The nature of effect – not just binary?

I have been struggling recently with what I feel is a key question. It took over from my interest in the WUO (see previous posts) and even from the defence of systems requirement drift.

That question is the nature of an effect. OSS v1-3 treated effects as in a binary state. 1 meant that the effect was sufficient (and no more than) was required. 0 meant that the effect was otherwise. A 0 critical effect rendered the entire ‘concert’ of effects null and void.

More recent versions of OSS v4/5 acknowledged that perturbations in the level of a given effect could be offset or ‘rebalanced’ by increasing or diminishing the sibling effects at the same tier in the concert.

My interest as we prepare for another version change is whether the entire nature of effect needs to be reconsidered in conjunction with the ‘time’ constant. This is because variations in the timing of effect delivery, even in the buildup or rundown period, can cause system failure.

The question has been asked of me before whether effects ever actually exist, given their transitory nature. So this isn’t news to some of you.

However, what is in question is whether treating effects as transitory has any benefit in terms of building and manipulating the models.

I believe that it _might_ in the sense that an effect could be generated in a pulse, or asymmetric format, and thereby evade counter-measures, or transcend physical constraints. Or to put it in more practical terms, think of synthetic aperture radar.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply