
Impact on liquidity | Lowest investment possible | 200,000, – maximum | R | |
Functionality: | ||||
Performance/functionality | Reduction of ordering time | 2 days maximum | C | |
Security/reliability | Reduction in error frequency | At least 50% | R | |
Capacity/stability | Capacity number of orders per day | At least 400/day | R | |
Expandability | Number of orders per day | Up to 600/day | D | |
Interface requirements | Linkage to accounts receivable | C | ||
Ease of maintenance | Time for repair of disorders | 4 h maximum | R | |
Personnel objectives | ||||
Required employee qualifications | Time for training current personnel | 1 day maximum | D | |
6.2.3.5 Thinking in Terms of Objectives and Means
Hierarchy of objectives and means
From the perspective of two consecutive levels, the statements on the top level indicate objectives, and the statements on the lower level indicate means or measures. This makes it clear that the term objective is used relatively in respect of a certain level; thus, a statement is not simply an objective or a means, but it can be both an objective and a means depending on the level from which it is observed. Sometimes, the term purpose is used for the top level to characterize three hierarchical levels.
A representation of several levels of means and objectives shows causal connections that put subordinate objectives into a larger overall context.
Once a means on a particular level has been determined, its realization becomes an objective. The overall causal connection can be ignored for the time being. This reduces complexity.
The question WHY? Or FOR WHAT? Points upward in the objective–means hierarchy (i.e., it points to the objective).
The question HOW? Or WITH WHAT? Points downward (i.e., to the means or the measure).
Thinking in terms of objectives and means in the phase process
The target subject of the preliminary study appoints the place/area, where improvements should be achieved (here: air pollution). The target characteristics represent the desired effects of the as yet unknown solution (here: reduction of pollution by 50%, without, for reasons of simplicity, indicating which pollutants are meant). In the preliminary study, different variants of solution principles are worked out, such as promoting public transportation or tightening emission regulations.
If the solution principle promotion of public transportation is chosen, it subsequently becomes the target subject of the main study. The target characteristics are the requirements for the solution that can now be formulated more concretely, precisely, and completely.
The overall concept developed in the main study describes solutions by working out solution components and their interactions. These components now become target subjects of various detailed means. Again, the target characteristics are the requirements for the solutions, for example, new vehicles as one component of the solution of the main study become the target subject of a detailed study.
This hierarchy of objectives and means is also suitable as a model for linking statements about target conditions at different planning levels.
6.2.3.6 The Principle of Orientation on Facts and Values
Orientation of objectives to facts (nonsubjective) and values (subjective)
Facts may relate to the results of a situation analysis and the detected deficiencies and their apparent causes, to possible threats, and to opportunities, etc. (for example, facts about role models, the state of technology, best practices in one’s own or other industries). These facts, however, are merely guideposts for the formulation of objectives, but are not yet objectives per se. It must still be established to what extent the current situation can be changed, what viable opportunities can be exploited, how much money and time one is willing and able to expend to achieve the objectives, etc. These influences are of course to a significant extent driven by values and therefore subjective.
Because formulating objectives, in terms of combining facts and values, can be a very complex process, a complete analytical penetration is eluded. We therefore have to be content with a minimal requirement: because the process of formulating targets cannot be made sufficiently transparent, it should at least be attempted with regard to the results, the formulated objectives. Observing the principles introduced here does not make discussions arising from different assessments and value judgments pointless; these principles should merely enable more precise communication.
6.2.3.7 The Principle of Neutrality Regarding Solutions
Objectives are not meant to describe the solution, the HOW, but the WHAT, i.e., the desired and/or expressly undesirable effects of a solution as yet unknown.
The following formulation of objectives accords with this principle: reduction of pollution, no unreasonable limits put on mobility, reduction of noise pollution, and the smallest possible financial burden on the municipal budget.
A formulation of objectives like this allows various solutions, such as promoting public transportation, tax breaks for eco-friendly vehicles, and legal regulations for industry, business, and households to reduce air pollution.
At the same planning stage, the following formulation would not be neutral with regard to a solution. The objective of the project is “to restrict private automobile traffic through tax measures.” This would be only one of several possible solution variants. The previously described hierarchy of objectives and means can lead to such an understanding.
A formulation of objectives that is suspected of unduly limiting the area of solution should be critically scrutinized and replaced by a formulation that is focused on the desired effect. The question of WHY or FOR WHAT can help formulate such a solution concept. Such questioning mentally elevates one’s reflections to the next higher level of the objectives–means hierarchy (see Sect. 6.2.3.5).
Because it is also possible to question an objective that is more neutral in its formulation (“Why reduce pollution?” Possible answer: “To avoid health problems”), the question arises, when should questioning be discontinued? For this, there are no objective criteria. But a good indication for terminating the questioning process might be when those participating in the process of formulating objectives think that an adequate consensus has been reached and no further substantiation is necessary. In other words, the formulation of objectives has not unduly excluded any solution that could be intuitively accepted.
6.2.3.8 The Principle of Completeness for the Content of Objectives
Generic catalog of objectives
(a) Financially relevant objectives |
Requirements of cost-effectiveness: as a rule, relation between expenditure: profit, ROI |
Objectives that comprise costs and financially measurable revenues. They are expressed, for example, by key indicators such as: running costs, cost savings, payback periods, etc. |
Impact on liquidity: for example, amount of investment, financing from cash flow, no outside funds |
(b) Functionally relevant objectives |
Performance or functionality of a system: for example, output per time unit |
Safety |
Quality |
Flexibility, for example in respect to |
Coverage of short-term load peaks or |
Medium- or long-term opportunities for expansion or reduction, adaptation to changing demands, etc. |
Interface design to be able to link a system with one or more others |
Service and maintenance aspects |
Autonomy versus dependency and much more |
(c) Personnel-relevant objectives |
All objectives that contain desired or undesired effects on personnel, such as: |
Ease of operation, ergonomics, working conditions |
Personnel qualifications |
Nondependence on personnel |
(d) Social objectives |
Objectives directed at the observance of ecological effects (environmental pollution, waste disposal) |
Objectives relating to the personal acceptance of solutions (user, operator) in addition to |
Objectives of a general social nature, etc. |
This list shows that the frequently emphasized principle of holistic thinking should naturally also have a bearing on the formulation of objectives. It even finds its essential source there! The principle of the completeness of objectives can also be understood in the sense that all important information and interests have been taken into account or at least deliberated.
Information about deficiencies, difficulties, risks in the problem field
Information about presumed chances and opportunities
Superior objectives (e.g., superior-ranking concepts, corporation goals)
In respect of interests, the following must be kept in mind: in accordance with the rule of fairness and prudence, deliberations about achieving positive effects or avoiding negative ones should include the interests of those persons who are positively or negatively affected by a solution. A solution that favors one-sidedly the interests of certain groups and neglects others is seldom a good solution.
This is not only significant for its ethical aspects, but entails a quite pragmatic component as well: the larger and more influential the group of people whose ideas about objectives are treated marginally or neglected, the greater the risk that they will not accept the later solution, that they will fail to support it, and boycott or even fight against it.
The following count as interest groups (stakeholders) who articulate their wishes directly or indirectly: management, customers (internal/external), staff (involved parties, participants), departments and their staff (users, executors), suppliers, society, the public, the state, etc.
After the step of formulating objectives is completed, an exhaustive catalog relating to the target subject becomes available. The catalogue lists the content that is important for the formulation of the objectives.
6.2.3.9 The Principle of Priorities in the Formulation of Objectives
Prioritization should stress the relative importance and discipline with which objectives should be adhered to. This consideration figures prominently again during the assessment stage because by giving different weights to single criteria (derived from objectives), one can invest them with different meanings.
- 1.
Compulsory objectives : a condition absolutely must be adhered to. A solution that fails to do so is useless. If a variant fails to fulfill only one of these objectives, it has to be discarded.
For example: it is COMPULSORY for the solution to be achievable without legislative amendments; the annual budget strain MAY NOT exceed …$/€; CO2 content MUST be reduced by at least 25% with regard to the actual condition.
- 2.
Recommended/main objectives : Objectives of great significance but not compulsory. Hereby, the planner/developer gets the signal that in developing a solution, he or she has to pay special attention to these characteristics, though without the objective being absolutely necessary.
For example: a solution without a legislative amendment is recommended. Solutions that do not possess this target characteristic are not considered unsuitable, but they are judged to be inferior to those that do. If a scale is available, a restrictive or an open formulation may be used. If a restriction is implemented, the stated value on the scale provides an important orientation for finding a solution, but adherence to this value is not an indispensable prerequisite for the suitability of a solution.
- 3.
Desirable/secondary objectives : Desirable objectives may be formulated in a like manner as recommended objectives. However, adhering to them is less binding (= “nice to have” objectives). Because compulsory objectives severely narrow the field for the solution search, it is advisable to use these sparingly and only when they are clearly justifiable. Compulsory objectives should also be formulated in an operational way, i.e., the formulation should be comprehensible and it should be possible to check the achievement of the objectives.
6.2.3.10 The Principle of the Freedom from Contradictions in Subobjectives
- 1.Mutual support: achievement of subobjective A supports the achievement of subobjective B.
For example: A, short response times, and B, superior user friendliness. This is an agreeable case.
- 2.Independence (indifference): achievement of subobjective A can be independent of the achievement of subobjective B.
For example: A, low operating costs, and B, aesthetically pleasing. This is an nonproblematic case.
- 3.Competition of objectives (contrary effect): subobjective A and subobjective B oppose each other. The more A is achieved, the less B is achieved. This often occurs in connection with cost objectives.
For example: A, low costs, and B, high quality or performance. In this case, a compromise needs to be identified.
- 4.Conflict of objectives (contradiction): subobjective A and subobjective B, either because of a logical condition or the current situation, contradict each other to the extent that they cannot exist simultaneously.
Example of a logical contradiction: A, promoting market X, and B, remove product Z from the product range, even though its main sales are in market X.
Example of a situational contradiction: A, local product, and B, functional demands are not currently met by local products; or A, imperative functional demands, and B, unrealistic cost limitations.
Desired functionality can be fulfilled more cost-efficiently through a different technology or simpler approaches, or for a long time, high quality and low costs were considered to be contradictory demands. However, Japanese production companies have solved this contradiction in part by re-interpreting the concept of quality and by directing attention to the customer’s appreciation of quality (in contrast to not scrutinizing demands for quality at all or leaving them to the conceptions/declarations of engineers).
Even for production to be both economical and flexible does not have to pose an insurmountable contradiction.
Dynamics and consumptions used to be seen as irreconcilable elements in a car. BMW has solved this contradiction with the concept of “efficient dynamics.”
- (a)
Setting priorities, for example, declaring compulsory, recommended, and desired objectives or changing an existing set of priorities (for example, changing a compulsory objective into a recommended or desirable objective).
- (b)
Introducing minimum and maximum values, for example, a minimum performance of …kW, but as economically as possible; or an upper cost limit within which peak performance is expected.
- (c)
Removing/circumventing the causes of conflicts when there are no possibilities for compromises such as in (a) and (b). Thus, one is left with two options: elevating one’s deliberations to the next highest level (thinking in terms of objectives and means), for example, why withdraw from market X? Answer: the risk is too high. New question at a higher level: are there other ways of limiting risks? The second option means deleting the cause of the conflict. Thus, one of the demands is eliminated.
Paired comparisons for detecting the reciprocal influence of objectives (matrix of relations among objectives)
In many cases, a contradiction in the objectives can only be recognized when no solution can be found that conforms to all compulsory objectives.
If in such case, an external, off-the-shelf solution had been sought, nothing remains to be done but to correct the objectives retroactively. In the case of self-developed solutions, however, important demands should not be too hastily modified, especially when the objectives are important and there is still time available. It could be that the solutions developed so far are lacking in inspiration.
It is especially difficult to master conflicts of objectives when there are opposing interests or even conflicts of interests. Although an authoritative word can have a powerfully clarifying effect, it should not be the norm to lead a project team in this way. There is the danger that people will internally reject the project or even openly sabotage it. And considering that the purpose of formulating objectives is to agree upon a common direction of thought, this kind of behavior would be self-defeating.
It is therefore advisable to find a balance among the different interests and to record this in a formulation of objectives that has been jointly agreed upon. This process may take time and is usually not attainable without compromises concerning the objectives. However, such a delay is compensated for by an expedited and more straightforward planning and realization with less sand in the gears and fewer detours.2
However, compromises may also have a negative aspect if the solution becomes unattractive and is no longer of any real interest to anyone.
6.2.3.11 The Principle of a Manageable Catalog of Objectives
Structuring a catalog of objectives (see Sects. 6.2.3.4 and 6.2.3.8) creates an overview and order.
The principle of setting priorities helps to distinguish the important from the less important, for example, compulsory, recommended, and desirable objectives (see Sect. 6.2.3.9).
The principle of the freedom from contradictions can help to eliminate objectives.
The principle that it must be clear whether objectives have been met (operational formulation of objectives) makes it possible to eliminate possibly trivial demands, such as those that say the same thing with different words (see Sect. 6.2.3.1).
Beyond that, one should of course always ask oneself if the mandated effects are truly relevant, that is to say, are all the objectives to avoid certain negative consequences truly that important, or do they not rather stem from an aversion to making changes and/or a fear of conflicts?
Thereby, we want to emphasize once more that formulating objectives is often based on social interactions that are concerned with factors such as mutual trust, aptitude for learning, adaptability, and openness to others, but no less with qualities such as a determination to set limits, authority, persuasive power, and much more.
6.2.4 Methods for Formulating Objectives
Creative methods such as brainstorming, brain-writing (card technique)
Key indicators and key indicator systems
Standardized target catalogs, etc.
6.2.5 The Process of Formulating Objectives
- 1.
Naming the target subject: at the beginning of a preliminary study, one should focus on the target subject that has to be developed (see Sect. 6.2.3.5) and avoid describing a specific solution (neutrality regarding solutions).
