Complexity, Systems Thinking and an Integrated Systems Engineering and Project Management Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although theory and guiding principles exist for the integration of systems engineering and project management, there does not appear to be a practical approach offered. With unproductive tension, discipline‐specific disparate processes and models, and persistent project failures, there is a need for a paradigm shift in the approach to this integration. This shift may be achieved through systems thinking and the use of an integrated management model that includes key linkages, a decision support system and system dynamics. The model presented in the current study provides a structured approach for multiple disciplines to address and manage product and project complexity through cross‐functional processes within an interactive dynamic model environment consisting of system, process and policy levers. The model is validated through application of a case study, literature review, surveys and interviews with industry experts. Use of the model provides for critical thinking and a multi‐disciplinary agile approach to help navigate complexity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it