100,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Gamification for Resilience Enable resilience informed decision-making with an insightful combination of systems engineering concepts In Gamification for Resilience: Resilient Informed Decision-Making, a team of distinguished researchers deliver an insightful and exciting integration of game theory, design, and applications that explains how to create a resilient city that promotes sustainable development, well-being, and inclusive growth. The authors combine several concepts and techniques taken from serious gaming and integrate them into decision-making theory, demonstrating how to enable Resilience Informed Decision-Making. The book addresses critical infrastructure systems and how to ensure these systems are supported against manmade, natural threats and hazards. It includes thought-provoking research questions and case applications that will engage and challenge readers and create an active and memorable learning experience. Readers will also find: * A thorough introduction to systems theory as the basis for bridging science and the practice of engineering systems * Comprehensive explorations of gamification and its application to the resilience informed decision-making process * Practical discussions of the analysis and assessment of risk and vulnerability via serious gaming * Fulsome treatments of the representation of system complexity using object-oriented programming Perfect for professionals and researchers working in the areas of decision making, gamification, resilience, risk assessments, and critical infrastructures, Gamification for Resilience: Resilient Informed Decision-Making will also benefit undergraduate and graduate students studying urban planning, smart cities, and related subjects.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 565
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
Ähnliche
Gamification for Resilience
Resilient Informed Decision-Making
Adrian V. Gheorghe
Department of Engineering Management and Systems EngineeringOld Dominion UniversityNorfolk, Virginia
Polinpapilinho F. Katina
Department of Informatics and Engineering SystemsUniversity of South Carolina UpstateSpartanburg, South Carolina
Copyright © 2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750–8400, fax (978) 750–4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748–6011, fax (201) 748–6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762–2974, outside the United States at (317) 572–3993 or fax (317) 572–4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Gheorghe, Adrian V., 1945 - author. | Katina, Polinpapilinho F., 1982 - author.
Title: Gamification for resilience : informed resilience decision-making / Adrian V. Gheorghe, Polinpapilinho F. Katina.
Description: Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., [2023] | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023007846 (print) | LCCN 2023007847 (ebook) | ISBN 9781394157747 (hardback) | ISBN 9781394157754 (pdf) | ISBN 9781394157761 (epub) | ISBN 9781394157778 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: City planning--Decision making. | Gamification. | Resilience (Ecology) | Systems engineering.
Classification: LCC HT166 .G487 2023 (print) | LCC HT166 (ebook) | DDC 307.1/216--dc23/eng/20230330
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023007846
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023007847
Cover Image: © issaro prakalung/Shutterstock
Cover design by Wiley
Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India
To my children, Anastasia, Alexandra, and Paul
– Adrian V. Gheorghe
To my young brothers, Gavin and Ryan, to whom the term “gamification” is dedicated
– Polinpapilinho F. Katina
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Author Biographies
Part I Fundamental Issues for the Twenty-first Century
1 Systems Theory as the Basis for Bridging Science and Practice of Engineering Systems
2 Critical Infrastructure Systems at Risk
3 The Need for Systems Resilience
Part II Gamification and Resilience
4 Introduction to Gamification
5 Regional Mix Game for Renewable Energy Resources
6 Urban Planning Simulation Using “SimCity (2013)®” Game
7 A Platform for ReIDMP
Part III Applications
8 Analysis and Assessment of Risk and Vulnerability via Serious Gaming
9 MCDA Application via DSS Software
10 Representing System Complexity Using Object-oriented Programming
11 ReIDMP: Implications, Limitations, and Opportunities
12 Portland: Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
13 Smart Cities and Security of Critical Space Infrastructure Systems
14 Gamification for Resilience: A Research Agenda
Glossary of Terms
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
CHAPTER 01
Table 1.1 A classification and listing...
Table 1.2 An overview of the systems-based...
Table 1.3 Possible Systems Theory contributions...
Table 1.4 Systems Theory axioms and propositions.
CHAPTER 02
Table 2.1 Defining features for CIs.
Table 2.2 Types of CI interdependencies.
Table 2.3 Different perspectives on governance.
CHAPTER 03
Table 3.1 Common perspectives on...
CHAPTER 04
Table 4.1 Gaming validation parameters.
CHAPTER 05
Table 5.1 The advantages and disadvantages...
Table 5.2 The advantages and disadvantages...
Table 5.3 The advantages and disadvantages...
Table 5.4 Energy features for the mix game.
Table 5.5 Additional mix games quantities...
CHAPTER 06
Table 6.1 SimCity® edition comparisons.
CHAPTER 08
Table 8.1 Assigning values to critical...
Table 8.2 Matrix of critical asset scoring...
Table 8.3 Assigning values to the...
Table 8.4 Matrix of vulnerability...
Table 8.5 Potential countermeasure...
Table 8.6 Potential countermeasure...
Table 8.7 Potential matrix of countermeasure...
Table 8.8 Possible sources of information.
Table 8.9 Emission coefficients of five...
CHAPTER 09
Table 9.1 Resilient goals, strategies...
Table 9.2 Using label scales in LDW for...
Table 9.3 Using label scales in LDW for...
Table 9.4 Using label scales in LDW for...
Table 9.5 LDW matrix of alternatives for...
CHAPTER 10
Table 10.1 Likelihood and impact...
CHAPTER 12
Table 12.1 Risks in Portland and...
Table 12.2 A summary of constants...
Table 12.3 A summary of constants...
Table 12.4 A summary of constants...
Table 12.5 A summary of constants...
Table 12.6 A summary of constants...
Table 12.7 A summary of constants...
Table 12.8 A summary of constants...
Table 12.9 A summary of constants...
Table 12.10 A summary of constants...
Table 12.11 A summary of constants...
Table 12.12 Societal risk classification.
Table 12.13 A table for overall societal risk.
Table 12.14 Categorization of critical...
Table 12.15 Critical assets factors.
Table 12.16 Scoring critical assets.
Table 12.17 Vulnerability factor scoring.
Table 12.18 Criticality and vulnerability of assets.
Table 12.19 Countermeasures for critical assets.
Table 12.20 Infrastructure countermeasure cost estimates.
Table 12.21 Facilities countermeasure cost estimates.
Table 12.22 Equipment countermeasure cost estimates.
Table 12.23 Personnel countermeasure cost estimates.
Table 12.24 Suggested continuous sources of emissions.
CHAPTER 13
Table 13.1 Estimated debris in orbital.
CHAPTER 14
Table 14.1 A taxonomy of serious games.
List of Illustrations
CHAPTER 01
Figure 1.1 Systems Theory as a bridge between...
Figure 1.2 The relationship of Systems Theory to...
CHAPTER 03
Figure 3.1 Elements of research necessary ...
Figure 3.2 Simulated city using SimCity...
Figure 3.3 Simulated city using SimCity...
Figure 3.4 Simulated city using SimCity...
CHAPTER 06
Figure 6.1 SimCity (2013)®’s in-game main menu bar.
Figure 6.2 SimCity®’s road network and density.
Figure 6.3 SimCity®’s electric power distribution.
Figure 6.4 SimCity®’s water supply distribution.
Figure 6.5 SimCity®’s wastewater management.
Figure 6.6 SimCity®’s garbage and recyclables collection.
Figure 6.7 SimCity®’s potential fire risks.
Figure 6.8 SimCity®’s law enforcement and safety service coverage.
Figure 6.9 SimCity®’s educated Sims in the city.
Figure 6.10 SimCity®’s mass transit system (Buses).
Figure 6.11 SimCity®’s mass transit system (streetcars).
Figure 6.12 SimCity®’s land values and wealth level.
CHAPTER 07
Figure 7.1 A framework of the ReIDMP model.
Figure 7.2 Deployment of the SimCity® application.
Figure 7.3 Procedural steps of rapid risk assessment.
Figure 7.4 Procedural steps of VA.
Figure 7.5 Procedural steps of integrated regional risk assessment.
Figure 7.6 TopEase®’s main window.
CHAPTER 08
Figure 8.1 Example of information from...
Figure 8.2 Example of information from...
Figure 8.3 Example of table information...
Figure 8.4 Example of table information...
Figure 8.5 Experimental results...
Figure 8.6 Determination of potential...
Figure 8.7 Identification of critical...
Figure 8.8 Matrix for criticality...
Figure 8.9 Experimental results...
Figure 8.10 California State...
Figure 8.11 Group pollution from experimental...
Figure 8.12 Water pollution from experimental...
Figure 8.13 Air pollution from experimental...
Figure 8.14 Overall pollution mapping from...
CHAPTER 09
Figure 9.1 A LDW hierarchical structure...
Figure 9.4 An integrated LDW hierarchical...
Figure 9.2 A LDW hierarchical structure...
Figure 9.3 A LDW hierarchical structure...
Figure 9.5 Using label scales in LDW for...
Figure 9.6 Using label scales in LDW for...
Figure 9.7 LDW common unit assigned values...
Figure 9.8 LDW weight assessment for...
Figure 9.9 LDW weight assessment for...
Figure 9.10 LDW weight assessment for...
Figure 9.11 LDW alternative ranking...
Figure 9.12 LDW alternative ranking...
Figure 9.13 LDW alternative ranking...
Figure 9.14 LDW weight assessment for...
Figure 9.15 LDW alternative ranking...
Figure 9.16 LDW dynamic sensitivity.
Figure 9.17 LDW comparison of alternatives...
Figure 9.18 LDW comparison of alternatives...
Figure 9.19 Creating an IDS tree for...
Figure 9.20 Creating an IDS tree for...
Figure 9.23 IDS dialog box view of...
Figure 9.26 IDS dialog box view of...
Figure 9.24 IDS dialog box view of...
Figure 9.25 IDS dialog box view of...
Figure 9.27 IDS dialog window defining...
Figure 9.28 IDS dialog window defining...
Figure 9.29 IDS dialog window defining...
Figure 9.30 IDS dialog window for pairing...
Figure 9.32 IDS dialog window for pairing...
Figure 9.31 IDS dialog window for pairing...
Figure 9.33 IDS weight distribution for...
Figure 9.34 IDS weight distribution for...
Figure 9.36 IDS alternative ranking for...
Figure 9.37 IDS alternative ranking for...
Figure 9.38 IDS alternative ranking for...
Figure 9.21 Creating an IDS tree for...
Figure 9.22 Creating an integrated IDS...
Figure 9.35 IDS weight distribution for...
Figure 9.39 IDS weight distribution for...
Figure 9.40 IDS prioritization of the...
CHAPTER 10
Figure 10.1 The six primary CI sectors...
Figure 10.2 Selected CI and their...
Figure 10.3 A data structure with...
Figure 10.4 Process support diagram...
Figure 10.5 The overall RACI matrix output.
Figure 10.6 The “Responsible” RACI...
Figure 10.7 The “Informed” RACI...
Figure 10.8 Data structure for additional...
Figure 10.9 Data structure for additional...
Figure 10.10 Data structure for additional...
Figure 10.11 Data structure for additional...
Figure 10.12 Data structure for additional...
Figure 10.13 Visualization diagram of...
Figure 10.14 A risk template for overall...
Figure 10.15 A risk template for...
Figure 10.16 Scoring multiple risks...
Figure 10.17 A different view of multiple...
CHAPTER 11
Figure 11.1 Goal I of the NRS.
Figure 11.2 Goal II of the NRS.
Figure 11.3 Goal III of the NRS.
Figure 11.4 Project naming in Project...
Figure 11.5 Creating NRC development...
Figure 11.6 Project phases and tasks...
Figure 11.7 Project resources for NRC development.
Figure 11.8 Task assignment for NRC development.
Figure 11.9 Project timeline and task...
CHAPTER 12
Figure 12.1 The selected analysis area of Portland.
Figure 12.2 The location of risks.
Figure 12.3 Ice rink location.
Figure 12.4 Ice rink indicating...
Figure 12.5 The gas transportation route.
Figure 12.6 The chlorine transportation route.
Figure 12.7 Overall societal risk...
Figure 12.8 Overall societal risk...
Figure 12.9 Identification of critical routes.
Figure 12.10 Identification of critical assets.
Figure 12.11 Criticality vs. vulnerability matrix.
Figure 12.12 Real-time air quality in Portland.
Figure 12.13 Air quality data for...
Figure 12.14 Annual air pollution data.
Figure 12.15 Impaired waterways.
Figure 12.16 Assessed waterways.
Figure 12.17 Surface water violation index.
Figure 12.18 Groundwater violation index.
Figure 12.19 Water quality index map.
Figure 12.20 Surface soil pollution.
Figure 12.21 Cancer risk due to cumulative...
Figure 12.22 Respiratory risk due to...
Figure 12.23 Non-cancer neurological...
Figure 12.24 Cancer risks due to formaldehyde...
Figure 12.25 Respiratory risk due to formaldehyde...
Figure 12.26 A high-altitude EMP detonation.
Figure 12.27 EMP detonation at a HOB of 25 km.
Figure 12.28 EMP detonation at a HOB of 100 km.
Figure 12.29 EMP detonation at a HOB of 400 km.
