CEES特刊- 2020年系统知识体系

IF 1.7 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/10286608.2021.1980541
D. Blockley
{"title":"CEES特刊- 2020年系统知识体系","authors":"D. Blockley","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The question ‘What is Civil Engineering Systems – CES?’was posed by the editors not as an attempt to arrive at a set of common definitions but more to foster conversation around the issues. The disparate contributions to this special edition have achieved that goal by exposing very large differences of approach ranging at the extremes from the formal (Carmichael) to the informal (Elms). The editors also ask what constitutes a ‘BOK’ – Body of Knowledge for CEES. This question begs many further questions such as what is ‘knowledge’ anyway when we cannot predict the behaviour of a deterministic non-linear hinged pendulum after just a few cycles? What is the role of science in engineering and how do they both relate to technology in an age when STEM is dominated in the minds of so many people by the S? What is uncertainty when so many theorists deny looking beyond statistics and probability to embrace ambiguity, incompleteness and unknown unknowns? How do we categorise and manage uncertainty to make our systems resilient, sustainable and robust against ‘surprises’ like banking collapses and pandemics never mind the challenges of climate change? How do we learn from mistakes when accidents and disasters like Grenfell follow similar patterns to previous disasters of history? How does CEES relate to the wider world of politics and economics and the arts? Should STEM be expanded to STEAMM to include the arts and medicine? The implied assumptions in the various papers about the questions seem to depend on the experiences of each author and their necessarily partial reading of the massive amount of material available to a modern researcher. That is natural and to be expected – but is incumbent on us all who follow a systems approach to embrace all relevant points of view (particularly the journals relating to civil engineering) and adapt and learn from them. That is the real value of this Special Issue. The editors compared contribution under nine headings (Jowitt and Dias Table 1). I looked at the responses of the authors to some other key system ideas which, for brevity I will restrict to just five – complexity, uncertainty, emergence, interdependence and learning. All authors refer to complexity but only Whyte et al discuss it in any depth although Jowitt differentiates between complicated as rich in detail and complex as rich in structure. No-one refers to the sense-making models called Cynefin which differentiate the complex and messy (high emergent uncertainty, interconnectedness and conflict) from the complicated (highly interconnected but well understood),","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":"17 1","pages":"247 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CEES special issue – the body of knowledge for systems 2020\",\"authors\":\"D. Blockley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980541\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The question ‘What is Civil Engineering Systems – CES?’was posed by the editors not as an attempt to arrive at a set of common definitions but more to foster conversation around the issues. The disparate contributions to this special edition have achieved that goal by exposing very large differences of approach ranging at the extremes from the formal (Carmichael) to the informal (Elms). The editors also ask what constitutes a ‘BOK’ – Body of Knowledge for CEES. This question begs many further questions such as what is ‘knowledge’ anyway when we cannot predict the behaviour of a deterministic non-linear hinged pendulum after just a few cycles? What is the role of science in engineering and how do they both relate to technology in an age when STEM is dominated in the minds of so many people by the S? What is uncertainty when so many theorists deny looking beyond statistics and probability to embrace ambiguity, incompleteness and unknown unknowns? How do we categorise and manage uncertainty to make our systems resilient, sustainable and robust against ‘surprises’ like banking collapses and pandemics never mind the challenges of climate change? How do we learn from mistakes when accidents and disasters like Grenfell follow similar patterns to previous disasters of history? How does CEES relate to the wider world of politics and economics and the arts? Should STEM be expanded to STEAMM to include the arts and medicine? The implied assumptions in the various papers about the questions seem to depend on the experiences of each author and their necessarily partial reading of the massive amount of material available to a modern researcher. That is natural and to be expected – but is incumbent on us all who follow a systems approach to embrace all relevant points of view (particularly the journals relating to civil engineering) and adapt and learn from them. That is the real value of this Special Issue. The editors compared contribution under nine headings (Jowitt and Dias Table 1). I looked at the responses of the authors to some other key system ideas which, for brevity I will restrict to just five – complexity, uncertainty, emergence, interdependence and learning. All authors refer to complexity but only Whyte et al discuss it in any depth although Jowitt differentiates between complicated as rich in detail and complex as rich in structure. No-one refers to the sense-making models called Cynefin which differentiate the complex and messy (high emergent uncertainty, interconnectedness and conflict) from the complicated (highly interconnected but well understood),\",\"PeriodicalId\":50689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"247 - 249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980541\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980541","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“什么是土木工程系统?”