Case Studies for Complexity Pattern Identification

Andrew C Pickard, Richard Beasley, Dean Beale, Dorothy McKinney, Rudolph Oosthuizen, Dave Stewart, Kenneth Cureton, Chandru Mirchandani
{"title":"Case Studies for Complexity Pattern Identification","authors":"Andrew C Pickard,&nbsp;Richard Beasley,&nbsp;Dean Beale,&nbsp;Dorothy McKinney,&nbsp;Rudolph Oosthuizen,&nbsp;Dave Stewart,&nbsp;Kenneth Cureton,&nbsp;Chandru Mirchandani","doi":"10.1002/iis2.13162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The INCOSE Complex Systems Working Group Heuristics Team has selected 67 Principles and Heuristics that are considered to be particularly relevant to Complex Systems. These have been incorporated into a Difficulty Assessment Tool that prioritizes the list of Principles and Heuristics based on scoring of a matrix of four Difficulty Elements and six System Elements (to characterize the nature of the complexity).</p><p>The purpose of this paper is to describe an <b>initial</b> assessment of the effectiveness and usefulness of the Difficulty Assessment Tool. The Tool has been used to assess eight Case Studies by five assessment teams — one with three people working together, one with two people and the remaining three with individual assessments.</p><p>The results of these assessments have been compared using four different correlation methods, using the total weighted Heuristic score, the maximum weighted Heuristic score, a Match / Mismatch analysis of the top fifteen and bottom seven Heuristics, and a difference ranking between pairs of assessors of all 67 Principles and Heuristics. The last two assessment methods are shown to be more insightful.</p><p>The assessment teams then reviewed the relevance of the highest and lowest-ranked Principles and Heuristics to the full Case Study definitions (Problem and Outcome). There is good agreement of relevance for the highest-ranking Principles and Heuristics, less so for the lowest-ranking ones. Based on this initial assessment, the DAT shows promise to help people develop complex systems.</p><p>The paper concludes with recommendations for further assessment of the Difficulty Assessment Tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":100663,"journal":{"name":"INCOSE International Symposium","volume":"34 1","pages":"544-569"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INCOSE International Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iis2.13162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The INCOSE Complex Systems Working Group Heuristics Team has selected 67 Principles and Heuristics that are considered to be particularly relevant to Complex Systems. These have been incorporated into a Difficulty Assessment Tool that prioritizes the list of Principles and Heuristics based on scoring of a matrix of four Difficulty Elements and six System Elements (to characterize the nature of the complexity).

The purpose of this paper is to describe an initial assessment of the effectiveness and usefulness of the Difficulty Assessment Tool. The Tool has been used to assess eight Case Studies by five assessment teams — one with three people working together, one with two people and the remaining three with individual assessments.

The results of these assessments have been compared using four different correlation methods, using the total weighted Heuristic score, the maximum weighted Heuristic score, a Match / Mismatch analysis of the top fifteen and bottom seven Heuristics, and a difference ranking between pairs of assessors of all 67 Principles and Heuristics. The last two assessment methods are shown to be more insightful.

The assessment teams then reviewed the relevance of the highest and lowest-ranked Principles and Heuristics to the full Case Study definitions (Problem and Outcome). There is good agreement of relevance for the highest-ranking Principles and Heuristics, less so for the lowest-ranking ones. Based on this initial assessment, the DAT shows promise to help people develop complex systems.

The paper concludes with recommendations for further assessment of the Difficulty Assessment Tool.

复杂模式识别案例研究
INCOSE 复杂系统工作组启发式方法小组选择了 67 项被认为与复杂系统特别相关的原则和启发式方法。这些原则和启发式方法已被纳入难度评估工具,该工具根据由四个难度要素和六个系统要素(用于描述复杂性的性质)组成的矩阵打分,对原则和启发式方法列表进行优先排序。本文旨在介绍对难度评估工具的有效性和实用性进行的初步评估。这些评估的结果通过四种不同的相关方法进行了比较:加权启发式总分、最大加权启发式得分、前十五名和后七名启发式的匹配/不匹配分析,以及所有 67 项原则和启发式的成对评估者之间的差异排名。评估小组随后审查了排名最高和最低的原则和启发式方法与完整案例研究定义(问题和结果)的相关性。排名最高的原则和启发式方法的相关性非常一致,而排名最低的原则和启发式方法的相关性较低。基于这一初步评估,DAT 显示出帮助人们开发复杂系统的前景。本文最后提出了进一步评估难度评估工具的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信