- 2.
Compiling target characteristics: here, it is helpful to ask: what difficulties/opportunities did the situation analysis reveal, and should they be considered target qualities that characterize the objectives? Independent of these, what further target qualities should be formulated? In doing so, what examples or models can guide us? Would it be reasonable to take this direction of thought? What potential drawbacks might be included in the catalog of objectives under the formulation “what is to be avoided”? What are the objectives for the project course?
- 3.
Design of a meaningful classification of the catalog of objectives by means of the question: what are the essential topics or key aspects?
- 4.
Producing a first catalog of objectives, classifying and supplementing existing target ideas. Complementing the classification if important target ideas cannot be filed.
- 5.
Systematic analysis of the catalog of objectives: checking whether the above-mentioned principles have been adhered to, asking especially: is there neutrality regarding solutions, are the contents of the objectives, information, and interests complete, can the achievement of the objectives (their scope) and their operability be identified, have priorities been set (compulsory, recommended, and desirable objectives), and is there freedom from contradictions (resolution of target conflicts)?
- 6.
Supplementing, restructuring, and tightening the catalog of objectives.
- 7.
The approval of the catalog of objectives as a collectively accepted working hypothesis. A record must be kept of possible causal connections, such as recourse to the results and insights from the situation analysis, of thinking in terms of objectives and means, of subjective value judgments, etc.
All participants and persons concerned with the formulation of objectives should keep in mind that situations, opportunities, and value judgments, or their own opinions about all these, do not and should not constitute the final word. If reasonably argued suggestions for change come up and maybe even prove to be compelling, these will have to be subject to a renewed discussion, as unpleasant as this might be in a particular case.
However, a later change of objectives, for whatever reason, should not happen solely in the heads of individual persons, but should be discussed, justified, and jointly agreed upon or rejected – both by the team and by the commissioning party.
6.2.6 Restrictions
The reflections presented here are to be interpreted with common sense and they should not be regarded as binding regulations. The scope of their significance depends upon many factors, for example, in which phase of the project one finds oneself, how extensive and risky the project is, how large the proportion of work accomplished by outside partners is, which objectives are contractually agreed upon and no longer changeable, and much more.
The correct formulation of objectives in the preliminary and main study phases is usually of greater importance for the overall success of a project than the formulation in the detailed study; it is the earlier phases of the project that set the basic course for its success.
A well-thought-out formulation of objectives is especially significant for large and high-risk projects, as any error could entail a considerable expense.
If the project is worked on “in-house” to a large degree, the project staff often know what is an issue and what is important. It will also be easier to make subsequent changes, if need be, although this is not without risk and can certainly be seen negatively as well (hence one should tend towards nonbinding agreements and amendments). However, if large parts of the project are worked on “off-site,” an exact formulation of objectives in terms of a functional specifications document is indispensable in most cases.
6.2.7 Summary
- 1.
Formulating objectives is an essential thought and work stage in the problem-solving process. Objectives are to be developed as important control parameters for the solution search. At the same time, this step should serve to detect and resolve conflicts and incongruities concerning the expectations of several people.
- 2.To start the formulation of objectives, the following two questions are useful:
What is it hoped a solution will achieve, or avoid? (system or design objectives)
What is to be observed on the way to the solution? (procedural objectives)
- 3.
A hierarchy of objectives and means shows not only that solutions are a means of achieving objectives, but also that realizing these solutions can itself be declared an objective for further efforts.
- 4.To fulfill its purpose of being a guidepost for the solution search, the formulation should observe several important principles:
Objectives are not only justifiable by facts, they also include value judgments.
Objectives should be deliberately formulated to be neutral with regard to solutions, i.e., to be effect-oriented, to avoid excluding solution ideas because of some bias.
Objectives should be formulated in a problem- and action-oriented fashion.
A formulation of objectives should list all the important effects, and possibly the features of a potential solution toward which participants in the formulation process do not wish to adopt a value-neutral attitude (principle of completeness).
Objectives should be formulated as precisely as possible, using identifiable features and, if possible, measuring scales.
A formulation of objectives should express priorities (compulsory, recommended, and desirable objectives).
In a formulation of objectives, contradictions and opposing interests that could block solutions should be made transparent and clarified (principle of the freedom from contradictions).
A catalog of objectives should be surveyed and managed.
- 5.
Several methods and tools are available for formulating objectives, such as a catalog of objectives, polarity profiles, etc.
6.2.8 Self-Check for Knowledge and Understanding: Formulation of Objectives
- 1.
What is a goal, an objective?
- 2.
How are the steps “formulation of objectives,” “situation analysis,” “synthesis/analysis,” and “evaluation” connected, linked together?
- 3.
Why do compulsory objectives not play a role in the “evaluation” step?
- 4.
What is meant when one demands that objectives have to be formulated in an operational way?
- 5.
Why does it generally make sense to distinguish between system objectives and project course (procedural) objectives?
- 6.
Can certain demands be objectives in addition to means?
- 7.
Does it make sense to use the term “objective” (here: objective as the opposite of subjective) goal/target/aim/?
- 8.
What is meant by demanding that objectives have to be solution-neutral?
- 9.
How can we give different importance to objectives?
- 10.
What can one do if goals oppose or contradict each other? Give examples.
6.3 Search for Solutions: Synthesis/Analysis
The sequence of steps in the PSC consists of synthesis followed by analysis; solutions are developed (synthesis) and critically tested (analysis).
6.3.1 Purpose and Terminology
The place of synthesis/analysis in the PSC
The situation analysis yields knowledge about the problem, and potentially also insights into the solution and ideas about possibilities for intervention.
The step of formulating objectives supplies information about objectives understood as effects or qualities that are expected from the solutions or about standards (criteria) with which to assess the suitability of solutions (compulsory, recommended, or desirable objectives).
The search for solutions consists, on the one hand, of the (concept or solution) synthesis that, as a constructive, creative step, has the purpose of finding, conceiving, designing, and constructing solutions; it consists, on the other hand, of the (concept or solution) analysis that, as a critical step, has the purpose of examining solutions critically in a systematic manner to improve, modify or, if need be, reject them.
These steps should result in solution concepts that, although considered to be basically suitable, nonetheless differ with regard to quality or degrees of preference. Determining or working this out in more detail is the purpose of the ensuing evaluation and decision.
The process of searching and finding solutions is marked by the mutual interaction of the procedural steps of synthesis and analysis, which are dealt with later.
A synthesis is a highly creative act. It consists of “intuiting” the whole solution concept, of discerning or “finding” the requisite solution elements, and of intellectually assembling and combining these elements into a viable whole.
6.3.2 Synthesis of Solutions
6.3.2.1 The Importance of Creativity
The search for solutions to a problem or a task presupposes expertise in the problem and solution field. Knowledge about specific methods and tools is also helpful. However, the determining factor for finding new and suitable solution approaches is the creativity of the designers, developers, constructors, etc., whether as individuals or as a team.
“Creativity can comprise the formation of new patterns and combinations taken from experience, the transmission of known relationships to new situations in addition to the discovery of new relationships” (Drevdahl 1956).
Creative people are characterized by an inventive curiosity, critical imagination, and deductive thought. They are capable of freeing themselves from conventional and traditional views, and they know how to look at problem and solution fields from different perspectives. They are, as a rule, persistent optimists.
Creativity exists in a variety of shapes. However, the above list of qualities of creative people indicates some approaches that systematically promote creative action. This can be further stimulated by means of ➔ creative techniques.
Creative, ingenious people must be included in the project work.
Producing a stimulating climate that supports creativity (distance from daily events, reduced time pressures, relaxed atmosphere, etc.). Appreciating the new, accepting it first before immediately criticizing it.
6.3.2.2 Working with Models
Treating complex problems requires an abstraction of concrete facts. Abstractions in the problem field can lead from descriptive, graphic illustrations of reality to quantifiable, graphic, structural models, and even to mathematical abstractions. Then, abstraction is again used in the solution field to design solutions.
Abstraction and concretization
The transition from abstract model formulations of this sort to a concrete solution takes place over several steps of a progressive concretization, whereby the principle of variant creation and reduction can and should be implemented at each step. One should develop variants of the most different kinds at each level of concretization and elaborate particularly promising solutions by repeatedly improving, refining, and perfecting them.
6.3.2.3 General Design Principles
- 1.
Minimizing constraints: means preferring solutions that allow the most room for further developments, such as changes, detailing, and later exchange of solution components (modules).
- 2.
Minimizing interfaces: pertains to the structuring of a system and means creating a minimum number of interfaces. Any interfaces between solution components (for example, building groups) or organizational units, system aspects, should be simply and clearly defined. Here, it must be kept in mind that the structure of complex systems is often not identical with traditional technical or manufacturing constraints.
- 3.
Modular structuring: means that solution components are designed to be reused several times and in other systems as well, or that customary components or current organization regulations can be used.
These three principles cohere with each other insofar as modular solutions with hierarchically structured components usually have a positive effect on minimizing constraints.
In your work, give higher priority to the more risky objects or entities of a design: “Work on high risk entities first” (Bahill and Botta 2008) and “Do the hard parts first” (Rechtin 1991). This has several advantages: there is less risk of creating unnecessary costs. Unresolvable design concepts can be aborted earlier. Bahill also thinks that thereby the overall expenditure for changes will be less: because risky objects will probably have to be changed retroactively, this always requires a change in other objects as well.
Be content at first with satisfactory designs and do not optimize them during an early stage of development: one cannot do so with any finality because after any change in a design, one has to optimize it anew. Furthermore: if you optimize, test the criteria by which it is done. Are they in fact those criteria that will be influential for a later application?
Use open standards whenever possible: The exchange of data, material, and energy, the inter-operability of systems, and the insertion or exchange of concept modules are thereby simplified.
It is recommended whenever possible to incorporate reserves in the design (design margins): these might be security factors, budget reserves, tolerances, performance capacity, etc. This allows concepts to be better adapted to new demands. However, incurring additional costs represents a disadvantage. Nonetheless, one should think about where new demands might be heading and how the capacity to meet them could be installed in a concept. For example: the Boeing 747 was equipped with the capacity to handle heavier payloads. The engineers purposefully gave the aircraft larger wings and tailpiece than was first deemed necessary.
Design for testability: as early as the planning stage one should think about how to test, as simply and reliably as possible, the important features that are demanded by the solutions.
6.3.2.4 Creating and Reducing Variants
The principle of creating and reducing variants was explained earlier in connection with the action model (Part I, Sect. 2.1.2). It will be taken up again here and dealt with in more depth.
1. Thinking in variants
An essential characteristic of methodical action is not to be content with the first solution that meets the compulsory objectives. One should rather try to obtain as comprehensive an overview as possible of the solution possibilities that are conceivable at a certain level of observation or concretization (functional, scientific/technical, or structural solutions), and then work on a selected part of the solution spectrum.
The cause of this course of action is the wish for an optimal solution. Practical problems usually do not have an absolute standard for determining the quality of a solution. This quality can be known only through comparison with other solutions.
Therefore, when a solution has been found that fulfills all compulsory objectives, this does not mean it is the best possible solution. It is merely a solution that suffices for the core demands. The call to search for variants is meant to reveal whatever potential exists for improvement, to stimulate the pursuit of other solution approaches, and thus to inspire confidence in the quality of the solution found, in addition to a sense of security about the continuing development of the system. (“A [single] solution is no solution” and “not the first-best but the best solution counts.”)
Even when the first solution found proves ultimately to be the best, there is still opportunity to take up partial approaches or good solution elements from other variants and thus gain an overall better result. Here, one should make an effort to look for a wide variety of basically different approaches to the solution, which means not creating alternatives simply by varying the details. This is a step that can take place at the next lowest level of concretization.
2. Avoiding unreal variants
Variants (alternatives) worked out in a synthesis/analysis sequence should have the same logical status and represent real alternatives. An example serves to illustrate this. If the insufficient capacity of a manufacturing plant is the problem, proper alternatives would be those of a fundamental type, for example, expansion of in-house manufacturing, outsourcing orders, phasing out less profitable product lines, etc.
One should not mix in subvariants of the alternatives named above, such as expansion of in-house manufacturing at the present location, expansion of in-house manufacturing in a neighboring foreign country, placing orders domestically, etc. One should instead think about some basics first: expansion of in-house manufacturing (yes/no), or external delivery, or streamlining the product range. This can also be referred to as different architectural designs of a solution.
3. Reducing the solution spectrum
Although a diversity of variants in the solution search is temporarily desired, one should not, for reasons of time and expenditure, carry them too far along the subsequent levels of concretization. The diversity must be reduced earlier.
The variants that, in contrast to others, do not meet compulsory or recommended goals, or that meet them less satisfactorily, can be eliminated without a formal analysis, that is, simply on the basis of a greatly reduced number of criteria. Others cannot be so easily assessed and are therefore carried over to the evaluation and decision steps. If necessary, such decisions to reduce diversity should be brought about jointly with the commissioning party.
There is no doubt that experience and intuition play an important role in the selection of a strategy for pursuing solutions over one or more concretization levels. The same goes for an open and relaxed working atmosphere in the team.
6.3.2.5 Interaction of Synthesis and Analysis in the Course of System Development
Here two questions are of interest. First, how does the innovative character change in the course of system development? Second, how many concretization levels should there be within the PSC?
1. Decreasing innovative character
It is useful to distinguish between innovation processes and routine processes. The first possess a relatively high novelty value for those participating in the process, given that at present the participants have only relatively vague notions about the plan of action and the later outcome. In routine processes, on the other hand, one can rely on known action and behavioral patterns whose outcome can be estimated.
In the course of a system development, the amount of routine will and must increase, and the amount of innovation decrease. If this is not the case, the project will become more difficult to manage. A simple example may serve as illustration. The success of a building project will be notably compromised if the architect intends to use new materials for the supporting structure that have not been used before and that require special (i.e., clearly above-average) skills for their workmanship and installation. However, the more he or she turns to practiced and familiar routines, the lower the risk of failure.
Reducing the amount of innovation has an effect on the synthesis/analysis. To the extent that recourse is taken to known and proven solution components, less expenditure will be required for the synthesis and, in this connection, for the analysis relating to a single concept as well.
This is not equivalent, however, to a reduction of planning efforts in the detailed studies phase. Because of the large number of detailed concepts that have to be worked out and brought into agreement, the total expenditure during this phase may actually be greater than that for the preliminary and main studies.
2. Several concretization levels in one PSC
We have already referred several times to the principle of increasing concretization during the course of system development. However, this transition from one concretization level to the next does not necessarily have to be connected to the transition to the next phase as well. Each functional variant may contain several PSCs, and each PSC can certainly have several concretization levels.
Multiple synthesis/analysis steps with increasing concretization in the PSC
The following third concretization level with the technical conception then allows an evaluation and decision to be made, and thus the transition to the next step in the PSC.
6.3.3 Strategies for Finding Solutions (Synthesis)
Habitual, familiar routines seldom lead to better solutions, to innovative products and processes, to awareness of novel opportunities and to the handling of as yet unknown risks.
To be sure, many mature solutions stem precisely from the routine, professional improvement of details, which are the subject of much fine-tuning. Such a strategy of piece-by-piece (incremental) improvement may indeed be useful for a limited time. However, at some point it becomes unproductive, necessitating some basic rethinking of the solution concept, that is, new architectural designs infused with a pronounced pioneering character. For situations like these, one cannot fall back on habitual routines. There are, however, various kinds of search procedures and heuristic methods for opening up the solution field and for finding solutions in an efficient manner. The reflections below are intended to provide some impulses and suggestions.
6.3.3.1 Demarcation of the Solution Field
Restrictions and limitations that arise from the situation and upon which no influence could or should be exerted by the designers, planners, and constructors or the commissioning group or the body responsible for setting objectives (so-called context variables)
Function and performance volumes that were prescribed as compulsory, recommended or desirable objectives (so-called performance variables)
Design parameters (so-called design variables) characterizing the actual free space available for creating solutions
Context variables are worked out in a situation analysis, performance variables are established in a formulation of objectives, and design parameters, even when they sometimes remain partially undefined, characterize the actual free space for solutions. The use and exploitation of this free space depends largely on the distinct abilities of the designers, planners, and constructors.
An example from industrial construction should help to illustrate this. A property’s usage for a manufacturing facility is invested with restrictions and limitations (= context variables) such as the building code with zone plans, boundaries, and spaces between buildings, gable heights, building lines, and also the trade inspectorate’s regulations on worker protection, industrial emissions, and safety precautions, etc.
Function and performance volumes (= performance variables) pertain to, for example, specifications for machines and facilities, operational processes and mass flow rates, operational side functions, number of work places, transportation connections, etc. They also include requirements for expandability, convertibility, upgradability, or demolition, and ones for aesthetic considerations and aspects of corporate identity, plus for the use of certain materials and their maintenance.
The specific room for design (= design variable) comprises the manner in which grounds, space, and nature are used and organized, the allocation of operational functions and processes to the spatial potential, the distribution of construction volume among single cubes and their inner and outer design, etc.
This can also be called systems architecting.
6.3.3.2 Different Starting-Points for the Search for Solutions
The following reflections are related to the system improvement described earlier. Here, a distinction is made between the “from-the-outside-to-the-inside” strategy, which corresponds to the “from the general to the detail” process, and the “from-the-inside-to-the-outside” strategy, which can make immediate improvements at the core of the problem.
“From-the-Outside-to-the-Inside” Strategy
This strategy starts with the desired effects of a solution and its relationships to the surroundings to work out the requisite components of the solution.
As in this case, decisions about solution principles and concepts must often be made on the basis of incomplete insights into problem relationships and solution opportunities, a certain confidence in the feasibility of future solutions is indispensable. Such confidence may rest on experience, trust in the skills of the problem solvers, optimism, the courage to engage in limited risks, and the ability to make subsequent corrections, etc., or it may be bolstered by the fact that different options are kept open for as long as possible. This strategy carries the relatively high assurance that a solution will be suitable to the surroundings. However, if the feasibility of a solution was not judged realistically enough, the consequences could have a negative impact on expenditure for development and, in an extreme case, lead to a termination of development.
This strategy is suitable for the conception of new systems. It corresponds to the procedural principle “from the general (the whole) to the detail” and it can be improved by elements of the “from-the-inside-to-the-outside” strategy described below.
“From-the-Inside-to-the-Outside” Strategy
In this strategy, the idea of an overall concept embedded in the surroundings is relinquished for the time being. One begins by assembling known and available solution components, designs them according to functional and performance requirements, and tries to adapt them retroactively to the conditions of the surroundings. Although this strategy leads more quickly to a finished solution, its utility, quality, and the duration of its serviceability are largely open questions.
This strategy is in principle opposed to the methodology of systems engineering and should not be used for the conception of new systems. It is useful for a stepwise improvement of an existing and known solution, as the alteration of single components usually does not have too much influence on the impact that a system as a whole has on the outside. It can be of service when a solution has to be improved under time pressure or possibly even repaired (stopgap solution), or when a total reworking or new designing of a system would take too long or is already planned for a future point in time.
The “from-the-inside-to-the-outside” strategy is especially advantageous for changing systems in the social domain through stepwise or piece-by-piece improvements (K. Popper’s incremental “piecemeal engineering”).4 In addition, it may be necessary or expedient to plan a partial step and then to complete it immediately. The effects of this step can be taken into account when the next step is planned and realized. Because one refrains from making large-scale changes, there is a lower risk of a system’s compatibility being irrevocably impaired. On the other hand, this strategy could also lead to a patchwork in the sense that a high level of expenditure is invested in conserving an existing, outdated architecture.
Procedure with Changing Starting Points
The suitability of “piecemeal engineering” is called into question when a comprehensive change proves to be necessary. To establish meaningful relationships among the partial steps, it is in this case useful to develop at least a rough framework that can be used as a coordinating instrument. This is accompanied by the influx of elements of the “from-the-outside-to-the-inside” strategy.
For the new conception of a system, one should principally choose the “from-the-outside-to-the-inside” strategy. However, it can be augmented by the advantages of the “from-the-inside-to-the-outside” strategy. In this regard, see the remarks on agile systems engineering (Sect. 2.2.2).
Critical system elements that are especially important and whose detailed configuration is expected to be difficult, should be given priority in the developmental process. This has already been noted in Sect. 6.3.2.3 (Bahill).
6.3.3.3 Systematic Search Strategies
A nonsystematic search for solutions would be, for example, the trial and error method (and further searching), which could also be called a search process of a test nature.
Several systematic search strategies are sketched out below; the solution field for these is indicated briefly in a linear or a cyclical fashion.
(a) Linear search strategies
A linear process means a sequential search for a solution without planning for the possibility or necessity of taking recourse to earlier decision steps.
Routine Process
Routine process
This procedural principle can be applied within the framework of systems engineering to partial problems that show a relatively small degree of innovation. This is often the case when considerable progress with system development has already been made (particularly detailed studies or, as the case may be, system building) and its routine implementation has become increasingly significant. Here, conscious efforts to apply creative techniques do not play any essential role.
Non-optimizing Search Strategy
Non-optimizing search strategy
In a plan to remedy a lack of space in a production facility (1), the decision to expand (2) would accordingly be met with an additional building (3), to be located in the north of the grounds (4) as a two-story building (5).
With this strategy, too, one dispenses with searching for alternatives to a functional solution variant. It should only be used for relatively unimportant aspects that do not have an essential impact on the concept and where there are no innovative plans in the background. This is the case toward the end of the solution search when conventional solution components are selected or in situations that are relatively close to the stage of completion.
Single-Step Optimizing Search Strategy
Single-step optimizing search strategy
In the above-mentioned plan to remedy the lack of space in a production facility (1), the decision to re-organize and change the set-up (2), in place of a decision to expand (as above), would be met by converting the procurement of external parts to just-in-time delivery for production (3) instead of, for example, reducing the storage area in the production floor by building a second story for the new storage are. The resulting demand for improved delivery (4) is not met separately, but rather optimized for both delivery and shipping.
In the context of systems engineering, this process is recommended above all for the preliminary and main studies.
Multi-Step Optimizing Search Strategy
The linear strategies elaborated thus far assume that it is expedient in each case to plan only the next step, then make a decision, and only then plan the step beyond that, etc.
Multi-step optimizing strategy
Because of the expenditure associated with this strategy (variants explosion), it should be used with caution. An important reason for its use would be that the risk connected with determining a certain solution principle is relatively high and that the additional expenditure required for developing alternative solutions at lower levels appears bearable in proportion to the risk.
(b) Cyclical search strategies
Cyclical search strategy (according to Rittel)
We can illustrate this process with the example of a parcel of land that is examined for the construction of a manufacturing facility. The search begins with the first allocation of operational units (A). A plausible location (a) is examined more closely (A′) but abandoned because of difficulties with the rail connection (b). A recourse understood as a cycle becomes necessary. A new search starts with a second allocation of operational units (B); the concretization efforts (B′) yield a solution (d) for the possibility (c).
6.3.3.4 Mathematical Methods of Operations Research5
The methods listed in the encyclopedia under the heading ➔ Operations Research can also be understood as evaluation techniques. To apply these techniques, however, it is necessary to develop quantitative models for the scenarios that are to be evaluated.
If a mathematical solution algorithm can find the optimal solution in a reasonable amount of time, it takes over the role of the evaluation step. In such a case it will aid in detecting the best possible solution. Thus, a comparison of variants, such as in the methods discussed so far, becomes unnecessary. Examples of these efficient algorithms are ➔ linear optimization (optimal location, optimal production program, etc.), and nonlinear optimization.
Because it is difficult to render practical problems and their solution algorithms in adequate models, these approaches can usually be implemented only in partial areas.
6.3.3.5 Heuristics as a Strategy for Finding Solutions
Search processes can be improved and supported by intuitive work that uses methodical components. These components are based on a deliberate transfer of analogies, similarities, or even oppositions (among others ➔ analogy method, ➔ bionics, ➔ synectics), they are logically/rationally applicable (among others ➔ morphology, ➔ problem-solving tree, ➔ simulation) or mathematically deducible (among others, linear programming, branch and bound, combinatorics).
Systematic heuristics and the inventive algorithm attempt to cover the entire synthesis/analysis process: systematic heuristics incorporate into a “construction kit” proven methods of a solution search in such areas as development and construction in mechanical engineering. In an application-directed context it contains methods for finding and specifying solution-oriented formulations of tasks, for planning procedures, and for seeking and assessing solutions. It also comprises methods for determining information needs and for evaluating experience.
The inventive algorithm (➔ TRIZ according to Altshuller) goes through a specified series of working steps similar to the PSC. Tables have been developed for the operative stage of finding solutions in technical systems. These are based on the recognition that, on the one hand, groups of requisite characteristics and effects can be attributed to certain scientific phenomena, forces, etc., and that, on the other hand, there are only a limited number of procedural principles to resolve technical contradictions, i.e., between a target and an actual condition.
6.3.4 Analysis of Solutions
It was pointed out at the beginning of Chap. 6.3 that synthesis is to be understood as a constructive/creative step and analysis as a destructive/critical step. The latter examines solutions systematically to find approaches to improve them or arguments for their elimination. Here, the express intent is not (yet) a comparative evaluation of variants, but rather a critical screening of the suitability of each variant by itself.
6.3.4.1 Intuitive Versus Systematic Analysis
In the sense of an intuitive coupling. The very moment an idea appears for a solution or solution element (synthesis), it is usually accompanied by a critical interaction (analysis) concerning the manner and extent of its suitability.
In the sense of a formal sequence. Important planning results are systematically and critically analyzed by means of concrete queries.
The first-named screening, the intuitive analysis, consists of barely predictable responses to creative action. Intuitive analysis has a positive and a negative component. It is positive because it can have a fruitful effect and lead to improvements or wholly new ideas. It is negative because it is liable to disqualify solution concepts as unsuitable or impractical too soon.
In the second-named screening, analysis is an independent, formal process that should be structured with regard to the content and be prepared in an organized fashion. This is especially useful when important planning results are at hand or important decisions have to be made.
Below, we deal only with the formal, systematic analysis.
6.3.4.2 Contents of Systematic Analysis
Analysis of formal aspects – suitability for appraisal, fulfillment of compulsory objectives
Analysis of integration ability – effect-oriented approach, looking outward
Analysis of functions and processes – looking inward
Analysis of operational efficiency – usability and operational fitness, ease of service, security and reliability
Analysis of prerequisites and conditions
Analysis of consequences
1. Analysis of formal aspects
Here, two points are important: the suitability of a solution to be appraised and the fulfillment of objectives.
Suitability for appraisal means that well-founded assertions can be made about the functioning of a solution in the context of given specifications (function and performance volumes, in addition to limiting conditions and restraints). Their degree of detailing depends, of course, on the project phase in each case. No further detailing of the concept should be immediately undertaken. Rather, a concept should be tested to see if in its momentary stage of concretization is complete to the extent that an assessment of the solution can be made. Only variants that are assessable can be subsequently evaluated.
Then, one must assess if the given compulsory objectives have been met or can be met in the further course of development and to what extent the observed variant can or cannot fulfill essential recommended objectives. Here, the starting point is the catalog of objectives that was worked out in the procedural step of formulating objectives, but which may have changed and expanded because of altered situations, insights, or value judgments. Variants that violate valid compulsory objectives must be rejected or, as far as deemed useful, reworked in a further step of synthesis. If this cannot be accomplished with any variant, the compulsory objective must be accordingly modified or eliminated.