的问题,编辑们提出这个问题并不是为了得出一套通用的定义,更多的是为了促进围绕这些问题的讨论。对这个特别版的不同贡献通过揭示从正式(卡迈克尔)到非正式(埃尔姆斯)的极端方法的巨大差异,实现了这一目标。编辑们还询问了什么构成了“BOK”——面向CEES的知识体系。这个问题引出了许多进一步的问题,比如,当我们不能在几个周期后预测确定性非线性铰链摆的行为时,“知识”到底是什么?科学在工程中的作用是什么?在一个许多人都认为STEM是科学的时代,科学和技术又是如何联系在一起的?当如此多的理论家否认超越统计和概率去拥抱模糊性、不完整性和未知的未知时,不确定性是什么?我们如何对不确定性进行分类和管理,使我们的系统能够抵御银行崩溃和流行病等“意外”,更不用说气候变化的挑战,从而具有弹性、可持续性和健壮性?当像格伦费尔这样的事故和灾难与历史上的灾难相似时,我们如何从错误中吸取教训?CEES如何与更广阔的政治、经济和艺术世界联系起来?STEM是否应该扩展到steam以包括艺术和医学?关于这些问题的各种论文中隐含的假设似乎取决于每个作者的经验,以及他们对现代研究人员可用的大量材料的必要的部分阅读。这是自然的,也是意料之中的——但我们所有遵循系统方法的人都有责任接受所有相关的观点(特别是与土木工程相关的期刊),并适应并从中学习。这才是本期特刊的真正价值所在。编辑们在九个标题下比较了贡献(Jowitt和Dias表1)。我看了作者对其他一些关键系统思想的回应,为简洁起见,我将其限制为五个-复杂性,不确定性,涌现性,相互依赖性和学习。所有的作者都提到了复杂性,但只有Whyte等人深入讨论了复杂性,尽管Jowitt区分了细节丰富的复杂和结构丰富的复杂。没有人提到被称为Cynefin的意义构建模型,该模型将复杂和混乱(高度紧急的不确定性,相互联系和冲突)与复杂(高度相互联系但很好理解)区分开来,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CEES special issue – the body of knowledge for systems 2020
The question ‘What is Civil Engineering Systems – CES?’was posed by the editors not as an attempt to arrive at a set of common definitions but more to foster conversation around the issues. The disparate contributions to this special edition have achieved that goal by exposing very large differences of approach ranging at the extremes from the formal (Carmichael) to the informal (Elms). The editors also ask what constitutes a ‘BOK’ – Body of Knowledge for CEES. This question begs many further questions such as what is ‘knowledge’ anyway when we cannot predict the behaviour of a deterministic non-linear hinged pendulum after just a few cycles? What is the role of science in engineering and how do they both relate to technology in an age when STEM is dominated in the minds of so many people by the S? What is uncertainty when so many theorists deny looking beyond statistics and probability to embrace ambiguity, incompleteness and unknown unknowns? How do we categorise and manage uncertainty to make our systems resilient, sustainable and robust against ‘surprises’ like banking collapses and pandemics never mind the challenges of climate change? How do we learn from mistakes when accidents and disasters like Grenfell follow similar patterns to previous disasters of history? How does CEES relate to the wider world of politics and economics and the arts? Should STEM be expanded to STEAMM to include the arts and medicine? The implied assumptions in the various papers about the questions seem to depend on the experiences of each author and their necessarily partial reading of the massive amount of material available to a modern researcher. That is natural and to be expected – but is incumbent on us all who follow a systems approach to embrace all relevant points of view (particularly the journals relating to civil engineering) and adapt and learn from them. That is the real value of this Special Issue. The editors compared contribution under nine headings (Jowitt and Dias Table 1). I looked at the responses of the authors to some other key system ideas which, for brevity I will restrict to just five – complexity, uncertainty, emergence, interdependence and learning. All authors refer to complexity but only Whyte et al discuss it in any depth although Jowitt differentiates between complicated as rich in detail and complex as rich in structure. No-one refers to the sense-making models called Cynefin which differentiate the complex and messy (high emergent uncertainty, interconnectedness and conflict) from the complicated (highly interconnected but well understood),
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
10
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems is devoted to the advancement of systems thinking and systems techniques throughout systems engineering, environmental engineering decision-making, and engineering management. We do this by publishing the practical applications and developments of "hard" and "soft" systems techniques and thinking. Submissions that allow for better analysis of civil engineering and environmental systems might look at: -Civil Engineering optimization -Risk assessment in engineering -Civil engineering decision analysis -System identification in engineering -Civil engineering numerical simulation -Uncertainty modelling in engineering -Qualitative modelling of complex engineering systems
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of stochastic finite element analyses for the safety assessment of unreinforced masonry shear walls Investigating the influencing parameters with automated scour severity detection using Bayesian neural networks Celebrating 40 years of the CEES journal Carbon footprint assessment of maintenance and rehabilitation techniques for sewer systems Systems methods and real world practice – Paul Jowitt’s pilgrimage in his writings for this journal
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1