Figure 12.30 EMP radius for varying height of bursts.
Figure 12.31 A HOB of 400 km above Omaha...
Figure 12.32 A revised ReIDMP model.
CHAPTER 13
Figure 13.1 Elements of a smart city that could...
Figure 13.2 Space weather satellite attributed...
Figure 13.3 Overall technological effects of space...
Figure 13.4 Operational risks related to...
Figure 13.5 Risks related to malicious interventions.
Figure 13.6 Natural/environmental risks.
Figure 13.7 A general risk multimodel for the...
CHAPTER 14
Figure 14.1 A balanced view gamification...
Guide
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
About the Authors
Begin Reading
Glossary of Terms
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
Foreword
In the twenty-first century, the well-being of the public is intrinsically intertwined with certain infrastructures and key asset provisions. The destruction of key assets can cause large-scale property damages, human injury, and/ or death. Furthermore, the destruction of key assets can profoundly damage national prestige and confidence. As the demand for provisions (products, goods, and services) has increased, so have inside and outside influences that disrupt normal operations of the infrastructure system activities and processes rendering such systems inoperable. The inoperability of infrastructure systems is linked to several societal changes that occurred in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For example, technological advancement, rapid institutional changes, increasing complexity, transboundary dependencies, and increasing demand for quality services coupled with increasing natural threats present a grave challenge for policymakers, engineers, and scientists in sustaining societal operations. Even so, the intricate interdependencies among infrastructures have already illustrated a need for a shift in infrastructure management. For example, a single blackout in Germany on November 4, 2006, caused a loss of power for millions in France, Italy, Spain, and Austria. Cascading unintended electric failure resulted in transport systems (i.e. trains, traffic signals) delays and disruptions of other interconnected operations.
It is from this perspective that understanding the relationship among elements, components, and infrastructure systems is an essential step in improving infrastructure designs, protection, and security measures. In one form, many have gravitated toward different strategies. For example, those in system safety will call for a risk management strategy based on the identification, analysis of hazards, and application of remedial controls. The concept of system safety is useful in demonstrating the adequacy of technologies when difficulties are faced with probabilistic risk analysis. On the other hand, it might not be possible to rely only on probabilistic risk analysis. Thus, there is a need to go beyond the “obvious.” To illustrate, let’s consider the concept of dependability. A dependable infrastructure performs normally, especially when its services are needed. However, given the nature of infrastructure systems, one has to consider the relationship that exists between infrastructure and larger issues in public health, economy, and security. A destruction of a dependable infrastructure can have a severe impact on public health/safety, the economy, or any combination of those matters. Consider the events that shocked the world on September 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked from a dependable aviation sector leading to over 2,500 deaths, over 6000 injured, loss of power and water, and closure of the New York Stock Exchange – all of which affected the local as well as the international economy and security. Therefore, the dependability of the aviation sector is linked to public health, the economy, and security.
The public’s increasing dependency on certain systems (e.g. agriculture and food, water systems, public health and safety, emergency services, electricity, etc.) along with rapid institutional changes (i.e. shifting from public to private, deregulation, privatization, market-driven economies, etc.) and increasing technological changes have changed the landscape of traditional infrastructure systems. For example, more than half of the world’s population resides in cities. The rapid growth in urbanization has made cities more and more exposed and vulnerable to a broad spectrum of threats and hazards: natural and anthropogenic. To respond to such difficulties, we cannot proceed using the traditional and tested approaches. In the present research, the authors suggest gamification.
The term “gamification” first appeared online in the context of computer software and did not gain popularity until 2010. However, even before the term came into use, other fields borrowing elements from video games was common, such as learning disabilities and scientific visualization. Usage of the term increased around 2010 and it began to refer to incorporating social and reward aspects of games into the software. Research reported in the present book provides a chronology of the topic and how present research adds to the current body of knowledge.
The authors have gone to great lengths to use several well-tested concepts including project management and risk as well as emerging ideas, including Vulnerability Assessment (VA), and show how these concepts can be used to enable the Resilient Informed Decision-Making Process (ReIDMP). The authors bring convincing case applications, providing a consistent theoretical framework and adequate applications challenging researchers and public policy-makers interested in using gamification to create credible scenarios for further investigations and decisions.
The paradigm of using games to create more resilient cities is not only timely but necessary. Timely, because it is novel. Necessary because as the global human population surpasses eight billion, much of the population will be clustered around cities that serve as centers of human culture and economic activity. And yet, these cities, unfortunately, come with urban risks and vulnerabilities. Perhaps, the ideas in this book provide insights into how we might create better cities while relying on concepts of critical infrastructure systems, safety, risk, vulnerability, and resilience within gamification to enable informed decision-making.
Milan, Italy
January 2023
Enrico E. Zio, PhD
Professor and Director, Department of Energy,Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Professor, École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris,Paris, France
Preface
Humans are living in a moment when, perhaps due to technological innovation, we praise ourselves with the belief of being well-informed, intelligent, wiser, and capable of making even better judgments. Yet people are still unable to address much of the root causes of dysfunctional society and economy: armed conflicts, epidemics, natural disasters, poverty, prejudice, and violent crime.
First and foremost, this book will not solve these problems, and it should not be taken as such. However, when dysfunctionality strikes, many experience disbelief and hopelessness, leading to emotional flatness – an emotional blunting where a person has difficulty feeling emotions and indifference, even to activities/causes they once found necessary. At the junction of dysfunctionality leading to emotional flatness, we suggest resilience and gamification might prove essential in dealing with the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity in the twenty-first century.
Over half of the population of the world resides in cities. Rapid urbanization has made cities more exposed and vulnerable to a broad spectrum of threats and hazards. To respond to such difficulties, “resilience” has emerged as a significant component of cities’ long-term planning and sustainable development. In fact, emerging paradigms (e.g. “resilient city”) implicitly challenge the ideological principle of stability and resistance to change in sustainable development and long-term success. Moreover, “gamification” is the strategic attempt to enhance systems, services, organizations, and activities by creating similar experiences to those experienced playing games to motivate and engage users in a non-game context. Therefore “resilience-enabled gamification” can be used against “emotional flatness” by encouraging strategic design for resilient people and organizations.
The term “gamification” first appeared online in the context of computer software in 2008 (Walz and Deterding 2015). Gamification did not gain popularity until 2010 (GoogleTrends 2021). However, even before the term came into wide usage, borrowing elements from video games was common, such as learning disabilities (Adelman et al. 1989) and scientific visualization (Rhyne et al. 2000). The term gained wide usage around 2010, and many began to refer to it when incorporating social/reward aspects of games into software development (Mangalindan 2012). This approach captured the attention of venture capitalists, who suggested “many aspects of life could become a game of sorts [and that these games] … would be the best investments to make in the game industry” (Sinanian 2010). Another observed that half of all companies seeking funding for consumer software applications mentioned game design in their presentations (O’Brien 2010).
