Перевод Монографии инженерных систем

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. Introduction and Overview

II. Sustainability as an Organizing Design Principle

III. Motivating Challenges

IV. Four Illustrative Case Vignettes a. Sustainability in a Developing World Megacity: The Mexico City Case b. Ford Heritage Sustainable Manufacturing Model c. Hierarchy of Levels of Analysis in Automotive Aluminum d. Lean Sustainment Initiative (LSI) for the US Air Force: Tracing the Repair of an Aircraft Fuel-Pump

V. Sustainability, Efficiency, Uncertainty, and Adaptation VI. Conclusion VII. References INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

             Sustainability, defined broadly, should be a core, overarching design principle for complex, large�scale engineering systems. Overarching organizing design principles are essential for large-scale engineering systems. Organizing principles sit above quantified goals and objectives, as well as the analytic tools and methods utilized to find “optimal” trade-offs among these goals and objectives. For example, efficiency and the mitigation of risk are organizing principles commonly found—either implicitly or explicitly—guiding decisions and action in large-scale engineering systems. In this chapter, we advance “sustainability” as a major organizing design principle for large-scale engineering systems, particularly those involving public investments, a mix of public and private stakeholders, and long-term societal impacts. Sustainability in this paper is defined with respect to trade-offs among economic development and social and environmental goals. It is a broad concept: “It’s not just the environment and resources anymore.” Systems must be sustainable on environmental dimensions, as well as on dimensions such as economic development, politics, and social equity. In advancing sustainability as an organizing principle, we are making a normative argument, which we will later buttress with case examples and sample field research. Sustainability is not, itself, an implicit, analytic, measurable property. Instead, it must be approached as an overall design goal. Indicators of unsustainable design may not be immediately observable. Hence, the development of engineering design guides for sustainability requires a systems treatment, including such core considerations as the selection of system boundaries in the design process, the identification of systems stakeholders, and the openness or transparency of this process. When dealing with an organizing design principle for large-scale systems, it is also essential to consider the scale for analysis of sustainability and the interrelationships among various major subsystems (e.g., transportation, energy, environment, urban form, etc.). The normative tone of this chapter reflects what we see as a need to convince the broader engineering and technical community that sustainability is the community’s responsibility and that it is an important organizing principle for systems design. Persuading some community members will be difficult, given a current strong focus on short-term economic goals, to the exclusion of other goals absent regulation. Engineers often do not consider the broader system or context. Few decision-makers or institutions have sufficiently broad perspective or authority to address sustainability as defined here. Connections between the physical systems and the institutions that “manage” them must be represented and considered. Inherent (and value-laden) trade-offs exist between various facets of sustainability (environmental, economic, social, etc.). The political and economic frameworks tend to emphasize near-term solutions to focused problems, which means that neither the frameworks nor traditional engineering will ensure adequate attention to sustainability. These realities suggest not only that the perspective of engineering systems is critical to promoting sustainability, but that the question of where system boundaries are drawn is of primary importance. Sustainability is strongly related to the ability to replenish or retain key characteristics, resources or inputs, or evaluative criteria over time. Whether those characteristics, resources, or criteria are considered to be within or external to the system matters a great deal in terms of the perspective and role that decision-makers and institutions have in matters. A focus on sustainability surfaces many motivating challenges for engineering systems as a field, including the following questions:

With the rise in population, resource consumption, industrialization, and globalization, the importance of sustainability has increased. How do we enhance sustainability if we cannot directly measure it, and how do we change engineers’ perspectives in order to accomplish this?

How can we redesign existing unsustainable engineering systems (transportation, etc.) so as to continue meeting current needs without sacrificing future ones?

How do we integrate notions of sustainability into everyday engineering activities (fostering a sustainability mindset)?

How do we integrate sustainability into our educational program?

Is this a top-down (e.g., setting of national goals to be implemented) or a bottom-up problem (e.g., refinement of production/process design to maximize sustainability)? We will argue here it is both.