2. Analysis of integrability
The concern here is to screen the solution that has been worked out with regard to its ability to be integrated and its relationship with the environment. The effect-oriented approach, the “look outward,” stands to the fore, whereby special attention is paid to the effects of a solution from the perspective of its environment and, as the case may be, of a system at a higher level. Regarding the effect-oriented approach, the coherence of input and output relations should also be examined. This may be carried out by balancing the relations between output and input or checking if the resources of the system are at all plausible for the desired output in light of the given input.
Priority is given to the interfaces between system and surroundings, the respective input and output with its provenance and usage, in addition to its reception and transmission. Increasingly, it is both reasonable and necessary to check for opportunities for later changes and adaptations, but also for removing components (for example, recycling of old cars, electrical appliances, demolition of high-rises in inner cities and of nuclear power plants, etc.). One might also check whether the modules of a product family could be used.
3. Analysis of functions and processes (looking inward)
In this step, one should look inward: input, which may consist of information, material, energy, and more, in addition to input carriers, are tracked through the system from one element to the next. The mental tracking of these processes is finished when the conversion of input into output has been completed, the balance of their transfer is correct, and the output is ready for being taken over into the next system. The preparation of a complete output list and the comparison with the inputs serve to create a detailed quantity balance, by which unwanted input disposals or unplanned output creators can be detected. If outputs exist that cannot be tracked to their inputs, or if inputs disappear without a resulting output, this can be taken as evidence that the analyzed concept was not sufficiently thought through. It can also mean, that additional functions and processes must be planned, or even if these functions and processes were originally provided in the concept, they nonetheless have not been part of a critical analysis.
The internally directed approach gives rise to process illustrations that are important for subsequent steps.
4. Analysis of operational fitness
The focus here is on usability and operational fitness, ease of service and maintenance, security, reliability, etc.
In pursuit of this question of analysis, one should attempt to place oneself successively in the position of the operator and user, the suppliers and clients in the broadest sense (information, material, energy, etc.) and the service personnel, and to consider the planning results from their perspective. Further aspects that should be observed here are service and maintenance, system care, and updates. These issues become especially significant in phases that are close to realization.
It is expedient, moreover, to take account not only of normal cases but also of overload or partial load states and extreme input or output states to evaluate the behavior of the system and the intervention possibilities under these conditions.
How great the likelihood is that the elements will become inoperative (initially often qualitative considerations such as “great,” “small,” etc., will suffice)
The manner in which they fail to function or may react incorrectly
The consequences of a breakdown or malfunction
The relationships that may be disturbed or interrupted
How this could be avoided
What to do if this could not be avoided (emergency organization)
And much more
Starting from the responses to these questions, suitable measures have to be worked out to avoid breakdowns or, should this be judged to be too elaborate or impossible, to remedy or control them (redundancy, breakdown organization).
Useful tools for considerations of reliability and security6 are analyses of failure types and their effects. These can be expanded to include analyses of the significance of failure types and failure effects. Also to be considered are path analyses and fault tree analyses (see ➔ security analysis, ➔ reliability analysis).
5. Analysis of prerequisites and conditions
Prerequisites and conditions for the realization and functioning of the solution have to be worked out very clearly. In particular, those prerequisites must be determined that are indispensable for the functioning of the observed solution and which, if not complied with, would jeopardize its realization.
The availability of neighboring solutions that are essentially connected with the observed solution (up- or down-stream production operations)
The creation of personnel and infrastructure prerequisites that are not directly an object of the observed project but of other, parallel projects, such as personnel training, energy supply, etc.
Particular attention should be paid to the designing of such prerequisites in the further course of system development and realization.
6. Analysis of consequences
Associated with the selection of a certain concept or the later operation of a system are positive and negative consequences of financial, personnel, organizational, and other kinds. Of special concern are measures to avoid, limit, or alleviate negative consequences. Also to be considered are questions regarding whether a solution can actually be produced and implemented and whether it will be accepted by the concerned parties. With regard to the inclusion, and thus to the analysis of production requirements, a partial-parallel development, as expounded in the concept of “simultaneous/concurrent engineering,” has definite advantages (see Part I, Sect. 2.2.1.8).
In present times, a systematic, methodically supported risk analysis is required at the latest during the “analysis of consequences.” Ever more complex end-products, greater time pressures, etc., increase the risk that project goals are not met. Questions such as the following have to be clarified: what damages could ensue if a solution fails to function, is not available on time, exceeds cost limits substantially, or does not fulfill the required specifications? How can this be determined in a timely fashion within the context of project monitoring? What are the indicators (risk cockpit)? How does monitoring function? On the methodology of this risk analysis, see T. Pfletschinger (2008).7
Important consequences can yield additional criteria for the subsequent evaluation of variants. Such consequences may lead to limitations or supplements for compulsory objectives, or changes of compulsory objectives into recommended or desirable objectives. Also, system adaptation, modification, expansion, and possibly reduction, or even dismantling, can be considered.
6.3.5 Methods and Tools for Synthesis/Analysis
There are many methods and tools available for creating and further developing solution approaches, for generating variants and modeling situations, for analyzing solutions with regard to their different requirements, and for simulating and illustrating system behaviors.
They can be divided into three groups, which are described in Part VI: creative techniques, modeling and illustrative techniques, and analytical techniques.
6.3.6 The Procedure of Synthesis/Analysis
The different approaches described earlier, understood as synthesis strategies and analysis principles, may be characterized as general thought principles that follow the steps sketched out below. Here, it can be appealing to first approach the question directly without any systematics. Only when this attempt has been carried out and no ideas are forthcoming, or only one, is it advisable to try a systematic path.
- 1.
Analysis of the design task
- 2.
Generating and compiling solution ideas
- 3.
Systematic ordering of solution ideas that appear suitable
- 4.
Working out solution concepts
- 5.
Systematic analysis of solution concepts
- 6.
Reworking or following up on solutions
The sequence of tasks is not strictly linear. In practice, it is often interrupted and the steps are run through cyclically and thus repeatedly for a variety of reasons. Moreover, the treatment of individual steps entails different focal points in accordance with each situation. Persons work on an alternating basis in teams or singly.
Step 1. Analysis of the design task
Here, it is a good idea to recall the results of the situation analysis and the formulation of objectives and to clarify the “design or construction question” for which an answer must subsequently be found. It may also be necessary to reach agreement about a search strategy (routine process, optimizing search strategy, etc., according to Sect. 6.3.3.3).
Step 2. Generating and compiling solution ideas
Thinking alone cannot completely penetrate or describe the creative process – a process, moreover, dependent on an individual’s skills and predilections. Synthesis is first of all a creative matter that should not be constrained by detailed instructions. However, thought-provoking impulses are useful when the creative process has come to a standstill or a solution has already been found and it is time to look for supplements or alternatives. The remarks below pertain primarily to such situations that promote the creative process.
Working hypotheses: at the beginning of the search for solutions, one should attempt to formulate several solution principles that differ widely from each other. Such principles should not, however, be understood as rigid guidelines, but rather as working hypotheses that are to be modified as insights increase. They must evolve from expertise and knowledge of the situation.
Preferring important objectives: the more difficult a problem is or the more comprehensive a system of objectives, the more likely it is to make an unconscious or arbitrary selection among the different objectives during the solution search. Thus, one will concentrate on a single or just a few objectives and look solely at these while searching for solutions. Therefore, it is essential that the selection of objectives follows an orderly sequence. This can be accomplished by deliberately concentrating on compulsory objectives in the search for solutions. Although one cannot thereby forcibly bring about solution ideas, one’s willingness to accept suitable ideas may be increased. Solution elements for other, less important objectives can be incorporated later.
If useful solutions have already been found and the focus is on developing alternatives, it may now be expedient to concentrate primarily on recommended or desirable objectives, although they may actually be considered less important, and to search for solutions with especially these objectives in view. Even though this proposition, insofar as it is successful, may not create true “rivals” to the original solutions, it could lead to additional solution approaches to improve the original ones.
Hypothetical dissolution of limitations: in situation analysis and in the formulation of objectives, restrictions and compulsory objectives are established, often of necessity and without closer knowledge of concrete solution possibilities. This can later prove to overly limit the search for solutions. Here, it may be appropriate to undertake an initially hypothetical, stepwise removal of particularly obstructive limitations, thereby conceivably opening perspectives upon new solution dimensions. Should this result in new and promising opportunities, it might be worth considering whether or not the restrictions accepted earlier or the formulated compulsory objectives could be modified (feedback on the formulation of objectives, possibly additional situation analyses, consultation with the commissioning party, substantiating the advantages associated with removal). But this does not mean to suggest that – waiving all limitations – one should always first develop “ideal concepts,” which are later brought down to earth through the introduction of constraints and compulsory objectives (see “ideals concept” in Part I, Sect. 2.1.4.3).
Which constraints or compulsory objectives are perceived as especially limiting on the search for solutions?
Which additional solutions could make their elimination possible?
What other consequences might elimination have? (Additional situation analyses may be needed to answer this question.)
Would it be expedient to remove limitations on the basis of considerations like these?
Resources for stimulating solutions: another avenue for finding solutions might be to take up and, if need be, augment the catalog of resources, which was prepared in the situation analysis, and the intervention possibilities listed there, and then to try to find solutions on the basis of alternative means. The resources should serve as an impulse to find solutions. This procedure is employed to advantage in connection with a solution-neutral formulation of objectives, as it hampers a premature adherence to a particular resource.
Solution base for generating variants: sometimes one finds solutions without being aware of the principle or basic idea on which they rest. Carving out this base can lead to new ideas. To find the base it could be useful to bring in a third party that, unencumbered by details, might more easily be able to detect the base or lead the designer to it by posing questions.
Application of intuitive approaches before systematic ones.
Application of the principle of increasing concretization in creating models.
Formation of working hypotheses.
A mental orientation toward particularly important objectives creates better conditions for good solutions.
A mental orientation toward less important objectives can yield solution approaches for improving good solutions.
Challenging certain restrictions or compulsory objectives can open up new solution dimensions.
A catalog of resources can serve as an impulse for seeking solutions.
Carving out the basic idea on which a certain solution is founded can stimulate the search for alternative basic ideas.
Step 3. Systematic ordering of ideas
Appropriate solution ideas should be ordered incrementally and repeatedly. This has the virtue of enabling the recognition and improvement of whatever appears to be relevant, useful, realizable or promising. Such ideas can also be augmented with further opportunities and, where appropriate, diversified (renewed variant creation).
Here, intuitive analysis, which was addressed earlier, plays an important role. We have already referred to the danger of prematurely excluding seemingly strange ideas.
Step 4. Working out (designing) solution concepts/architectural designs
The focus here is on the concrete conversion of ideas into solution concepts at the level of concretization that is in accordance with the phase of development currently being worked on. This is an important creative leap, requiring conceptual skills, i.e., a rather critical measure of ideas and experiences.
Step 5. Systematic analysis of solution concepts
Each of the reasonably attractive and apparently useful solution concepts must now be systematically analyzed. For this, the analysis principles explained in Sect. 6.3.4 should be applied.
Step 6. Revising solution concepts
Insofar as analysis yields concrete indicators of flaws, deficiencies, or improvements, the working out of solution concepts (step 4) must be taken up again. If the results are satisfactory, the solution just analyzed can be deemed suitable for the next step. This may entail revisions or further work on the next level of concretization, or evaluation of solution concepts. Evaluation can begin when possible solution variants can be surveyed adequately and when important course settings must be decided.
Suggestions for Carrying out the Synthesis/Analysis
The search for ideas and the development phase require creative team members. An environment that fosters creativity is essential for teamwork. The target is to find a wide variety of solution principles and basic ideas. Even ideas that at first appear strange or purely novel should not be dismissed. Keeping a catalog of ideas makes it possible to recapture lost ideas. How consequentially the above recommendations are carried out depends on the situation, the mind-set of those involved, and also on time constraints.
A systematic analysis requires critical team members (analysts, doubters, destructors, the curious, caricaturists). However, criticism that is too vehement and discouraging can create tensions among personnel. Criticism should therefore be as positive as possible. The simple suggestion that one does not know how to solve the problem, but that the present solution needs improvement, can serve to alleviate tension.
On the whole, this step should be informed by the recognition that it is still relatively easy to change solution concepts (in the sense of removing substantial flaws or making significant improvements) while solutions are still in the draft stage. After detailed planning is complete and the realization process has begun, repair work is usually much more elaborate, if at all possible.
Documentation
This refers to the documentation of the solutions themselves, in addition to the data that have led to the solutions or are required to understand them.
The commissioning party must understand the solutions sufficiently well to make a reasonable selection from the different variants.
The system developer must be able to detail and implement the chosen solution.
The prospective users, operators, and maintainers must have an understanding of the type and the conditions of their activities.
The effects of realized solutions and/or of their utilization must be assessable by the persons impacted.
The first and the last categories of recipients are also often interested in having information about solution approaches that have been eliminated and the reasons for their elimination.
As a rule, one and the same description cannot cover all the requirements.
Documentation of data: given the variety of purposes, one should be able to resort to propositions that are the results of the synthesis/analysis and thus lay the groundwork for subsequent steps in the PSC. These propositions must be documented, including their rationales, to enable other planners, commissioning parties, participants, and persons concerned to reenact the working out of solutions. They facilitate the work of the planner himself when re-opening a case. Documentation is the basis for monitoring the development of essential prerequisites and for the operability and other functions of the solutions. Personnel changes in the team are easier to manage when the work results of team members have been recorded.
A written record of situations shows where gaps may be detected. It promotes uniformity in the vocabulary that is used and thus serves the means of communication. Therefore, both essential data about the process and important interim results of the work should be recorded in writing and kept in an orderly file.
6.3.7 Summary of the Search for Solutions
- 1.