Soon after, several researchers suggested that they considered gamification closely related to earlier work of adapting game-design elements and techniques to non-game contexts. For example, Deterding et al. surveyed human–computer interaction research that uses game-derived elements for motivation and interface design (Deterding et al. 2011). Meanwhile, Nelson (2012) suggests a connection between the Soviet concept of socialist competition and the American management trend of “fun at work.” Moreover, Fuchs (2012) points out that gamification might be driven by new forms of ludic interfaces such as Wii Remote, Move, and Kinect. Gamification conferences have also retroactively incorporated simulation with Will Wright, designer of the 1989 video game “SimCity (2013)®,” serving as a keynote speaker at the gamification conference, G-Summit 2013.
Organizations have also seen the value of gamification and are enhancing this concept with different platforms. For example, in October 2007, Bunchball (http://www.bunchball.com), backed by Adobe Systems Incorporated, was the first company to provide game mechanics as a service (Taylor 2011). Another example of a gamification services provider is Badgeville. Badgeville launched in late 2010 and raised $15 million in venture-capital funding in its first year of operation (Arrington 2011). Attempts to use games for learning hit the traditional landscape in 2012 when the US Department of Energy co-funded multiple research trials (Rai and Beck 2016), including those addressing consumer behavior (Beck et al. 2017), adapting the format of “programmed learning” into mobile microlearning to experiment with the impacts of gamification in energy usage reduction (Feeney 2017). Moreover, Mazur-Stommen and Farley (2016) suggest that gamification can be used to address climate change and sustainability with surprising results. For example, note that their research “broadened the scope of the kinds of activities we were looking at, beyond utilities and into market-based and education games, which took many forms including card-games (Cool Choices), videogames (Ludwig), and games for mobile devices such as smartphones (Ringorang) … gamification, such as that used in the Opower/Facebook application, whereby the incorporation of game mechanics heightens the experience and/or performance of everyday, real-world activities” (Mazur-Stommen and Farley 2016, p. 9).
Finally, there is a Gamification Research Network (GRN), a communication hub for researchers and students interested in studying the use of game design in non-game contexts. It was launched in November 2010 alongside the call for participation in the 2011, 2013, and 2015 CHI workshops on gamification (http://gamification-research.org/about). It is import to recall that a key fundamental aspect of games is education as well as behavior modification – which is related to resilience. In conclusion, gamification as a concept for solving real-life problems is in the beginning stages, and its future looks bright!
However, building a resilient organization, including a city, requires a holistic approach and the appropriate adoption of knowledge and application of tools during the planning and management process. Several studies aspire to enhance the capacity of city resiliency (https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org). However, few explicitly focus on developing a roadmap (i.e. practical sequential steps) to build a resilient city. Therefore, this book attempts to close this knowledge gap by developing a methodological framework, which involves procedural steps in assisting the planning and management processes for developing a resilient city. The platform proposed in this research is grounded on a theoretical approach called “Resilient Informed Decision-Making Process.” The efficacy of the developed framework and the research is demonstrated through a case applied to two US cities as well as space systems.
Rasmussen and Batstone (1989) suggested that “management and organization … had not kept pace with the sophistication of technology and its complexity. As a result, the frequency and magnitude of organizational failures and the subsequent economic and environmental impacts are increasing at an alarming rate” (p. ii). With this in mind, the authors hope this book can catalyze those in management to promote resilience through gamification to enable informed decision-making. Armed conflicts, epidemics, natural disasters, poverty, prejudice, and violent crime and impacts are increasing at an alarming rate. And while humanity expresses the desire to stop them outright, it appears we don’t have that capability. Perhaps the next best thing is to develop resilient people, organizations, and cities – and in the case of this book, through gamification, we can reduce emotional blunting.
This research should attract policy-makers since they are ultimately responsible for society’s resilience. However, researchers (as well as students and laypersons) should “pay close attention” to how gamification can be used to enhance resilience. With this audience in mind, fourteen chapters have been developed. Chapter 1 sets the stage for the remainder of the book by exploring aspects of general systems theory (i.e. systems science, systems technology, and systems philosophy) as a basis for bridging the gap between systems science and engineering systems to deal more effectively with the increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of the twenty-first century.
Chapter 2 articulates the many facets of infrastructure systems and the need for resilient critical infrastructure systems for public well-being. The role of cities as centers of human culture and economic activity, as well as the catastrophic and unforeseen events they face (e.g. climate change, disease pandemics, economic fluctuations, and terrorist attacks), are discussed in the context of the need for resilient cities. The notion of resilient critical infrastructure is then explained regarding risks and vulnerabilities faced by cities in the twenty-first century.
Chapter 3 sets the stage for research on creating resilient cities and people through gaming. Resilience is defined in the context of the ability to withstand stress in infrastructure systems as well as “positive adaptation” after a stressful or adverse situation. The general qualities of resilience are then established. The chapter delves into gaming as a powerful tool for creating resilient people, emphasizing the positive impact of gaming on the quality of life.
Chapter 4 introduces the concept of gamification (and serious gaming) and its value and utility, which are explored through cognitive, emotional, and social lenses and issues revolving around critical infrastructure systems design. Gaming cycles (i.e. pre-gaming, gaming, and post-gaming) and the role of expert opinions are discussed to establish foundations for understanding infrastructure systems through gaming, data analysis, and game validation.
Chapter 5 presents the concept of mix game to increase energy system resilience. First, the chapter proposes looking at systems in the context of parts – coupled together; the parts can form systems and these systems can respond to stresses. A mix game is then proposed as an awareness-raising appendix mainly addressing layperson energy stakeholders. The model is simplified for the objective of oriented design for optimal primary energy mixes deliberately designed to avoid the arcane of the nonlinear programming technology. The chapter also discusses serious gaming as means for good energy governance amplified by emerging concepts in complex system governance.
Chapter 6 describes the vital components of the simulation computer game “SimCity (2013).” In this game, a player assumes the role of the mayor of the city, with the central aspect being construction and zoning, which comprises a wide range of responsibilities (e.g. providing the essential facilities, maximizing the service capacities, and otherwise balancing between demand and supply of resources). A player works with an interface containing several buttons corresponding to different features and options. The chapter includes insights regarding the limitations/opportunities of SimCity (2013).
