Global Decision Making Support for Complex System Development
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
To succeed with the development of modern and complex systems (e.g., aircrafts or production systems), organizations must have the agility to adapt faster to constantly evolving requirements in order to deliver more reliable and optimized solutions that can be adapted to the needs and environments of their stakeholders including users, customers, suppliers, and partners. However, stakeholders do not have sufficiently explicit and systematic support for global decision making, considering the vast decision space and complex inter-relationships. This decision space is characterized by increasing yet inadequately represented variability and the uncertainty of the impact of decisions on stakeholders and the solution space. This leads to an ad-hoc decision making process that is slow, error-prone, and often favors local knowledge over global, organization-wide objectives. As a result, one team's design decisions may impose too restrictive requirements on another team. In this paper, we evaluate our understanding of global decision making in the context of complex system development based on a conceptual model which explicitly represents and manages decision spaces including variability and impacts. We have conducted our evaluation by means of an exploratory case study where we interviewed domain experts with an average of 20 years of experience in complex system industries and report the key findings and remaining challenges. In the future, we aim at providing explicit and systematic tool-supported approaches for global decision making support for complex systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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