for a relation (edge) or the system, the randomness rises, and the stability of the project environment falls as does the ability of the model to predict future behavior. Correspondingly, as the IE falls, the stability of the project increases, and the ability of the model to predict future behavior rises. To apply this discrete formula for assessing stakeholder alignment, the continuous distribution of stakeholder alignment was broken down into several distinct states.
IE was chosen as a measure that is at a maximum when the probability of all possible outcomes is equivalent; in essence there is no information that would allow a more educated prediction. Experimental testing indicates the values of both edges, and the system at large generally will cluster around several peak values. If variance (𝜎) was chosen as a measure, it would obscure this information as it is not sensitive to multiple modes. In fact, it is possible that (𝑥) might increase, while 𝜎 could decrease. Consequently, using variance alone would indicate less disorder and more confidence in the model than would be warranted.
This methodology is designed to identify areas of risk to successful project execution. Risk is defined here as the belief that the project will be challenged or fail given the alignment coefficient and the IE. Figure 3.2 illustrates the possible outcomes of the IE.
For this discussion, stability S is defined as follows:
(3.4)
S is used with the alignment coefficient to calculate confidence. If the project has a high alignment coefficient score across the relationships and S is large, it can be plotted in Zone 1, and there is good confidence that the project will succeed. A project that has high alignment coefficient, but low S (Zone 2), is a project of concern with low confidence of success and an analysis warranted to identify why the stability of the environment of the project is low, potentially indicating hidden factors. Zone 4 indicates a project that has both a low alignment coefficient score and low S, which would indicate there should be serious lack of confidence that the project will succeed. Zone 3 has high S but low alignment coefficient; this is an area of concern that may be recoverable, and deeper analysis is warranted to understand why the alignment coefficient scores are low. Figure 3.9 plots belief alignment against environment stability; for the purposes of this figure, confidence is defined as
(3.5)
Figure 3.9 Confidence vs. stability.
For both projects, a retrospective study was employed in which the concept of digital twins was used to construct the model using the concepts described above. Six events were identified in which information from sensors was collected and reviewed. Figure 3.10 shows the project events used for the model. Different, yet equivalent, events were used because Project One followed a traditional SE and project management approach and Project Two employed SAFe, agile, and scrum methodologies to manage the project.
Figure 3.10 Case study project events.
3.12 Results
The case study comparison of Project One and Project Two demonstrates the effects of employing sociotechnical constructs, AI, and HSE into the development environment. Comparatively, the results from the model are plotted showing belief alignment and stability (see Figure 3.11). As noted, belief alignment is generated by calculating the geomean of belief coefficients derived from a series of questions, noted previously. Stability is calculated using 1 minus IE (S = 1 − IE). Four zones were defined to aid in analysis:
Zone 1 (belief > 0.6; stability > 0.6): Projects scoring in Zone 1 generally have a high probability of success.
Zone 2 (belief > 0.6; stability < 0.6): Projects scoring in Zone 2 demonstrate a high level of confidence in the alignment and cohesiveness of the stakeholders but present challenges in that the environment itself and/or the belief alignment is unstable due to exogenous influences.
Zone 3 (belief < 0.6; stability > 0.6): Projects scoring in Zone 3 demonstrate a low level of confidence in the alignment and cohesiveness of the stakeholders, while the environment itself and/or the belief alignment is relatively stable with minimal expected change or exogenous influences. Note that this stable structure does not mean it is good – only that it is deterministic.
Zone 4 (belief < 0.6; stability < 0.6): Projects scoring in Zone 4 exhibit one or more behaviors and associated risks that are commonly identified root causes of failed projects.
Figure 3.11 Belief alignment and stability results for case study.
Analysis was performed using the conceptual architecture for Epoch 4 as a means of comparing and determining value of evolving SE toward Epoch 4 (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Case study comparative analysis.
| Project One | Project Two | |
|---|---|---|
| Systems engineering frameworks | Employed a generic and linear systems engineering model where each activity was independent and completed its full activity before moving to the next phase, e.g. all requirements gathered prior to development | The project team used SAFe, agile SW development, and scrum techniques to continuously evolve the solution and deliver incremental value where feedback was incorporated into future design considerations and development environment structure |
| Sociotechnical network models | Measures of belief were ascertained after events occurred and misalignment had already degraded relationships. In post‐project analysis, it was clear that stakeholders were unaware of belief misalignment or were anchored in their beliefs and unwilling to change | The project team developed a structure network of stakeholders identifying roles and responsibilities and used the network to ensure communications challenge were actively being used to ensure alignment between stakeholders |
| Temporal sociotechnical measures | Traditional project measures were used to measure progress – cost, schedule, and quality. No quantitative measures of stakeholder alignment nor stability were calculated. Small groups aired concerns among themselves created an environment where factions were actively working against project progress in order to protect their personal interests |
|