Chapter 7 discusses a proposed platform (i.e. ReIDMP: Resilient Informed Decision-Making Process) for developing resilient cities. An overview of the platform is provided involving the simulation computer game (SimCity (2013)) and the means for analysis and assessment of risk and vulnerability as well as evaluation using the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). A four-phase approach (i.e. project planning and management, learning by doing through gaming strategy, multi-criteria decision analysis, and object-oriented programming) is then articulated as a means for analyzing technical process and actions required for the realization of resilient critical infrastructure systems.
Chapter 8 discusses three key risk and vulnerability assessment approaches in engineered systems: Rapid Risk Assessment (RRA) as a method for classifying and prioritizing risks in major accidents in processes and related industries, Vulnerability Assessment (VA) as a means for identifying cost-effective countermeasures to deter vulnerabilities and potential threats, and Integrated Regional Risk Assessment (IRRA), a method focused on assessing the risk due to continuous emissions instead of the risk due to major accidents. Each method is viewed as key to contributing to the ReIDMP platform for developing resilient cities.
Chapter 9 focuses on applying multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) through a decision support system (DSS) to support determinations, judgments, and courses of action in an organization or a business. Following a brief introduction to MCDA and DSS in the context of the ReIDMP platform, three primary areas of interest for creating a resilient city are described, along with the proposed actions. Logical Decision® for Windows (LDW) is then used to model each area of interest (i.e. environment, economy, and society) to explore a ranking of proposed actions (alternatives) regarding their associated strategies and targeted objectives. The analysis is then repeated using Intelligent Decision System (IDS) and its enhanced capability to address probability uncertainty, subjective judgments, belief function, and the evidential reasoning approach for attribute aggregation.
Chapter 10 illustrates how a regional network of complex systems can be a representation using object-oriented programming. First, object-oriented programming (OOP) is described as a programming paradigm that uses “objects” to design applications. Then TopEase® is introduced as software that allows the user to manage critical information of focused systems and holistically visualize those entities. The described approach is then applied to a region in the eastern part of the United States (i.e. Hampton Roads) as a case application. TopEase® is used to structure data regarding critical infrastructure systems, components, people, roles, responsibilities, and interdependencies. The research suggests that the TopEase® OOP approach is viable for performing disaster risk analysis for different infrastructure systems, including cyberattacks, industrial accidents, meltdowns, and earthquakes.
Chapter 11 discusses how transforming cities into “resilient cities” is significant. Yet, it remains achievable. The case of a US city (i.e. Norfolk, VA) along with its strategic goals (i.e. Norfolk Resilient Strategy) is used as an example. Norfolk Resilient Strategy goals: (i) designing a coastal community of the future, (ii) creating economic opportunity by advancing efforts to grow existing and new industry sectors, and (iii) advancing initiatives to connect communities, deconcentrate poverty, and strengthen neighborhoods set the foundations. The chapter then discusses how the mentioned goals aided in the development of the ReIDMP platform along with implications, limitations, and potential future research directions.
Chapter 12 attempts to demonstrate the applicability of the ReIDMP platform in assessing risks and vulnerabilities. The City of Portland, Oregon (USA) is used as a case application. Three manuals are used: (i) Manual for the Classification of Prioritization of Risks Due to Major Accidents in Process and Related Industries, (ii) Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection, and (iii) Guidelines for Integrated Risk Assessment and Management in Large Industrial Areas. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Assessment is also used to evaluate the possible effects of an EMP blast. Analyses and visualization include probabilities, consequences, prioritization, and pollution classification, further validating the adaptability and utility of the ReIDMP platform to transforming cities.
Chapter 13 examines the relationship between smart cities and critical space infrastructure systems. Critical space infrastructure systems encompass several systems (e.g. satellites) whose loss or disruption would significantly impact virtually any nation. This chapter depicts the multidirectional interactions between smart cities and critical space infrastructure. Threat analysis is used to explore possible relationships between smart cities and critical space infrastructure through actions and their possible impact on cities. Several risk scenarios are presented, along with a general risk multimodel that could be used to address risks and their possible impacts on smart cities. The chapter concludes with a call for a “system of systems” approach to the governance of space and smart cities.
Finally, Chapter 14 provides an initial research agenda on gamification for a city’s resilience. The proposed research agenda goes beyond the present research’s limitations to include critical knowledge issues involving ontology, epistemology, methodology, and the nature of human beings. A framework for the purposeful and balanced development of gamification for resilience is provided with several interrelated lines of inquiry along the philosophical, theoretical, axiological, methodological, axiomatic, and applications underpinnings.
The book also includes a glossary of terms often used in gamification and their definitions. In general, explanations of concepts are relevant to the current research. However, the reader might also reference the listed concepts and their meaning elsewhere.
Adrian V. GheorgheNorfolk, Virginia, USA
Polinpapilinho F. KatinaSpartanburg, South Carolina, USA
References
Adelman, H.S., Lauber, B.A., Nelson, P., & Smith, D.C. (1989). Toward a procedure for minimizing and detecting false positive diagnoses of learning disability.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
, 22(4), 234–244.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200407
Arrington, M. (2011, July 13). Badgeville raises $12 million, celebrates with an infographic.
TechCrunch
.
https://social.techcrunch.com/2011/07/12/badgeville-raises-12-million-celebrates-with-an-infographic
/.
Beck, A. L., Lakkaraju, K., & Rai, V. (2017). Small is big: Interactive trumps passive information in breaking information barriers and impacting behavioral antecedents.
PLOS ONE
12 (1): e0169326.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169326
.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. et al. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” IN:
Proceedings of the 15
th
International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments
, pp. 9–15. Association for Computing Machinery.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
.
Feeney, R. (2017). Old tricks are the best tricks: Repurposing programmed instruction in the mobile, digital age.
Performance Improvement
56 (5): 6–17.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21694
.
Fuchs, M. (2012). Ludic interfaces: Driver and product of gamification.
G|A|M|E Games as Art, Media, Entertainment
, 1 (1): 19–26.
https://www.gamejournal.it/ludic-interfaces-driver-and-product-of-gamification
/.
GoogleTrends. (2021). Gamification.
Google Trends
.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=gamification
.
Mangalindan, J. (2012, November 12). Play to win: The game-based economy.
Fortune Tech
.
https://fortune.com/2010/09/03/play-to-win-the-game-based-economy
/.
Mazur-Stommen, S. and Farley, K. (2016).
Games for grownups: The role of gamification in climate change and sustainability
. Indicia Consulting.
http://indiciaconsulting.com/downloads/Games-for-Grownups-Climate-Change-Edition.pdf
.
