Exploring and managing the complexity of large infrastructure projects with network theory and model‐based systems engineering—The example of radioactive waste disposal

Abstract

Given that model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) captures the structure and behavior of an engineered system in an overarching system model, MBSE appears to be a promising approach to managing large infrastructure projects (LIPs). However, it is not apparent how to most appropriately organize the associated system model—and hence the infrastructure project itself. Furthermore, MBSE may today not be readily accepted by the civil engineering industry. In this research, a hypothetical project for the geological disposal of radioactive waste is taken as an example of an LIP and initial system models of the entire disposal project are created. Furthermore, a network representation of the project is generated and examined with network theory. Based on the results, different project organizations are synthesized and evaluated. Eventually, the initial system models are updated to accommodate the most suitable organization according to the network analysis results. In addition, the perception of, and attitude toward MBSE is assessed by means of a cross‐sectional survey in a civil engineering company. The generation of system models of LIPs is found to be straightforward. Network theory is able to unveil the complex structure of LIPs in order to identify the most suitable way to organize them and the associated system models. The survey results suggest that MBSE may find broad acceptance in the civil engineering industry.

Cross-Industry Principles for Digital Representations of Complex Technical Systems in the Context of the MBSE Approach: A Review

“…An analysis of the application of the approach shows that it is important to provide a hierarchy, which involves dividing a system of systems into different levels of decomposition and nesting components within each other [84][85][86][87][88]. Hierarchical modeling involves integrating validated subcomponent-level, component-level, or subsystem-level models into a large-scale system-level model [85].…”

“…Hierarchical modeling involves integrating validated subcomponent-level, component-level, or subsystem-level models into a large-scale system-level model [85]. To determine the boundary conditions of a complex technical system, it is necessary to rise to the level of a hierarchically higher complex technical system and identify the incoming and outgoing data in the complex technical system under consideration, and vice versa to the hierarchical level of the lower complex technical system, and repeat this process iteratively [84][85][86][87][88]. As the model and structure of the system are built, these operations must be repeated and, if necessary, move along the chain to even higher and lower levels of complex technical systems.…”

“…This is then linked to the DEVS (Discrete Event System Specification), thereby facilitating convergence between the two. Additionally, the principle of unified standards is discussed in [86], where it is highlighted that the use of MBSE methodologies can improve communication between internal and external stakeholders through the use of tailored model views and standardized language, as per Walden et al and Beihoff et al Externalization is also associated with this principle, which is the transfer of knowledge and practices from one area or industry to another within the framework of a common system. In particular, in the article [82], it is stated that "to create the methodological approach of knowledge externalization that complements and supports the textile PDP and its stakeholders, BPM and MBSE have been identified as facilitators of knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization between stakeholders".…”

Theoretical Framework and Research Proposal for Energy Utilization, Conservation, Production, and Intelligent Systems in Tropical Island Zero-Carbon Building

“…In the early 20th century, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, an Austrian biologist of American nationality, was the founder of General Systems Theory (GST, 1968) [33]. He defined a system as "a complex composed of several interacting elements", thus defining the three basic characteristics of purposefulness, dynamics, and orderliness of systems theory and emphasizing the importance of system thinking [34]. Bertalanffy's work inspired other scholars, including Bertalanffy's work inspired other scholars, including Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann, who applied systems theory to the study of social systems [35].…”

Systems Engineering for the Energy Transition: Potential Contributions and Limitations

“…They require bridging between different worldviews and research paradigms, between positivist approaches present in engineering sciences and constrained relativist approaches of value for transition thinking, policy-making, and governance [78]. However, initial efforts are visible in the field to start engaging with these challenges [79], e.g., by addressing sociotechnical systems (e.g., [77,[80][81][82][83][84]), stakeholders' goals and agency (e.g., [18,85]), complex systems and systems-of-systems (e.g., [86][87][88][89]), conceptual modelling (e.g., [90,91]), and systems thinking (e.g., [75,76,82,92]).…”