The search for solutions consists of the steps of synthesis/analysis and forms the creative core of the PSC. Its purpose is to produce solution variants whose suitability has been checked and that can be systematically compared in the next step (evaluation).
- 2.The search for solutions is prepared through situation analysis and a formulation of objectives, but it is also limited by these.
A situation analysis results in knowledge of the situation (problem field and insights into the solution field).
A formulation of objectives contains a structured summary of the demands and requirements agreed upon with the commissioning party. It thus also contains insights regarding evaluation criteria.
- 3.
The search for solutions consists of a creative/constructive step and a critical/analytical step. The constructive step is called synthesis, the critical step analysis.
- 4.A synthesis has three functions:
Intuiting a whole, a solution concept, a possible systems architecture
Recognizing or working out the requisite solution elements
Conceptually assembling and joining these elements into a model that makes a suitable whole
Creativity plays a major role here.
- 5.In analysis, a distinction has to be made between an intuitive and a formal, systematic analysis:
An intuitive analysis is spontaneous and unplanned; it is the spontaneous, critical reaction to a creative action and can offer both advantages (improvement recommendations) and disadvantages (for example, a possibly premature rejection of solutions because of prejudices).
A formal analysis should be implemented when important planning results are available in the form of solutions that must be critically examined before their further development. It derives systematically from analysis principles that in each case give prominence to a different, but important, point of view (evaluative capacity, compulsory objectives, integration, functions and processes, operability, prerequisites and conditions, consequences). Here, it may prove useful to consult or commission other persons for the task.
- 6.
Models play a role in the design of solutions and in their critical analysis (for example, through simulation).
- 7.
The principle of variant creation and reduction is an important methodological component.
- 8.
Innovative features should be successively reduced during the course of development. Routine processes should play an increasing role in the work on partial solutions and in their realization.
- 9.There are several strategies for the solution search:
The “from-the-inside-to-the-outside” strategy is of special significance for system melioration.
The “from-the-outside-to-the-inside” strategy offers more opportunities when fundamental changes have to be made.
Mixed strategies are often expedient.
- 10.
A series of methods, tools, and techniques (for example, creativity techniques, modeling and illustrative techniques, analysis techniques) support the search for and selection of solutions.
- 11.
A systematic procedure in the search for solutions can take the place of or follow an impulsive frontal approach.
6.3.8 Self-Check for Knowledge and Understanding: Search for Solutions: Synthesis/Analysis
- 1.
What does synthesis mean? What does analysis mean?
- 2.
What is creativity and what is its role in the search for solutions?
- 3.
Explain Fig. 6.15 relating to the idea of abstraction and concretization
- 4.
Does the innovative character increase or decrease during the course of a project?
- 5.
Which typical search strategies for solutions do you know?
- 6.
Give some examples of methods, tools, and techniques for the search of solutions
- 7.
What is the logic in differentiating between an intuitive and a formal analysis?
- 8.
What are the contents of a systematic analysis of solutions?
6.4 Evaluation and Decision
The place of evaluation and decision in the PSC
- 1.
Distinguishably different solution variants must be available, from which one may and should choose.
- 2.
Evaluation criteria are required for signifying which qualities or effects are considered essential.
- 3.
There must be the capability to appraise and to rank the variants that are to be evaluated according to the degree to which they fulfill the criteria.
Solution variants are worked out in the synthesis. In the analysis, they are examined critically with regard to their adherence to the latest compulsory objectives, their proper functioning (process logic, integration ability, security and reliability, completeness), their comparability, their fulfillment of necessary requirements, and their expected consequences. Unsuitable variants have to be reworked or removed. They no longer make it to the evaluation.
Operationally formulated subobjectives, which were designated as recommended or desirable in the formulation of objectives, are particularly suitable evaluation criteria . The list of criteria (criteria plan) that is thus created must be supplemented, however, by additional criteria, which arise only once the solution concepts (synthesis/analysis) are known. This is not an unproblematic claim as now criteria or subobjectives are introduced into the evaluation, which were not considered necessary in the formulation of objectives. The addition of criteria, though, should not be an arbitrary process but rather an expression of a learning process, offering the chance of reaching a better solution on the basis of target conceptions that have been supplemented or modified.
The capability of assessing variants comprises both a knowledge of the situation and expertise about the effects, qualities, and operating conditions of variants; it also means being capable of rendering arguments and making judgments.
Decision follows evaluation. Depending on the phase of the project, it involves the resolution to work out the selected solution variant in detail or to begin with the realization or, possibly, to terminate the project.
6.4.1 Purpose, Terms, Fundamentals
Before we deal with the procedures and processes in more detail, we shift our perspective somewhat and take up the problem of decisions in general: although decisions are particularly important at the end of the PSC, they are also necessary in the context of the target search, the solution search (synthesis/analysis), and project management.
A decision-making situation exists when one can or must choose among several alternatives for action. The choice is largely determined by the expected effects of certain actions. Therefore, before making a decision, one should become informed about the consequences of one’s choice.
6.4.1.1 Different Types of Decisions
A decision-making situation represents a barrier in the course of action. It is overcome by the resolution to execute future actions with reference to the choice made. Sometimes this barrier is not even perceived and a choice is made unconsciously. It is only when the barrier is subjectively perceived and exceeds a certain level that the acting parties become aware of the decision-making situation and make a deliberate decision.
Inasmuch as decision-making situations are often identical or similar, it is useful to develop decision-making routines or rules that facilitate a habitual and thus efficient execution of the evaluative and decision-making process (for example, choice of suppliers, batch size policies, rules on discounts, handling of applications in public administration, etc.). When no decision-making routines are available, there are two ways to master decision-making situations: improvisation or methodical support.
The consequences of the decision are relatively unimportant
The course of action initiated by the decision can be relatively easily influenced later on
The quality differences among the present action courses are very great, showing that one solution has a clear advantage over another, which of course simplifies decision-making
Or when the opposite is the case and it is immaterial which variant is chosen because the differences in quality are insignificant
With an improvised decision, one must keep in mind that its value depends greatly on the experience that the decision-maker has acquired in similar situations.
If the four conditions above cannot be met, the decision-making process must be methodically supported, whereby it will be expedient to differentiate between interim and final decisions:
In the context of systems engineering, interim decisions are those that are made during the synthesis/analysis. Even if not often expressly referred to as a decision, the pursuit of a certain solution idea (synthesis) or its critical examination (analysis) still has a determining influence on the further course of action, so that this choice, whether conscious or not, is of a decision-making nature.
Final decisions are often of a formal nature, meaning that the expressions of will of several people should and must be procured before continuing the course of action. These decisions are always made at the end of major planning activities, particularly after the synthesis/analysis. They may pertain to, for example, alternative solution principles, architectural variants, alternative overall or detailed concepts, alternative procedures or resource allocations, etc. A certain special status is assigned to so-called target decisions, which have to be made when there is a conflict regarding objectives (see Sect. 6.2.3.10).
Thus, the following attribution tends to be valid: final decisions should preferably be methodically supported; interim decisions can also be improvised. But if the import of interim decisions is far-reaching, it would additionally be advisable here to use procedures that make a methodically supported decision possible.
Furthermore, we want to make a deliberate distinction between improvisation and intuition: improvisation refers to the process or the (minor) formal and temporal expenditure that is carried out in preparing the decision. Intuition refers to the unconscious assessment of factors that influence the decision, that is, the consequences of the decision, which are based on subjective factors such as experience, gut feeling, “having a good nose,” and the skill to evaluate complex situations even when only a little information is available. It plays a part in both improvised and methodically supported decisions.
6.4.1.2 Methodically Supported Decisions
In a methodically supported decision it is assumed that the quality of the decision is augmented by knowledge about the consequences of the choice. Therefore, sufficient information must be procured. In addition, formal processes are utilized, allowing information relevant to the decision to be processed in such a way that a recommended decision can be derived logically and often even mathematically.
So-called ➔ evaluation methods and ➔ economic feasibility calculations are relevant for decision-making problems that come up in the planning of large projects. Beyond that, there is an array of other methodical approaches for working on partial aspects, relating in particular to illustrating the problems and structures of decision-making (➔ decision tree, ➔ polarity profile). Also to be mentioned are the approaches of ➔ operations research to detecting optimal solutions mathematically.
6.4.1.3 The Process of Preparing a Decision and the Resolution
Step 1: analysis of the decision-making situation. Which decision is to be made and why? From among which possibilities should one choose?
- Step 2: selecting the method of execution. One chooses a methodically supported process especially when:
The decision is considered to be important and significant, particularly when it has lasting consequences (setting the future course)
No obvious favorite can be identified among the different variants with regard to essential effects or qualities
The persons responsible for the decision have clearly different opinions, perceptions, or expectations (for example, in respect of the criteria that have to be observed, their significance, etc.). A methodically supported process thereby also helps to raise awareness of different value judgments and to incorporate even quite divergent criteria in the decision
The decision does not have to be made under extreme time pressure, thus allowing sufficient time for its preparation. This aspect, however, can also be influenced by good planning and good project management
- Step 3: establishing the evaluation process, for which various prototypes are available as modules:
The models and methods of traditional ➔ economic feasibility and investment calculations assume that the essential characteristics and effects of solutions can be expressed in monetary units. However, many decision-making situations cannot be adequately portrayed by this method.
In contrast, the processes of value-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, which are outlined in the following section, allow a broad spectrum of different types of criteria.
Step 4: information procurement and processing serves in the preparation of solution variants and decision-making situations for their entrance into the evaluation process. If the information procured and processed in analysis is not sufficient, additional analyses must be carried out.
Step 5: the implementation of the model should result in a decision recommendation.
Step 6: this recommendation is to be tested for plausibility and presented to the decision-making body together with the eligible alternatives.
Step 7: even in the case of well-prepared decisions, the resolution may diverge from the recommended decision. For this, there can be a whole series of vaguely acceptable reasons, for example, the intuition of the decision-makers who do not accept the results of the decision preparation, or circumstances, situations, and value judgments that have changed in the meantime. Therefore, additional clarifications, new evaluation steps, etc., may be necessary.
The process of preparing a decision and the resolution
As can be seen from Fig. 6.23, the resolution is at the same time the completion of the improvised decision. The difference between the two types of decisions is that no discernible decision-making methods are applied in improvised decisions.
6.4.2 Evaluation Methods
The methods represented here are limited to those few that we consider to be characteristic of or universally applicable to an evaluation in the comparison of variants. These are the balance of arguments, the value-benefit analysis (point rating, scoring model), and the cost-effectiveness analysis.
6.4.2.1 The Balance of Arguments
The basic idea of this very simple procedure is to list the advantages and disadvantages of single variants in the form of verbal arguments (for, against). Thus, this method creates a kind of survey of the decision-making situation, even though it is not especially efficient and transparent and should actually not be used in systems engineering. We describe it because it often suffices for simple decision-making, but above all because it can serve to illustrate the characteristics of the processes to come.
Balance of arguments (apartment example)
Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|
Apartment A | Short distance to school and work Top floor, open view Good insulation Friends of parents nearby Big apartment, good floor plan | Relatively noisy (street noise) Overhead heating Neighbors not so nice The most expensive apartment |
Apartment B | Attractive surroundings Good shopping opportunities Connection to district heating Very nice neighbors Grandmother nearby Low rent | Inconvenient route to work No acquaintances nearby Smallest apartment, no room to expand |
Apartment C | Good shopping opportunities Little street noise Largest apartment Low rent | Unattractive neighborhood Long distance to school and work Poor insulation Inadequate floor plan |
Advantage: there is a certain ordering of arguments (better than merely spinning thoughts in one’s head).
Disadvantages: there is no uniform assessment standard. Not all arguments are used for all variants. It is not made clear what is important and what is less important. With more than two variants it is not clear what is compared with what: advantages or disadvantages compared with which variants?
The balance of arguments is therefore suitable only for relatively simple decisions, namely those that are already intuitively apparent, but should still be tested, though with little expenditure. It does offer opportunities for expansion, as is illustrated below.
6.4.2.2 The Evaluation Matrix as a Basis for the Comparison of Variants
Evaluation matrix
Objectives | Weight ∑ = 100 | Variants | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V1 | V2 | V3 | |||||
s | w*s | s | w*s | s | w*s | ||
O1 | (w1) | (s11) | (w1*s11) | (s12) | (w1*s12) | (s13) | (w1*s13) |
50 | 5 | 250 | 8 | 400 | 6 | 300 | |
O2 | (w2) | (s21) | (w2*s21) | (s22) | (w2*s22) | (s23) | (w2*s23) |
40 | 3 | 120 | 2 | 80 | 3 | 120 | |
O3 | (w3) | (s31) | (w3*s31) | (s32) | (w3*s32) | (s33) | (w3*s33) |
10 | 10 | 100 | 7 | 70 | 8 | 80 | |
Overall fulfillment of objectives | |||||||
FO1 | 470 | ||||||
FO2 | 550 | ||||||
FO3 | 500 | ||||||
A valid evaluation rule is that the variant that fulfills the objectives to the greatest extent is the best (maximum FO1).