Are there core engineering systems methods for gaining a better understanding— both qualitative and qualitative—of the impact on sustainability of decisions in the systems under investigation?

Four case vignettes presented in this chapter illustrate different dimensions of sustainability and different types of analysis. These cases indicate how sustainability might be used as an organizing design principle, both from the top down (such as with government strategy) and from the bottom up (such as with the selection of design goals in manufacturing, and with procurement and organizational architecture). Sustainability in a Developing World Megacity: The Mexico City Case. The case considers sustainability and all aspects of improving urban air quality in one of the largest and most polluted megacities of the world, without draconian cutbacks on mobility, with negative impacts on needed economic growth. This case is distinctive in presenting an analytic framework that guides analysis and action on complex, large integrated open systems. (CLIOS)

Ford Heritage Sustainable Manufacturing Model. This is a case of a voluntary, private-sector approach for achieving sustainability in aspects of manufacturing that expand the scope of the concept, including facility design, manufacturing operations, stakeholder relations, and an underlying mode of thought. This case is distinctive in illustrating an inductive approach for the preliminary identification of potential new dimensions of sustainability.

Hierarchy of Levels of Analysis in Automotive Aluminum. Experience with materials research shows that a broadening in the scope of engineering problems requires a broadening in the scale of the system taken into consideration when developing design/development guides. As this scope expands, a hierarchy of analysis can be developed to establish effective tools for improved engineering design. This case is distinctive in illustrating a deductive approach to assessing shadow prices and other dynamics driving sustainability in a complex engineered system.

Lean Sustainment Initiative (LSI) for the US Air Force: Tracing the Repair of an Aircraft Fuel-Pump. Organizations making procurements of large-scale, very long-lived products such as aircraft or infrastructure must move beyond simple concepts of life-cycle analysis. Over long time periods, it is important to switch to an idea of sustainment in which the firewall between procurement/acquisition and long-term use is breached and the feedback loops between long�term use and initial product design are better understood. These concepts are addressed through a focus on a particular aircraft component over its life cycle. This case is distinctive in surfacing connections between sustainability as a domain and research on information flow in organizations. Each case is a summary of separate research or data collection that was part of separate projects. In that sense, the cases stand on their own. They illustrate an appropriately diverse spectrum of methods and analytic approaches to sustainability. Ultimately, we see in all of the cases that sustainability is as a core “mode of thought,” as well as a set of specific practices and applications—all essential to understanding sustainability as an organizing design principle for complex engineered systems.

SUSTAINABILITY AS AN ORGANIZING DESIGN PRINCIPLE

In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, also known as the Brundtland Commission) developed what has since become the most widely accepted general definition of sustainable development. “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable – to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (WCED 1987, 8. This is also known as the Brundtland definition.) The acceptance of the Brundtland definition is due, in part, to its simplicity. People of all nations are able to understand the definition since it is easy to relate to their current needs and the future needs of their children, grandchildren, and generations beyond. Unfortunately, when translating the concept of sustainability to complex systems, the simplicity of the Brundtland definition does not provide clear design, management, policy, and legislation directions for decision-makers and stakeholders. Hence, the practical application of the Brundtland definition has spawned much discussion centered on the concept of sustainability, particularly in relation to what are termed the “ilities” used to describe system attributes, such as reliability, stability, flexibility with respect to future unknown outcomes, compatibility, and survivability (Marks 2002). If we consider the extensive literature on the principles of sustainability, we see that virtually all the major international organizations1 have invested significant resources studying the question of how engineering systems could be made more sustainable. These concepts are commonly categorized under what is known as the “Three E’s” (environment, economy and equity) of sustainability.2 Using the transportation field as an example, Table 1 provides a summary of these principles identified during a review of the concept of sustainable transportation (Hall 2002). This study suggested a fourth category to house those concepts directed towards transportation institutions. We believe that this institutional category will be needed for a broad class of socio�technical systems.

Table 1: Principles of Sustainable Transportation