Nelson, M.J. (2012). Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of work. In:
Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference on – MindTrek ’12
, p. 23. AMC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393138
.
Rasmussen, J. and Batstone, R. (1989). Why do complex organisational systems fail? World Bank Environmental Working Paper, No. 20.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/535511468766200820/pdf/multi0page.pdf
.
Rhyne, T.-M., Doenges, P., Hibbard, B. et al. (2000). The impact of computer games on scientific and information visualization (panel session): “If you can’t beat them, join them.” In:
Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization
’00
, 519–521. IEEE.
Sinanian, M. (2010, April 12). The ultimate healthcare reform could be fun and games.
VentureBeat
.
https://venturebeat.com/2010/04/12/healthcare-reform-social-games-gamification
/.
Taylor, C. (2011). For startups, timing is everything – Just ask Bunchball.
The New York Times
.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2011/05/02/02gigaom-for-startups-timing-is-everything-just-ask-bunchb-88664.html?ref=technology%20
.
Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S. (2015).
The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications
. MIT Press.
Acknowledgments
The academic citation apparatus acknowledges the relevance of the works of others to the topic of discussion, which we have done throughout this textbook. However, this mechanism can fail to capture the influences of many of the research endeavors involved. With this in mind, the authors wish to acknowledge the different organizations and people instrumental in helping shape the present research.
First, the authors are appreciative of graduate students and young researchers in the Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering (Old Dominion University, USA), Department of Informatics and Engineering Systems (University of South Carolina Upstate, USA), European Institute for Risk, Security and Communication Management (EURISC, Romania), and Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Business Engineering, and Management (POLITEHNICA University of Bucharest, Romania).
Also, beyond the authors’ hustling, this book is a measurable expression of their intense intellectual interaction and cross-fertilization of ideas with several distinguished colleagues and partners in mind from academia and industry. Most significantly, our gratitude goes to the following:
Adolf J. Dörig (Dörig + Partner AG, Salzburg, Austria), Cornel Vintila (AuraChain, Bucharest, Romania), Dr. Alexandru Georgescu (National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics, Bucharest, Romania), Dr. Clif Flynn (University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, SC, USA), Dr. Dan V. Vamanu (Horia Hulubei National Institute for R&D in Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania), Dr. Frank Stumpe (KBC Group, Brussels, Belgium), Dr. Griffin Fernandez (Educe Group, Bethesda, MD, USA), Dr. Jeannie M. Chapman (University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, SC, USA), Dr. Liviu Muresan (EURISC, Bucharest, Romania), Dr. Paul Niculescu-Mizil Gheorghe (National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics, Bucharest, Romania), Dr. Ricardo S. Santos (University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal), Dr. Roland Pulfer (Action4Value, Kirchseelte, Germany), James J. Katina (Charlottesville City Schools, Charlottesville, VA, USA), Jürg Birchmeier (Zürich Insurance Company Ltd., Zürich, Switzerland), Laura Manciu (AuraChain, Bucharest, Romania), Marcelo Masera (Joint Research Centre, Petten, The Netherlands), Prof. Dr. Andreas Tolk (MITRE Corporation, Charlottesville, VA, USA), Prof. Dr. Cesar A. Pinto (Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA), Prof. Dr. Enrico Zio (CentraleSupélec, Paris, France), Prof. Dr. Len Troncale (Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona, CA, USA), Prof. Dr. Radu Cornel (University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania), Prof. Dr. Resit Unal (Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA), Prof. Dr. Unal Tatar (University at Albany -State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA), Prof. Dr. Winx Lawrence (University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA), Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kröger (ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland), and Prof. Olga Bucovetchi (Politehnica University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania).
Also, we wish to acknowledge several students, many of whom we proudly now call colleagues, in classes where we tested teaching/research materials: Anouar Hallioui, Farinaz Sabz AliPour, Jarutpong Vasuthanasub, Max Siangchokyoo, Nima Shahriari, Omer Keskin, Omer Poyraz, Sujatha Alla, Ulpia-Elena Botezatu, and Ying Thaviphoke.
For help with preparing the manuscript, we are thankful to our managing editor, Sarah Lemore, for working tirelessly to ensure we produced the highest quality textbook.
We want to thank our editor at Wiley, Brett Kurzman, for his encouragement throughout the project. We also want to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that helped to improve the presentation of the material in the book.
Our sincere apologies to everyone else with whom we’ve had stimulating discussions and interchanges and that ought to have been remembered here. Thank you for helping shape this research and what will emerge from these thoughts.
Adrian V. GheorgheNorfolk, Virginia, USA
Polinpapilinho F. KatinaSpartanburg, South Carolina, USA
About the Authors
Adrian V. Gheorghe is a professor and the Batten Endowed Chair on System of Systems Engineering in the Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering at Old Dominion University (Norfolk, Virginia, USA). Prof. Dr. Gheorghe holds MSc in Electrical Engineering (Bucharest Polytechnic Institute, Bucharest, Romania), PhD in Systems Science/Systems Engineering (City University, London, UK), MBA from the Academy of Economic Studies (Bucharest, Romania), and MSc Engineering Economics (Bucharest Polytechnic Institute, Bucharest, Romania).
Dr. Gheorghe is a senior scientist with the European Institute for Risk and Communication Management (Bucharest, Romania) and Vice President World Security Forum (Langenthal, Switzerland). He has worked with different organizations, including Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio), Beijing Normal University (Beijing, China), International Atomic Energy Agency (Vienna, Austria), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Laxenburg, Austria), Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (Ispra, Italy), Riso National Laboratory (Roskilde, Denmark), Stanford University (Stanford, California), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Zürich, Switzerland), and United Nations University (Tokyo, Japan).
His profile includes nearly 400 scholarly outputs of peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and technical reports. He has published several books, including: Blockchain-Enabled Resilience: An Integrated Approach for Disaster Supply Chain and Logistics Management (CRC Press, 2023), Critical Infrastructures at Risk: Securing the European Electric Power System (Springer International Publishing, 2006), Critical Infrastructures: Risk and Vulnerability Assessment in Transportation of Dangerous Goods — Transportation by Road and Rail (Springer International Publishing, 2016), Critical Space Infrastructures: Risk, Resilience, and Complexity (Springer International Publishing, 2019), Emergency Planning Knowledge (VdF Verlag, 1996), and Integrated Risk and Vulnerability Management Assisted by Decision Support Systems: Relevance and Impact on Governance (Springer International Publishing, 2005).
Dr. Gheorghe is an editor of several journals, including the International Journal of Critical Infrastructures and the International Journal of System of Systems Engineering. He is a reviewer for several journals, including the International Journal of Technology Management. He has served as a guest editor for several journals, including the International Journal of Environment and Pollution, the International Journal of Global Energy Issues, and the International Journal of Technology Management.