6.4.2.3 Value-Benefit Analysis (Synonym: Scoring Model)
Value-benefit analysis (apartment example)
Weighting (w) | Variants | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | ||||||
Criteria | Group | single | s | w*s | s | w*s | s | w*s |
1. Location of building | 20 | |||||||
Attractivity of the neighborhood | 6 | 6 | 36 | 10 | 60 | 2 | 12 | |
Way to school | 3 | 10 | 30 | 5 | 15 | 1 | 3 | |
Shopping opportunities | 3 | 4 | 12 | 8 | 24 | 8 | 24 | |
3 | 8 | 24 | 4 | 12 | 4 | 12 | ||
Street noise | 5 | 3 | 15 | 6 | 30 | 8 | 40 | |
Subtotal 1 | 117 | 141 | 91 | |||||
2. Building | 15 | |||||||
Appearance | 3 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 4 | 12 | |
Location of the apartment | 6 | 10 | 60 | 8 | 48 | 6 | 36 | |
Insulation (noise, heat) | 3 | 8 | 24 | 6 | 18 | 2 | 6 | |
Heating | 3 | 4 | 12 | 10 | 30 | 6 | 18 | |
Subtotal 2 | 108 | 114 | 72 | |||||
3. Social environment | 15 | |||||||
Neighborhood | 10 | 4 | 40 | 10 | 100 | 6 | 60 | |
Friends of parents | 2 | 8 | 16 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 8 | |
Friends of children | 3 | 6 | 18 | 8 | 24 | 6 | 18 | |
Subtotal 3 | 74 | 132 | 86 | |||||
4. Apartment | 30 | |||||||
Size | 20 | 8 | 160 | 4 | 80 | 10 | 200 | |
Floor plan | 10 | 8 | 80 | 6 | 60 | 4 | 40 | |
Subtotal 4 | 240 | 140 | 240 | |||||
5. Costs | 20 | |||||||
Required investment | 2 | 8 | 16 | 8 | 16 | 1 | 2 | |
Rent and operating costs | 18 | 3 | 54 | 8 | 144 | 7 | 126 | |
Subtotal 5 | 70 | 160 | 128 | |||||
Total | 100 | 100 | 609 | 687 | 617 | |||
Criteria have to be established for assessing variants
The process demands that all variants are to be measured by the same standards (criteria)
The criteria can be assigned different degrees of importance (weight), which must be rendered transparent
The criteria are subdivided, allowing partial results to be used for assessing plausibility
The evaluation of the quality of a solution with respect to a certain criterion can be indicated by giving a score on a scale from, for example, 0 to 10. Score 0 means very bad or not existing, score 10 means excellent. The scale may be inverted according to the respective criterion (highest performance and lowest cost may both get score 10).
We look more closely at procedural issues, special questions, and partial problems in Sect. 6.4.3.
6.4.2.4 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis
In contrast to a value-benefit analysis, efficiency values and cost assessment are not added together, but their ratio to one another is established through division. The result, in the form of a cost-effectiveness index, is a value that expresses the cost of one point on the effectiveness scale. The applicable rule for decision-making is to prefer that variant that shows the lowest value, here V3.
An inconvenient feature of the cost-effectiveness analysis is that, when used as the sole evaluation criterion, it does not differentiate enough. In the case of two variants, one of which has double the efficiency value at double the costs compared with the other, the same ratio numbers result. Here, compulsory objectives, for example, those that limit the total costs or the efficiency value or some of its essential components, could help in the selection and facilitate a decision.
Cost-effectiveness, graphic illustration (variants V5 to V7 are fictional)
The cost-effectiveness approach is especially suitable for those evaluation and decision-making situations where costs play an important role and where their listing in separate accounts is appreciated.
6.4.2.5 Other Evaluation Methods
Other evaluation methods, for example, all methods of economic feasibility or investment calculations , if applied by themselves, are usually not conducive to good decisions among the different variants, as they must assume that the decision can be reduced exclusively to an economic computation or that the evaluated variants are of equal value with regard to other features such as performance, quality, longevity, operability, styling, etc.
These methods signify different things in the context of evaluating additional variants: for example, whether or not the variants satisfy internal corporate ROI policies, how long the amortization periods are, and much more. Thus, a reasonable combination with other methods is preferable to an insistence on exclusivity (➔ economic feasibility calculation, ➔ cost-benefit analysis). A particularly interesting method is the real options approach, described in Part I, Sect. 2.2.5.
6.4.3 Process of Evaluation
- 1.
Establish the participating group in the evaluation: who should understand and back up the realization of results? Who is important? As opinion-shapers, as supporters, as opponents? (The latter should be allowed to weigh up pros and cons in a businesslike atmosphere. To exclude them could be counterproductive.)
- 2.
Choose a shorthand description for each of the variants to be evaluated. The chosen description should clearly characterize the respective variant and be comprehensible to everyone participating in the evaluation process. It would make sense to recall the basic characteristics of the variants once more before evaluating them.
- 3.
Finally, establish a criteria plan. This plan, as has been mentioned, may consist of subobjectives already secured in the formulation of objectives and those that only first emerged from the solution search. Thus, it is admissible both to take up new criteria and to omit originally determined criteria, insofar as these have shown themselves to be premature or irrelevant. However, in the latter case, it should be checked whether it was not precisely these criteria that led to the exclusion of certain variants. Such criteria would then have to be “rehabilitated,” i.e., taken up again in all fairness.
- 4.
Establish the significance of each subobjective (weighting).
- 5.
Determine to what extent subobjectives have been accomplished (assigning scores).
- 6.
Calculate overall usefulness (score times weight, adding up).
- 7.
Plausibility test: are the results plausible or do they contradict an intuitive expectation? If so, why?
- 8.
Sensibility analysis: does the evaluation result change if there is a variation in the assignment of weights or scores within a reasonable framework?
- 9.
Analysis of risks and potential problems.
- 10.
Determine, if necessary, the economic feasibility of the overall solution (important after the preliminary and main studies).
Below, we deal with special questions and subproblems that appear in the application of the value-benefit or the cost-effectiveness analysis. The order follows the procedural steps listed above.
6.4.3.1 Establishing the Participating Group
Decision-making is clarified, particularly with regard to the significance (weighting) of criteria.
The decision-makers must interact in more depth with the qualities or effects of single variants.
The decision-making process becomes more transparent on the whole, because, after all, the results of the evaluation tables require a variety of interpretations.
Results worked out in common are, as a rule, more sustainable than those that simply receive recognition and consent.
Here, an assignment of tasks could be conducted in such a way that primarily the decision-makers determine the criteria and their weighting, whereas the members of the project team assume priority in the assessment of variants (rating).
6.4.3.2 Establishing Criteria
In formulating a criteria plan, one must be especially careful not to include certain qualities or effects of solutions multiple times. An example may serve to illustrate this: if operating costs and investment amounts are both to be considered when determining the fulfillment of objectives, one must take care that operating costs also include investment costs, usually through depreciation.
Exactly what a certain criterion has to evaluate should be clear. If, as in the present case, investment costs are already in fact included in the operating costs via depreciation and interest, two possibilities are conceivable: either investment costs are eliminated from the criteria catalog altogether, or their evaluation is limited to a consideration of the difficulties of capital procurement, of aspects of liquidity, risks, etc. In a case of elimination, one should check whether the cost side by and large has the significance ascribed to it or if the weighting of operational costs should be increased.
Derivation of criteria from characteristics or features
Characteristics and/or features lead to ➔ | Criteria understood as positive effects (to be achieved) or negative effects (to be avoided) |
Horsepower | + Acceleration |
+ Active security | |
- Operating costs (insurance, fuel consumption) | |
- … | |
Vehicle weight | + Comfort |
+ Passive security | |
- Operating costs, ecology (fuel consumption) | |
- … | |
… |
This consideration is a relatively simple matter in the assessment of known or existing solutions. It becomes difficult when solutions exist only in drafts and therefore lack any operating experience. For example: in an industrial plant, noise pollution of the environment is an important criterion. Now, two possibilities are conceivable: the engine unit, as the main noise-maker, is isolated, or a noise barrier is erected around the whole plant. It is difficult to reliably estimate the quantitative effects of either of these measures in the planning stages. Here, additional analyses or even experimental arrangements of prototypes might be necessary. Advice from experts, conclusions drawn from analogous models, etc., could prove helpful.
6.4.3.3 Treatment of Compulsory Objectives
- (a)
What role do compulsory objectives play within the context of an evaluation?
- (b)
May compulsory objectives be questioned?
- (c)
Under what conditions is it reasonable to formulate later, additional compulsory objectives?
(a) The role of compulsory objectives
It is helpful to distinguish between two categories of compulsory objectives: those whose achievement can be answered simply by yes or no, and others whose achievement can take markedly different forms. In the first category, variants that do not meet the objectives can be eliminated. However, this category allows no differentiation among the remaining variants and is irrelevant for the further evaluation. If the compulsory objective is “electric current switchable from 240 to 120 V,” the variants that do not fulfill this condition are not admitted to the evaluation. The compulsory objective is no longer necessary.
The second category includes those objectives that represent restrictions, but, beyond that, remain noteworthy. If the compulsory objective is “operating costs per year 50,000 maximum,” all variants that go beyond this limit would have to be excluded. However, operating costs could continue to serve as an evaluation criterion. In such cases, though, one should not undertake a high weighting, seeing that expensive variants have already been excluded and only the difference from 50,000 has to be assessed.
(b) Questioning compulsory objectives
Another consideration in the context of compulsory objectives has already been referred to. Sometimes, there are existing solution ideas or variants that would be very advantageous in many areas of interest. However, they are not allowed in an evaluation if they violate a compulsory objective. If the retraction or change of the compulsory objective obviously entails major advantages, this question should not be declared off-limits for formal reasons. Of course, agreement with the commissioning party must be sought.
(c) Introducing compulsory objectives at a later point
The question whether or not to introduce an additional compulsory objective during an evaluation process comes up when a variant is judged to be very inferior in respect of a fairly important criterion, but on the whole is rated favorably. Accordingly, a restriction leading to the elimination of this variant would in this case be warranted if it can be reasonably justified. As in the preceding case, it concerns a correction of an objective in terms of a learning process and would in any event have to be discussed with the commissioning party/decision-making body.
6.4.3.4 Number of Subobjectives
The more nuance can be given to assessing different variants
The more difficult it is, on the other hand, to determine the relative significance of a subobjective (weight allocation)
The more expenditure is involved in the evaluation
A growing number of subobjectives do not necessarily produce more objective evaluation results, because the tables become harder to survey and the opportunities for a deliberate manipulation may even increase. A workable and proven dimension for many evaluation situations is an approximately 20–25 subobjectives (the rationale: the total situation can still be well represented on an A4-sized sheet of paper).
6.4.3.5 Weighting of Subobjectives
Basics
Both the establishment of a criteria plan and the allocation of weights frequently involve juggling and gauging so many different views and values that an agreement cannot be effected immediately and several iterations are necessary. To avoid unnecessary repetitions of the evaluation process and to achieve the best possible consensus with the decision-making body with regard to a recommended decision, it is expedient, as already mentioned, to ascertain what the decision-making body thinks about establishing subobjectives and allocating weights, and even to involve it actively in the process.
Limitation of Weight Reserves
Experience has shown that limited reserves are more carefully managed than unlimited ones. This also applies to weight reserves. Limiting weight reserves (for example, to a weight total of 100 or 1000) results in a more attentive allocation of weights and is furthermore practical for any later changes of weights (weight shifts, new intake, or elimination of subobjectives).
If the total weight were unlimited, which technically would be quite possible and, in the case of later changes, even facilitate matters considerably, then a newly received subobjective could be assigned a certain weight without any changes having to be made in the weights of the other subobjectives. Because the total weight would increase to the same extent, all other subobjectives would thereby have to participate proportionally in an equal devaluation (= inflation). It would not be necessary to check the effects on all the other criteria. The reliability of accuracy and efforts may suffer as a consequence.
Therefore, it is recommended, in both the reception of new and in the elimination of existing criteria, to scale the total weight to a fixed sum (for example, 100). Thus, one is forced to examine the overall relations. Although this undoubtedly has the drawback of having to recalculate the evaluation scheme, it is made less difficult by the increasing the use of PCs and the implementation of spreadsheet programs.
Process of Allocating Weights
Allocation of weights according to the principle of node weighing
A rough distribution allows the weights of whole groups to be put into proportion with each other.
The process is made more transparent: all the weight reserves are no longer available for single objectives, but only deliberately limited reserves.
The agreement process is simplified: later weight shifts often remain limited to an area of a particular class of objectives.
The significance attributed overall to a class of objectives no longer depends on the more or less arbitrary number of criteria belonging to that class.
If the allocation of weights is begun at the lowest level, there is a tendency to overemphasize classes of objectives that involve many criteria, even if each single criterion is given only relatively little weight.
Note: we have reservations about the detection of criteria weights by comparing single criteria in pairs (for example, in the ➔ analytical hierarchy process method), as is sometimes propagated. This method is elaborate, requires later calculation processes, and its result is not readily transparent or comprehensible for the decision-making committees.
6.4.3.6 Determining the Achievement of Subobjectives
Scores are used to express to what degree a variant fulfills a certain subobjective. Using a 0–10 scale is practical. Variants that rate excellently with regard to a certain criterion receive a score of 10; those that are utterly insufficient a score of 0 (for example, when they do not exhibit a feature or effect demanded by the objective – which, however, may not have the nature of a compulsory objective). Average achievement receives a score of 5. The remaining numbers are used to indicate gradation. Of course, many other scales are also conceivable and applied in practice.
Below, we deal with several special issues.
Objective Measures as Starting Points
People often establish scores solely by means of a rough assessment, without a special determination process. Such a method of determination is not satisfactory; it can be improved if the fulfillment of subobjectives can be established on the basis of measured values. This aspect was referred to earlier in connection with the demand for an operational formulation of objectives.
Graphic illustration of the fulfillment of objectives
Transformation of Characteristics on a Scoring Scale
The particular question here is whether or not the assignment of scores should exhaust all the space available to it, in other words, should the variant that is best with regard to a certain subobjective be assigned a score of 10 in any event, and the worst a score of 1 (or even 0)?
This question is equivalent to asking about the orientation point that should serve as the basis of the evaluation: do the variants that are to be evaluated furnish the reference point themselves (relative standard) or is it sought externally (absolute standard)?
A relative standard is easier to manage because only the best and the worst of the existing variants are sought; these are assigned a score of 10 or 1 (or 0), on the basis of which the remaining results may be interpolated. However, it has some significant disadvantages, for example, when variants that have been introduced into the evaluation at a later point make it necessary to change the reference base. Moreover, it distorts the proportions when the measurement results of different variants lie very close together.