Polinpapilinho F. Katina is an assistant professor in the Department of Informatics and Engineering Systems at the University of South Carolina Upstate (Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA). He has served in various capacities in industry and academia, including the National Centers for System of Systems Engineering (Norfolk, Virginia, USA), Old Dominion University (Norfolk, Virginia, USA), Politecnico di Milano (Milan, Italy), Syracuse University (Syracuse, New York, USA), and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Huntsville, Alabama, USA).
Dr. Katina holds BSc in Engineering Technology, MEng in Systems Engineering, and PhD in Engineering Management and Systems Engineering (Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA). He received additional training at the Politecnico di Milano (Milan, Italy).
He focuses on teaching and research in the areas of Complex System Governance, Critical Infrastructure Systems, Decision Making and Analysis, Emerging Technologies (e.g. IoT), Energy Systems (Smart Grids), Engineering Management, Infranomics, Manufacturing Systems, System of Systems, Systems Engineering, Systems Pathology, Systems Theory, and Systems Thinking. He has experience leading large-scale research projects and has achieved many established research outcomes.
His profile includes nearly 200 scholarly outputs of peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and technical reports. He has also co-authored several books, including: Blockchain-Enabled Resilience: An Integrated Approach for Disaster Supply Chain and Logistics Management (CRC Press, 2023), Complex System Governance: Theory and Practice (Springer Nature, 2022), Critical Infrastructures, Key Resources and Key Assets (Springer International Publishing, 2018), Critical Infrastructures: Risk and Vulnerability Assessment in Transportation of Dangerous Goods: Transportation by Road and Rail (Springer International Publishing, 2016), Critical Space Infrastructures: Risk, Resilience, and Complexity (Springer International Publishing, 2019), and Infranomics: Sustainability, Engineering Design, and Governance (Springer International Publishing, 2014). Dr. Katina is a reviewer for several journals and serves on the editorial board for MDPI. He is an editor for John Wiley & Sons/Hindawi and Inderscience. He is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM). He is a recipient of several awards, including Excellence in Teaching and Advising (University of South Carolina Upstate), top 1% for the 2018 Publons Global Peer Review Awards, and 2020 IAA Social Sciences Book Award (IAA: International Academy of Astronautics).
Part I Fundamental Issues for the Twenty-first Century
1 Systems Theory as the Basis for Bridging Science and Practice of Engineering Systems
1.1 Introduction
The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) has suggested that the conceptual and theoretical basis of Systems Theory and Systems Science might offer a vital grounding to advance the discipline of systems engineering. There is a concerted effort under the Future of Systems Engineering (FuSE) initiative to explore the potential contributions that Systems Science might make to the evolution of systems engineering. The INCOSE Vision 2025 states an imperative as “Expanding the theoretical foundation for systems engineering” (Beihoff et al. 2014, p. iv). The vision continues by suggesting that the current state of systems engineering is only weakly connected to underlying theoretical foundations, suggesting that “Systems engineering’s theoretical foundations will advance to better deal with complexity and the global demands of the discipline, forming the basis for systems education as well as the methods and tools used by practicing systems engineers for system architecting, system design and system understanding” (Beihoff et al. 2014, p. 24). In response, several INCOSE-supported activities are targeted to enhance the Systems Science and theoretical foundations for systems engineering (Rousseau and Calvo‐Amodio 2019; Watson 2019).
Arguably, INCOSE’s call for a more robust theoretical grounding of systems engineering is driven by the realization of an increasingly changing world for systems engineering practitioners. The increasingly changing world for systems engineering practitioners is recited in the literature (Keating 2014; Keating and Katina 2012, 2019a; Keating et al. 2015). The following is a concise summary of the challenging world for systems engineering practitioners:
The increasing complexity of systems and their problems:
the present and future world of the systems engineering practitioner will be marked by more highly interconnected systems, emergence in their behavior/structure/performance, higher levels of uncertainty, incomplete/shifting/fallible knowledge, and exponentially increasing information.
The contextual influences impacting system design, execution, and development:
every system is influenced by unique circumstances, factors, patterns, stakeholders, and conditions that enable (and constrain) the structure, behavior, and performance of a system.
The ambiguity in system definition, understanding, and predictability:
lack of clarity in systems and their context creates conditions where historically stable approaches and expectations are questionable for continued relevance in producing successful outcomes.
The holistic nature of complex systems:
in addition to technical (or technological) aspects of a system, there is an increasing need to consider the human/social, organizational/managerial, policy, political, and information aspects of systems – this results in the “joint optimization” of the technical and social subsystems that constitute the totality of our systems and is critical for complete system development.
This landscape amplifies the criticality of looking to new and untapped sources of strength for systems engineering discipline sustainability and evolution into the future. A more explicit grounding of systems engineering in the theoretical and conceptual foundations of Systems Science/Theory can enhance sustainability and evolve the systems engineering discipline more effectively – a point amplified by the INCOSE 2025 vision (Beihoff et al. 2014). However, the literature is replete with extolling the virtues and noble intentions of bringing a more theoretical and conceptual grounding to systems engineering (e.g. Foundations for Systems Engineering [F4SE]). And although there is a recognition that Systems Science/Systems Theory is essential to systems engineering’s future, this foundation seems challenging for practitioners to grasp. In essence, there is a lack of decent articulation of the link between theory and practice for practitioners. The divide between a pragmatic practice worldview for systems engineering and advancing the theoretical foundations of systems engineering may create a range that is, at first glance, intractable. From the practitioner’s viewpoint, there may even seem to be little patience for theoretical formulations that offer ambiguous, irrelevant, and academic formulations that are not readily translatable to systems engineering practice.
On the other hand, from the science/theory viewpoint, systems engineering may seem too entrenched in tools, processes, and technologies incapable of providing rigorous explanatory and predictive power sought by robust theoretical formulations from underlying science. We believe this is a false separation limiting systems engineering discipline enhancement and Systems Science/Theory advancement. To bring clarity and examine this “false” divide between science (theory) and practice, we have focused on Systems Theory as a potential bridge between the theoretical and practice worlds of systems engineering. Our development suggests that both worlds benefit from closer examination, appreciation, and coupling for future growth. Figure 1.1 shows how Systems Theory can bridge Systems Science and systems engineering
Figure 1.1 Systems Theory as a bridge between systems engineering and Systems Science. Source: adapted from Keating et al. (2020).