For example, in a case where different machines have to be evaluated, if their operating costs lie between 5000 and 5500, it would surely not make sense to give the best variant a score of 10 and the worst a score of 1.
To solve this problem, the following possibilities are conceivable: one eliminates this criterion if the difference among variants is only minor, or one assigns a score of 5 to a median variant (which does not actually have to exist) and takes into account up and down deviations by means of additions and deductions. In the upper case, reasonable scores would range between 4 and 6.
A graphic illustration of this curve yields a so-called utility function.
Utility Function as an Instrument for Determining Scores
Example of the course of utility functions
The upper-left graph shows a linear course with an upper (200 kW) and a lower (100 kW) barrier. Variants with less than 100 and more than 200 kW are not allowed; no intersection point is possible in the diagram.
The upper-right graph shows the course of a progressive utility reduction, signifying that less noise pollution in the upper area yields a higher score than in the lower area.
The converse is true in the bottom-right graph, in which the additional utility of higher performance finds increasingly less appreciation. Although a performance of more than 200 kW is acceptable, it does not entail an increase in points, as the maximum score of 10 is already assigned, starting from 200 kW.
The bottom-left graph shows the optimal date for which both a deviation that goes beyond it in addition to one that falls below it are acceptable, though both lead to deductions in scores.
The attempt to illustrate value judgments in a graphic form is especially useful for the additional reason that it diverts attention from concrete solutions for the moment and compels one to focus on one’s own value judgments.
When composing such a utility function, it is advisable to start with extreme values and to ask oneself: when would I begin to rate a performance or a price as very good with a score of 10? When would it become unacceptable (a score of 0), or barely acceptable (score of 1)? Thus, one would have found two supporting pillars between which any desired function may be interpolated. With this instrument, the project team can work out a transparent and comprehensible evaluation scheme, which reduces coincidences, errors, and arbitrariness in the assignment of scores.
Various Scales
These kinds of utility functions can be depicted, however, only when the effects of their characteristics can be measured and represented in so-called cardinal scales , for example, price, costs, kW, m2, square feet, sec, etc.
However, there are also effects or features of solutions where this is not possible, and only nominal (verbal) descriptions for the quality of solutions are available. For example: confidence in the manufacturer: very great, great, less great, etc.; design: excellent, very good, pleasing, takes getting used to, etc.; flexibility, for example, in the use of other source materials: high, medium, low. Here one speaks of nominal scales , which can be converted into a scoring scale.
Ordinal scales establish a ranking of variants in respect of a certain criterion, but which do not additionally quantify the gaps. In these cases, variants are ordered according to rank (first, second, third, etc.), from which the scores are to be determined.
Scaling Matrix
Scaling matrix for determining scores
Criteria (examples) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Scoring scale |
Very bad | Bad | Medium | Good | Very good | General nominal scale | |||||||
Confidence in manufacturer | Not in the least | Low | Medium | High | Very high | Nominal scale | ||||||
Design | Totally unsatisfactory | Barely acceptable | Acceptable | Pleasing | Very good | Excellent | Nominal scale | |||||
Design | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Ordinal scale | |||||
Area required (square feet) | >26 | 26 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 22 | 20 | 19–15 | 14–10 | Cardinal scale |
6.4.3.7 Plausibility Considerations
Once the results of an evaluation have become available after the first calculation, they should undergo a plausibility test. This can be completed relatively quickly if the decision situation is obvious, i.e., if the intuitively expected results harmonize with those that have been calculated and an all-round favorite has emerged.
Checking the evaluation chart for calculation errors.
Checking the criteria plan for completeness: often an intuitive expectation includes subobjectives of which one is not aware and which for some reason are not contained in the criteria plan. To become aware of these, one should look for the reasons why another variant is considered better or worse than what the evaluation results indicate. Here, it may be necessary to supplement the criteria plan and to renew the evaluation process.
Checking utility equivalents: this step is based on the thought that establishing a partial utility (score times weight) may lead to constellations that do not appear justifiable.
The following example serves to illustrate this: a scaling matrix developed in connection with the acquisition of a machine would have yielded the results shown in Table 6.8. The formula allows one to determine how the assessment of operating costs relates to the assessment of performance.
Concretely: if we choose the more economical variant ($7000/year), what is the equivalent sacrifice in performance?
Result: a difference of $1000 in operating costs is of equal value to us as a difference in performance of 4 kW.
Now the question can be asked: does this result really tell what we want to express with regard to our values?
If no: in what direction should corrections be made? Are an additional 4 kW of more or less value to us than $1000 per year operating costs? Depending on the outcome, we would have to change either the utility function or the weighting of the performance criterion.
Sensibility analysis: checking allocations of weights and scores (possibly changing the course of the utility function) within an admissible framework (see Sect. 6.4.3.8). This is especially appropriate and also necessary if the evaluation process has led to differences of opinion or problems of agreement about the selection and/or weighting of criteria or the assigning of scores to variants, or if it has caused general uncertainties about the assessment.
Plausibility test
Variant A | Variant B | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria | Weight w | Quantitative value | s | w × s | Quantitative value | s | w × s |
Engine power (kW) | 30 | 100 kW | 4 | 120 | 110 kW | 5 | 150 |
Operating costs per year ($/€) | 12 | 8000 | 4 | 48 | 7000 | 5 | 60 |
Formula: 
It would be incorrect to interpret all these measures to mean that the evaluation chart should be manipulated until the intuitively expected result can be mathematically confirmed. Their purpose is simply to enable us to identify unconscious value judgments or possible global judgments, to test if these are warranted and, if they are suitable, to introduce them into the evaluation process.
Also, this often entails a necessary correction of intuitive perceptions, especially when these are based on an unconscious overestimate of certain subobjectives whose significance, however, can now be considered in an ordered form.
Therefore, a systematic method and intuition should not be rivals, but should rather be seen as two approaches that supplement, control, and, if need be, correct each other.
6.4.3.8 Sensibility Analyses
A sensibility analysis (also called sensitivity analysis) helps to determine if preferred variants change when the prerequisites that have resulted in this preference also change. As mentioned earlier, this can pertain to the criteria employed and their weights, and to the allocation of scores.
Checking the interim results: thus, in the evaluation example in Table 6.5, the subtotals would be scrutinized regarding their plausibility: do we truly believe that variant B is the best with regard to the criteria groups 1, 2, and 3?
- Checking the weights:
Should not criteria group 4 (the apartment itself) carry a higher weight than 30? Are the other criteria truly that important?
Is the distribution of weights between size and floor plan (20:10) a reasonable one?
Is street noise not underrated at 5 points?
How does the result change if we change the weights within an admissible framework?
Where does a variant receive notably many or few points (w * s)? Which variant? Is this in fact warranted? How does the result change if the scores are changed within an admissible framework?
Performing a sensibility analysis is quite easy with the help of a spreadsheet program. However, the analysis should be limited to truly essential variants, because otherwise one may easily lose an overview of what was changed and why.
It is often the case that although the numbers may change, the results in the decisive categories remain stable. It may even be the case that differences, and thus the head-start of a favorite, increase. This alleviates the decision-making problem. But matters become difficult when the results of a sensibility analysis lead to a change in ranking.
Besides performing further clarifications and examinations, which are popular patent remedies in such cases, one can choose a different approach and turn the question around: if the results lie close together, it may not even be that important which variant is preferred. The risk of a wrong decision is minor. We let the chairman decide, or someone else who has the courage to bear the responsibility for this decision. Or: what risk does this or that variant entail? If we have not agreed about the advantages in the first place, we may perhaps come to a quicker agreement about the risk and suggest a variant that involves less risk. This is taken up in the next section.
6.4.3.9 Analysis of Risks and Potential Problems
It is recommended to carry out an additional special risk analysis in those cases where various risks or resulting problems in connection with different solution variants are to be expected. Here, one could again apply a process that uses an evaluation matrix. In this case, the criteria by which each variant is to be judged are the possible risks or the potential problems. For each variant and risk one would evaluate the probability that a risk event might occur and, should it occur, its severity.
A scale from 0 to 10 can be used to score probability of occurrence of a risk (P). 0 means that the risk will most probably not occur; 5 means that the risk is moderate; and 10 means that the risk has the highest probability of occurring.
The severity (S) of a risk that is to be expected if a risk occurs, can likewise be expressed on a scale of 0 to 10. 0 means practically no effect; 5 means moderate severity; And 10 means great effect = catastrophic effect. Note: the scope does not necessarily depend exclusively on the type of risk, as it can also be influenced by a variant that is fairly resilient vis-à-vis risks.
Matrix for risk analysis
Variant A | Variant B | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risks | S | P | P × S | S | P | P × S |
Delivery problems of subsuppliers | 4 | 3 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
risk of delays | 1 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 6 |
Total risk evaluation | 18 | 14 | ||||
However, one must check whether a risk has not already been factored into an evaluation of utility, as this would falsify the result.
See also ➔ risk analysis, ➔ security analysis.
6.4.4 On Objectivity in Evaluation Processes
In connection with the performance of plausibility and sensibility analyses, it may be asked, what is it about these methods that is actually objective? The answer is short and clear: almost nothing. Let us look at each of the procedural steps.
The selection of the variants being evaluated variants. They are, after all, worked out according to partially subjective goals
The selection of subobjectives for the criteria plan
The weighting of subobjectives
The allocation of scores (when do we assign a score of 10, or 1 or 0?).
Determining subutilities (weights × scores)
Determining total utility (sum of the subutilities for each variant)
There is no method or tool that excludes subjectivity, and the reason is that no solution has an objectively determinable value. There is only value in a particular context, and this value is essentially determined by the subjective appraisal of the problem situation, the goals that are pursued, the subjective influences that play a part in the solution search, and finally the likewise subjective influences on the assessment of the solution.
The method shown is an excellent instrument for rendering the decision-making situation transparent. The completed evaluation chart is at the same time the rationale for a recommended decision. It contains the criteria, their significance (weight), the subutility calculated in the process, and the summed total utility. It thus compels one to think about value judgments and to structure them; thus, it helps to avoid purely intuitive and quite arbitrary decisions. Nonetheless, it allows, as we have seen, room for intuition.
Given this backdrop of undisputed subjectivity, it seems only consistent to keep the process as simple as possible and comprehensible for the decision-making bodies – and not to complicate it unnecessarily, thereby possibly even creating a specious “scientific” objectivity.
6.4.5 Preparing a Decision: The Economic Feasibility Calculation as a Supplement
As mentioned earlier, evaluation techniques are not meant to examine the meaningfulness of a solution for its own sake. Instead, they allow a comparison, which is oriented to the objectives, with other variants.
Particularly in the course of the early phases of a problem-solving process, the question often arises whether an enterprise is at all economically profitable, or if it would be preferable to terminate the project.
For these kinds of questions an ➔ economic feasibility calculation, for example, would be appropriate. With this technique, those variants that are favored in the value-benefit analysis can be comprehensively evaluated with regard to their economic effect. Thus, the objectives applied in the variant comparison could also serve as the starting point for this calculation. Additional references may be found in the encyclopedia (Chap. 16) under the key-word ➔ “cost-benefit calculation.”
6.4.6 Documentation of the Evaluation Step
The rationale for the criteria and their weighting
The shape of the utility functions, or the allocation of the variants in the scaling matrix
The rationale for the scores (based on which characteristics and indicators). This may be provided, for example, in the form of footnotes attached to the evaluation scheme
The plausibility and sensibility analyses
The recommendation and its summary rationale
Possible flaws or risk factors and the measures to control them
The valid compulsory objectives and the variants that were eliminated because they failed to meet those compulsory objectives at the beginning of the evaluation step
The economic viability of the favored variants
Proper documentation should also prevent solutions that were treated intensively and seriously, but were finally excluded through well-considered arguments from being brought into the discussion again without any essential change in the prerequisites or the solution idea.
6.4.7 Decision
Building on the results of the evaluation, one should now select the variant that is to be described in further detail or brought to realization. The greater the participation of representatives of the decision-making body in the evaluation process (possibly even in the solution search), the fewer difficulties they have during the decision-making phase. First, they will be more familiar with the facts underlying the particular solutions; second, they will have had more opportunities to contribute their value judgments, intuitive views, and expectations to the process of the solution search and evaluation.
With regard to the retroactive effects that the decision phase may have on the evaluation and the solution search, we refer the reader to Part II, Sect. 3.3 (on repetitive cycles). In respect of the collaboration of the commissioning party/decision-making body and the planning group in the search for objectives, the search for solutions, and the selection, see Part II, Sect. 3.4.
6.4.8 Summary and Rounding Off
- 1.
The purpose of an evaluation is not to assess the suitability of a particular solution, that is, the task of (solution) analysis; it should rather determine which of the several qualified variants is the best, second-best, etc.
- 2.
Important decisions, which have far-reaching consequences and for which several persons are responsible, should be supported methodically.
- 3.
For this, there are different evaluation methods, for example, the value-benefit analysis and the cost-efficiency calculation.
- 4.
The inclusion of individual representatives of the decision-making body in the evaluation process generally makes for more sustainable decisions.
- 5.
Various instruments, such as the graphic representation of utility functions or the creation of scaling matrices, support the evaluation process by making it more transparent.
- 6.
Allocating weights to the criteria is a highly subjective evaluation task that should be borne primarily by the decision-makers.
- 7.
Likewise, this applies to establishing the principal shape of the utility functions.
- 8.
Assigning scores, i.e., assessing how well or how badly particular variants rate according to certain criteria generally requires in-depth expertise and knowledge of the situation and the solutions. It should be carried out primarily by specialists from the project group.
- 9.
Results of an evaluation step should be tested by plausibility and sensibility deliberations.
- 10.
No evaluation is objective in the sense of delivering a solution that can consistently be proven to be the best. Each evaluation is based on a variety of subjective value judgments and appraisals of a situation.
- 11.
Intuition and methodology (systematization) are not opposites, but different approaches that should support and monitor each other.
- 12.
A final, comprehensive testing of the meaningfulness of a decision recommendation, with special attention paid to economic feasibility, should help to achieve more security, that is, to identify flaws and risk factors that will have to be observed more carefully after the decision.
- 13.
The real options approach (see Part I, Sect. 2.2.5) allows a mathematical analysis of options that was not previously available from traditional business economics. This approach, moreover, facilitates planning systems that emphasize the flexibility of processes and results (agile systems engineering).
- 14.
The results of an evaluation and the accompanying deliberations should be properly documented so that they may be transparent and replicable.
- 15.
An evaluation does not replace the volitional act of a decision. It does, however, render decision-making transparent, as it compels the participants in the decision to think thoroughly about their standards and about the functions and effects of different variants, and to structure these accordingly.
6.4.9 Self-Check for Knowledge and Understanding: Evaluation and Decision
- 1.
Which steps in the PLC are the main information suppliers for the evaluation
- 2.
What is the essential difference between analysis and evaluation?
- 3.
Are improvised (intuitive) decisions acceptable or should decisions always be methodically supported?
- 4.
Which methods of comparative assessment do you know?
- 5.
Why does it make sense to limit the sum of weights of the criteria (100 or 1000)?
- 6.
Why does it make sense to represent the course of a utility function on a graph?
- 7.
Why is it recommended to conduct reasonability analyses or sensitivity analyses in the evaluation process?
- 8.
Are the methods for comparative assessment “objective”?
- 9.
Why use evaluation methods that are not “objective”?
- 10.
Is it possible for the decision-making body to deviate from the proposal of the project group?
6.5 Special Cases and Situational Interpretation
We have frequently pointed out that the methodology of systems engineering is not a panacea for all types of problems. Rather, it provides general recommendations for action that require intelligent and situation-related interpretation. By this, we mean the ability to relate to a situation and to single out those methodological elements that are found to be reasonable and that one is prepared to implement and carry out, and of course, conversely, to omit or modify those elements where this is not the case.
The relative inexperience of the participants (Sect. 6.5.7)
Keeping options open (Part I, Sect. 2.2.5)
Entering disorganized problem-solving processes (Sect. 6.5.8)
Shut-downs and terminations (Sect. 6.5.9)
6.5.1 Modification of a “Living Object”
Good situation analyses that relay a well-founded understanding of present functions, processes, and relationships, as these present conditions are usually also influenced and impaired, even when they are not the object of the renovation.
Scrupulous realization planning that fulfills two requirements: each realization step should represent an advance toward the new solution and create a stable condition that allows a continuous, even if sometimes limited, operation.
This can often be done only with great difficulties or additional efforts. Such as alleviating steps or interim measures that do not advance the solution by themselves but are necessary in the interest of maintaining operational functions (for example, provisional traffic or transport routes and working places, relocations of functional units, and much more).
The project management team is especially important for accurately planning and directing processes, and for relaying timely information to all participants and concerned parties and coordinating them.
6.5.2 Improvement (Melioration) Projects
It is a characteristic of improvement (melioration9) that essential circumstances of the actual condition are not to be changed, but only improved in certain areas.
This is often the case because an existing system may be functioning, but not optimally. Dissatisfaction, for example, with functions or performances, is the reason for engaging in improvement plans. When improving an actual condition, it is obvious where one has to look. By this, we mean that one does not fundamentally call into question the existing functions, processes, or material inputs, but instead tries to improve these partially and gradually according to the formulated objectives.
Although this obvious procedure, which was perfected in Japan through ➔ Kaizen (improvement), may be faster and less elaborate, its application is not without limitations. On the one hand, there is the risk of treating localized symptoms while overlooking that issues lying outside this local area must be included to solve a problem overall. On the other hand, every concept becomes outdated at some time and a new conception becomes necessary.
There exist a number of individual problems that may be only loosely related to one another.
The overall solution results in the sum of individual solutions that often, though, cannot be selected independently of one another.
Many tasks in both the economy and the public sector constitute melioration plans. Their peculiarities pose special challenges to the process. These are dealt with below on the basis of the steps involved in the PSC.
Situation Analysis
Frequently, the starting situation is not clear and an inquiry into the details is necessary, as the basic state of affairs is not up for dispute.
It is advisable to first run through the steps of the PSC quickly, to gain an overview, to carve out the core points of the subproblems, to detect the relevant causes, and to formulate possible solution approaches in the sense of working hypotheses. Then one can proceed more specifically with the analyses required for defining particular problems. (This process is a modified implementation of the “from the general to the particular” principle.)
Formulation of Objectives
Often, only quite vague objectives can be formulated for the melioration plan as a whole. These objectives are barely helpful in the search for solutions to single problems (and in the evaluation of variants). Sometimes, the boundary between objectives and solution ideas is not clear at the outset.
However, even when the triggers for melioration plans and objectives can be articulated relatively clearly, there is often much uncertainty whether or not they are at all realistic and attainable with the planned resources. The reason for this is that it takes vast experience to appraise how individual improvement measures bring about the total result.
Solution Search
Although a systems melioration is concerned with solutions for several individual problems, it is advisable to try to formulate common themes and principles for the solutions instead of an overall concept. This increases the chance of finding single solutions that harmonize with each other.
For each individual problem, several independently applicable solution variants are developed.
The individual problems are then interpreted as parameters and their solution variants as expressions of a ➔ morphological matrix.
Through a combination of parameters, useful overall solutions in the morphological matrix can be constructed and evaluated (with elimination of incompatible or clearly less suitable pairs).
Evaluation
In melioration projects, the actual current condition should be included in the evaluation. This not only allows the single-solution variants and components to be compared relative to one another, but it also makes evident the complete extent of the effects of any changes. It could be the case that such an overview forces one to the conclusion that certain parts of the improvement recommendation are not worth the activities to realize them.
6.5.3 Initiatives of Limited Scope
The systems engineering action model as a whole is directed toward the completion of complex projects. For plans of limited scope, simplifications are of course admissible and reasonable. Such plans, for the most part, do not require an actual project organization; because they are usually easy to survey, the circle of participating persons is small (conceivably, only one person works on the problem). Hierarchies are limited to a few, often to only one or two levels, and the tasks at both levels are managed by the same team. In such cases, aspects of the phase model and the PSC are usefully combined into a simple action plan. As the plan is easy to survey, it is possible to continue to introduce modifications, which become increasingly necessary during the course of the work owing to the growth in knowledge.
At the beginning of the work, however, it must be made clear whether or not such limits imposed on the scope and depth of the process are appropriate, to avoid working out a solution that relates to a problem that is imperfectly understood.
6.5.4 Initiatives of Unusually Large Scope
A large circle of participants and concerned parties whose intentions and preferences undergo frequent changes
Examining and planning teams that shift at each step and in each phase of development
High innovative content and degrees of uncertainty
Constant changes with regard to appraisal of the development of the system and its environment, and of the resultant system demands, etc.
The only thing constant in these plans are unforeseeable changes. To control these changes, a many-tiered, broadly conceived “preliminary study phase” with extensive examination and study programs, which cover the expanded problem and solution fields, is necessary. Also required is strong project organization from the outset that emphasizes the areas of configuration and interface management and documentation as well.
The considerations described below also apply to some extent to these kinds of reflections.
6.5.5 Programs
Many plans that have a similar goal are referred to as programs, often located in the public or semi-public sector. The goal of research and development plans may be to exploit a chance (for example, solar energy production, application of micro-electronics in mechanical engineering) or to avert a danger (for example, reduction of atmospheric pollution, humanization of the workplace). The goal of a concentrated package of measures might be to contribute to reducing individual motorized traffic in inner cities, lowering costs in healthcare, or cutting overheads in a company.
Each plan can be developed in principle independently of other plans and in accordance with the systems engineering action model. Given the relatively large latitudes that research and development plans should possess, especially during the early phases, it is highly probable that there will be unrecognized, mutual influences in the problem and solution fields belonging to other plans or the latent appearance of both positive and negative side effects in neighboring fields. In imposing measures and sanctions, there is the risk of an unwanted accumulation of consequences, and of the weakening of the intended effects.
Therefore, it is expedient to define and initiate the plans of a program as interactive components and to monitor and direct their execution in the form of program management and controlling. This also includes, for example, regular joint discussions about progress, results, and further intentions.
6.5.6 Staggered Implementation
In complex systems, notably in business and organizational domains, is not possible to construct and introduce a system with one stroke, because resources are often limited or the associated risk is frequently too great. Therefore, system building and system introduction often take place in several stages. However, if these stages extend over a longer period of time, the system environment and/or the expectations made of the system run the risk of changing so greatly in the interim that the developed concepts are no longer the best or even suitable (see also Sects. 2.2.4, 3.2.3.5, and 3.2.3.6).
An overall concept is developed in the main study that contains the functioning method and the realization principle of the most important subsystems or system aspects, but is directed to a stage-by-stage realization.
Detailed concepts are worked out in a staggered manner and brought to realization as soon as each is finalized.
Before going on to the next stage, the overall concept is checked and, if need be, adapted, thereby allowing an influx of both the insights gained in earlier detailed studies and in their realization and of new environmental factors and demands.
It is more considerate of the usually limited capacity of qualified personnel and of the receptivity of the users.
The experience that the systems designer and the system user have gained from the establishment, introduction, and usage of the system can be better exploited.
Risks can be kept lower and there is also greater flexibility in adapting objectives to new situations.
The plan brings earlier application benefits.
If central system parts are realized first, the degrees of freedom are reduced as desired, in addition to the uncertainties in the design of further system parts.
A process of this kind represents a differentiation in the phase model. The sequence of phases after the main study is now valid only for individual stages, for which reason different subsystems may find themselves at very different stages at the same time.
- Demands from the standpoint of the system:
Logical sequence for utilization
Conceptual significance of system aspects
Initial training of the system team
Urgency of resolving certain flaws (or exploiting opportunities)
Simple things first
Desire for quick financial benefit
It may be the case that certain parts must be introduced into a provisional version and modified or replaced later. Project management becomes more elaborate and the commissioning party must collaborate more intensely for the release of the stages.
These processes are also useful in the situation “Modifications of the living object.”
6.5.7 Relative Inexperience of Participants Because of Pioneering Situations
Pioneering situations may occur for the planners/developers and for the commissioning party, and also for both sides simultaneously.
Pioneering situations arise for developers and planners not only when the solution to the problem is not known, but also when the solution and the path to it are generally known (based on the state of science, of technology), but their own implementation experience is lacking. The pioneering character may pertain to the system, to new components for established functions (for example, in control engineering), to new materials and the method of their processing, to potentially applicable production techniques, and to methods of finding and designing solutions. In such cases, it appears expedient to use experience learned elsewhere: one may study the solutions realized there or secure external know-how by consulting experts.
Pioneering situations for the commissioning party occur when the commissioning party or the persons or committees appointed by it do not or insufficiently understand the complexity of the problems, the expansion of solution fields, the implications of solution variants or the necessity of a formal project organization, and the mechanisms of completing a project. These situations can come to light when demands are constantly changing, conflicts about goals are unresolved, decisions are postponed, and much more. Here, it may be quite helpful to hold joint meetings at the start of the project and discuss not only the problems, expectations, and limitations of the solutions, but also the logic and the methodology of the process model.
If the pioneering situation is very pronounced for both sides, it is necessary to engage in intensive risk reduction.
Dividing plans into smaller segments, learning in smaller dimensions
Consulting experienced outside sources
Deliberately segmenting phases with the option of a phase-out or a correction
Imposing prototypical approaches during the early phases, making experimental adjustments, creating manageable pilot situations, with the option for a later decision not only to withdraw or make corrections, but also to expand plans.
6.5.8 Entering Disorganized Problem-Solving Processes
Sometimes, the necessity for target-oriented cooperation within an organizational framework and the implementation of common procedural instruments is not recognized before false results have appeared in the development of a solution, deadlines and costs have been exceeded, and the achievement of project objectives has been rendered dubious. What can reasonably be done in such cases?
Search for objectives: what situation are we confronting? What objectives are we pursuing?
Search for solutions: what solution approaches are available? Do they meet the objectives given above?
Selection: what decision(s) must be made?
Special attention must be given to checking the plausibility of the overall concept being pursued, to incorporating the detailed studies into the overall concept, and to defining the interfaces.
The organizational framework for the cooperation of all participants should be newly defined or redefined, whereby the informal channels existing so far should be broadly exploited.
Attainable stages of completion when budgets and schedules are adhered to
Adherence to schedule with an incomplete, yet operational system, including the required expenditure
Trimming specifications (target reduction)
These considerations should help in finding an acceptable basis for the continuation of the project or its further realization. They can also be tied to a new agreement about the project mandate and its specifications.
6.5.9 Shut-Downs and Terminations
The termination of the operational phase of a system, for example, after it has become obsolete, can also be seen as a plan, which must be undertaken in harmony with the demands not only of the environment or the employed infrastructure but also of the system parts that continue to be operated.
Toward the end of the operational phase of a system, deliberations are made that either have as their goal the conversion of an obsolete system while maintaining, reusing, or further using essential components, or they strive for the recreation of the original state (what we called a “wide open field”), which may entail disposal problems, as in the case of shutting down nuclear power or chemical plants.
Seen under the auspices of methodical planning, these are new and separate plans. Then again, with regard to an obsolete system, it should have been the task of the original planners to theoretically anticipate, i.e., to include in their planning deliberations, the demands that would arise from its conversion or the requirements for recreating a “wide open field,” so as not to pose unnecessary hindrances to any new plans.
6.5.10 Self-Check for Knowledge and Understanding: Special Cases and Situational Interpretation
Do you know any other special cases you would find worth discussing? The authors would like to know your views.