The remainder of this chapter focuses on the detailed examination of Systems Theory as a potential bridge between Systems Science and systems engineering. This chapter also sets the stage for resilience and gamification in dealing with the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity in the twenty-first century. First, we provide an overview of the developments of Systems Theory. Second, we focus on the methodologies supporting Systems Theory tenents. Third, axioms and propositions that seek to explain systems’ nature, behavior, structure, and performance are articulated. Practical implications for engineering systems are developed for thinking, decision-making, actions, and interpretations. The chapter concludes with the need for resilience through gamification to support informed decision-making.
1.2 An Overview of Systems Theory
Systems Theory provides a robust conceptual foundation that can influence complex systems’ design, execution, and development. Following works on Systems Theory (Adams et al. 2014; Keating et al. 2016; Whitney et al. 2015), at a basic level, Systems Theory can be described as a set of axioms (taken for granted truths about systems) and propositions (principles, concepts, and laws serving to explain system phenomena). Systems Theory suggests several central tenets concerning the capacity to deal with environments marked by increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), as suggested by Bennis (2001). The central tenets suggest that (i) all systems are subject to the propositions of Systems Theory that define behavior and performance, (ii) all systems perform a set of Systems Theory-based system functions that, subject to propositions, determine system performance, (iii) the violations of system propositions (in the design, execution, or development of systems) have dire consequences. They can degrade system performance and lead to system failure and collapse (Katina 2016a). In fact, it has been suggested that the evaluation of systems to identify Systems Theory-based proposition violations can provide novel insights into the practice of systems engineering (Katina 2020).
Further examination of Systems Theory inevitably leads one to General Systems Theory (GST). GST does not have a single commonly accepted definition. However, GST emerged in the 1940s as an attempt to provide an alternative to reductionism. Reductionism (focus on the successive “breaking apart” to produce understanding) is closely aligned with the “scientific method, which holds that a complex organism is understood as the sum of its parts, and can, therefore, be reduced to constituent elements (Hammond 2002; von Bertalanffy 1968). In contrast to reductionism (Laszlo 1969), GST is related to ideas of “wholes,” “having irreducible properties,” “environment,” “centralization,” “self-organization,” and “holarchy of nature.” Fundamentally, these ideas are meant to grasp the concepts of organization, relationships, and interrelations among all systems (von Bertalanffy 1972). Additionally, these ideas attempted to link different and diverse systems; they also suggest a commonality among other disciplines, which could be found in GST, and this commonality should be leveraged when attempting to understand problems in our current world.
The foundation of the Society for General Systems Research (SGSR; since renamed International Society for the Systems Sciences, or ISSS) in 1954 provides further clarification on the need for Systems Theory. The original bylaws state that the aims of GST are:
To investigate the isomorphy of concepts, laws, and models from various fields and to help in useful transfers from one domain to another.
To encourage the development of adequate theoretical models in the fields that lack them.
To minimize the duplication of theoretical efforts in different fields
To promote the unity of science through improving communications among specialists. (Adams et al. 2014; Hammond 2002; von Bertalanffy 1972).
The prospects and research associated with the founding of the ISSS and the precursor SGSR continue to be critical to the twenty-first century (Rousseau 2015). However, the three main aspects of GST (von Bertalanffy 1972) remain: (i) Systems Science, (ii) systems technology, and (iii) systems philosophy.
Systems science:
dealing with “scientific exploration and theory of ‘systems’ in various sciences (e.g. physics, biology, psychology, social sciences), and general Systems Theory as the doctrine of principles applying to all (or defined subclasses of) systems” (von Bertalanffy 1972, p. 414). In essence, the laws and principles associated with Systems Theory reside within Systems Science.
Systems technology:
dealing with “problems arising in modern technology and society, including both ‘hardware’ (control technology, automation, computerization, etc.) and ‘software’ (application of systems concepts and theory in social, ecological, economical, etc., problems)” (von Bertalanffy 1972, p. 420). In essence, this is where methods (e.g. operational research) reside.
Systems philosophy:
dealing with philosophical issues related to paradigm change within which systems supposedly operate. Three elements epitomize this aspect of Systems Theory: (i) systems ontology, (ii) systems epistemology, and (iii) nature of man. Systems ontology deals with how an observer views reality. Reality is addressed on the opposite extremes of realism and nominalism. Systems epistemology deals with how one obtains and communicates knowledge. Knowledge is addressed on the opposite extremes of positivism and anti-positivism. The nature of man deals with how human beings should be seen. The nature of human beings is addressed along with opposite extremes of determinism and voluntarism.
Extended discussions regarding systems philosophy, ontology, and the nature of man are discussed elsewhere (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Flood and Carson 1993; Katina et al. 2014). However, the preceding discussion is meant to highlight two points: First, our systems and their operating environment are increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. Second, complex systems and systems of systems must be addressed at a different logical level, and ideas grounded in Systems Theory can be used to offer alternative insights into our systems and their operating environment. Much of this depends on looking at systems and their environment along systems philosophy dimensions of ontology, epistemology, and human nature.
Beyond ontology, epistemology, and human nature is a matter of methodology. It is generally agreed that there is a need for robust methodologies capable of holistically and systemically analyzing behaviors of systems under the current conditions within which they must function. Again, these conditions are marked by increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (Conrad and Gheorghe 2011; Jackson 1991, 2003, 2019; Keating 2014; Keating et al. 2014). In such cases, a methodology includes theoretical underpinnings and is used to “refer to methods for exploring and gaining knowledge about systems” (Jackson 1991, p. 3). Consistent with Checkland’s (1993) perspective on a methodology, Jackson (1991) suggests that a methodology is “procedures for gaining knowledge about systems and structured processes involved in intervening in and changing systems” (p. 134). Hence, methodologies might be used to investigate and obtain knowledge about our twenty-first-century world systems. Furthermore, it is essential to establish that methodological approaches might be categorized into two opposing extremes of idiographic and nomothetic (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Flood and Carson 1993; Katina et al. 2014). An idiographic view of a methodology supports subjectivity in the research of complex systems. In fact, Flood and Carson (1993, p. 248) posit:
the principal concern is to understand the way an individual creates, modifies, and interprets the world. The experiences are seen as unique and particular to the individual rather than general and universal. External reality is questioned. An emphasis is placed on the relativistic nature of the world to such an extent that it may be perceived as not amenable to study using the ground rules of the natural sciences. Understanding can be obtained only by acquiring firsthand knowledge of the subject under investigation
The opposing view of nomothetic methodology supports the traditional scientific method and its reductionist approach to addressing problematic issues (Churchman 1968, 1971). A nomothetic view of methodology (Flood and Carson 1993, pp. 247–248)
claims to:
