Identity and Togetherness of Systems

• SEBoK
• >
• Foundations of Systems Engineering
• >
• The Nature of Systems
• >
• Identity and Togetherness of Systems
• ➕

< Previous Article

|

Parent Article

|

Next Article >

Create a new page in this Topic

Enter a page title into the field below.

It will bring up a form that is pre-filled with:

• the name of the current page as the parent of the newly created page
• the number corresponding to the new last child element of the current page

In the form, optionally, set the name of the book element corresponding to the newly created page, and the authors.

• Lead Author:
• Gary Smith

-

This article is part of The Nature of Systems knowledge area (KA).

Acknowledgement

This article reflects established knowledge from systems science and systems engineering, organized and collated for the SEBoK. Drafting support was provided by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, with all content reviewed and finalized by the author, who retains full responsibility.

Systems are distinguished not only by what they do, but by what they are. This article explores two foundational and interdependent properties of all systems: identity, which sustains their distinctiveness and coherence, and togetherness, which enables the organization and integration of parts into functioning wholes. Together, these properties underpin system persistence, adaptation, and recognition across scales.

This article complements other entries in this knowledge area that examine behavior, purpose, value, and cycles, offering systems engineers a deeper understanding of how systems maintain continuity while participating in complex, evolving environments.

Introduction: Identity, the Persistence of Distinctiveness

Identity and togetherness are fundamental properties of systems that underpin their recognition, persistence, and coherence. Identity refers to what makes a system distinct from its environment, while togetherness refers to the forces and organizing principles that bind components into a functioning whole. These concepts are central to understanding Form in the Fit–Form–Function framework and are essential for defining, modelling, and engineering systems of interest.

In natural systems, identity is expressed through mechanisms such as atomic structure, genetic codes, or ecological niches, while togetherness emerges from binding forces, membranes, flows, and interdependencies. In social systems, shared values and institutions sustain collective identity and cohesion. Engineered systems achieve identity and togetherness through standards, interfaces, and architectures that stabilize interactions across components and stakeholders.

Patterns of identity and togetherness can be observed across levels of emergence, from quarks and molecules to ecosystems, societies, and systems of systems. At each level, new forms of binding lead to new forms of identity: particles form atoms, cells form organisms, and institutions form cultures and enterprises. This progression illustrates how complexity grows through successive layers of coherence.

For systems engineering, attention to identity and togetherness has practical implications. Defining the System of Interest (SoI) requires clarity of boundaries and coherence. Modularity and cohesion guide system integration and interoperability. Identity supports verification, validation, and lifecycle continuity. At enterprise and SoS scales, maintaining togetherness across independent systems requires governance, shared purpose, and mission alignment. Finally, recognizing the togetherness of human systems with natural systems emphasizes the need for sustainable and symbiotic design.

By studying identity and togetherness, systems engineers and practitioners gain a foundation for addressing complexity, ensuring resilience, and designing systems that persist and adapt within broader contexts.

Definitions and Perspectives

• Identity: refers to the enduring properties by which a system is recognized as the same system over time, even as its components and context may change. It arises from:
  • Structure: The pattern of internal relationships that provide cohesion and functional capability.
  • Boundaries: A distinction from the surrounding environment, whether physical, informational, or conceptual.
  • History: Continuity through memory, record, or inherited structure (e.g., genetic code, configuration baselines).
  • Intent: In engineered systems, purpose contributes to identity, what the system is for shapes what it is. Systems engineers commonly encounter identity in the form of system-of-interest (SoI) boundaries, configuration states, mission definitions, and stakeholder values. However, identity is also an emergent, relational phenomenon—it is not always fixed, and in socio-technical or natural systems, may evolve or be contested..
• Togetherness: refers to the organizing forces, constraints, or relations that bind a system’s parts into a coherent whole. This includes:
  • Binding Forces: Physical (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism), informational (e.g., feedback), or organizational (e.g., hierarchy, contracts).
  • Interdependence: Components rely on one another to fulfill system functions.
  • Integration Mechanisms: Interfaces, modularity, and protocols enable cooperation and coordination.
  • Contextual Unity: Shared environment or purpose that drives collective behavior. In engineering practice, togetherness shows up in systems integration, interface control, team dynamics, and value co-creation. The stronger and more aligned the forces of togetherness, the more functional and resilient the system..

Perspectives from systems science include:

• General Systems Theory (Boulding, 1956): Identity persists through levels from structures to transcendent systems.
• Relational Science (Kineman, 2011): Identity emerges through a system’s relation to self, others, and whole.
• Holonic Models (Koestler, 1967): Systems as nested wholes/parts, each with autonomous identity and embeddedness.

• Pattern Science (Troncale, 1978; Rasmussen, 2024): Identity arises from pattern recurrence, togetherness from coupling processes.

Patterns and Archetypes of Identity & Togetherness

Identity and togetherness emerge through recurring archetypes across levels of scale. Each level demonstrates how binding mechanisms create coherence and how new forms of identity arise. These archetypes also provide analogies useful for systems engineering practice.

Quarks and Atoms

• Binding: Strong and electromagnetic forces hold particles together.
• Identity: Stable elements with distinctive properties.
• Engineering Analogy: Interface standards act like physical forces, binding components into stable configurations while preserving distinct properties (e.g., USB, TCP/IP).

Molecules

• Binding: Chemical bonds integrate atoms into compounds with new behaviours.
• Identity: Distinct compounds with emergent properties beyond their elements.
• Engineering Analogy: Software modules or hardware components bound by design rules; emergent system behaviour arises from well-structured integration.

Cells

• Binding: Membranes, genetic codes, and metabolic cycles maintain integrity.
• Identity: The cell as a self-sustaining unit of life.
• Engineering Analogy: Subsystems with clear boundaries and internal processes (e.g., avionics suites, autonomous vehicles) that preserve autonomy while interacting with wider systems.

Organisms

• Binding: Physiology, behaviour, and coordination of subsystems.
• Identity: The organism as a functioning individual capable of adaptation.
• Engineering Analogy: Complex engineered products (e.g., aircraft, satellites) that integrate diverse subsystems into a coherent, adaptive whole.

Ecosystems

• Binding: Energy flows, interdependence, and ecological niches.
• Identity: The ecosystem as a resilient, adaptive collective.
• Engineering Analogy: System-of-systems such as transportation networks or power grids, where diversity and redundancy enhance resilience.

Societies

• Binding: Shared values, culture, and institutions sustain collective identity.
• Identity: The society as a coordinated human system.
• Engineering Analogy: Enterprises and large-scale programs, where governance, standards, and culture bind people and technologies into effective organizations.

Cultures, Enterprises, and Systems of Systems (SoS)

• Binding: Governance structures, shared purpose, and adaptive institutions.
• Identity: The adaptive whole, capable of learning and transformation.
• Engineering Analogy: Multi-stakeholder SoS (e.g., smart cities, global telecommunications) where coherence depends on aligning governance, mission, and interoperability across independently managed systems.

Figure 1: Identity and Togetherness of Systems (SEBoK Original)

Figure 1 (Archetypes of Identity and Togetherness Across System Levels) illustrates this progression. At each step, new forms of togetherness enable the emergence of new identities, providing both inspiration and analogy for engineered systems.

Identity and togetherness shape all stages of the systems engineering life cycle:

• System of Interest and Requirements: Defining identity clarifies scope, boundaries, and stakeholder needs. Poorly specified identity often leads to scope creep or mismatched expectations (e.g., aerospace programs with shifting SoI definitions).
• Architecture and Design: Togetherness informs modularity, cohesion, and interoperability. Standards and protocols provide “membranes” for interaction, as in Modular Open System Architectures (MOSA).
• Integration, Verification, and Validation: Preserving identity ensures continuity and traceability across lifecycle stages. Togetherness supports reliable integration without loss of coherence.
• Enterprise and System of Systems Engineering: Identity at scale is maintained through governance, shared mission, and institutional alignment. Smart city SoS, for example, require governance frameworks to sustain coherence across autonomous subsystems.
• Sustainability and Ecological Context: Engineered systems always interact with natural systems. Designing for sustainability requires respecting ecological identities and fostering symbiotic forms of togetherness (e.g., circular resource flows, ecosystem resilience).

In practice, identity defines what the system is, while togetherness guides how the parts are bound. Integrating these concepts explicitly into lifecycle activities enables engineers to manage complexity, ensure resilience, and design systems that are effective, sustainable, and adaptive.

Implications for Systems Engineering

Attention to identity and togetherness strengthens the conceptual foundation of systems engineering by clarifying what gives a system coherence, persistence, and purpose across its life cycle. These principles illuminate the underlying logic of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 processes and support the broader aims of INCOSE Vision 2035 to engineer “solutions for a better world.”

Defining and Maintaining System Identity

Identity provides the basis for distinguishing the System of Interest (SoI) from its environment. Establishing and maintaining this identity enables clear scope definition, stakeholder alignment, and configuration control. Through life-cycle stages, traceability of requirements, architecture, and verification activities depends on the persistence of system identity. When identity becomes ambiguous, boundaries blur, leading to scope creep, fragmented ownership, and loss of coherence.

Achieving Coherence through Togetherness

Togetherness expresses the organizing principles that bind parts into functioning wholes. In engineering terms, this corresponds to modularity, cohesion, and well-defined interfaces that enable integration while preserving autonomy. Standards and protocols act as the “binding forces” of engineered systems, ensuring predictable interaction among subsystems. Applying these principles supports reliable integration and effective interoperability across suppliers and organizations.

Supporting Lifecycle Continuity and Change

Systems evolve through upgrades, maintenance, and contextual change. Understanding how togetherness operates allows engineers to manage change without eroding system integrity. Configuration management, interface control, and verification and validation all rely on maintaining the balance between preserving identity and accommodating adaptation.

Governance and Alignment in Enterprises and Systems of Systems

At enterprise and SoS scales, identity equates to shared purpose and mission coherence among independently managed systems. Togetherness is achieved through governance, standards, and culture that sustain collaboration and mutual trust. Effective SoS engineering depends on these higher-order forms of cohesion as much as on technical interoperability.

Sustainability and Societal Integration

Engineered systems inevitably interact with natural and social systems. Recognizing the togetherness of human and ecological systems highlights the responsibility to design for sustainability. Identity must extend beyond the engineered artifact to include its role within broader environmental and societal contexts. Concepts such as circular resource flows, resilience, and regenerative design exemplify this systems-level coherence.

Methodological Implications

Incorporating identity and togetherness encourages a shift from purely reductionist decomposition toward re-compositional and coherence-based design. Systems engineers can use these principles as diagnostic lenses to assess systemic integrity, identify weak coupling or fragmentation, and guide integration strategies that reinforce coherence across boundaries and life-cycle stages.

Summary

By embedding the principles of identity and togetherness within systems engineering practice, engineers can design and sustain systems that remain coherent, resilient, and ethically aligned with their wider human and ecological environments. These concepts provide a bridge between systems science and engineering application, clarifying how systems maintain continuity through change and how collective purpose and structure emerge from well-governed interconnection.

References

Works Cited

• Boulding, K.E. (1956). “General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science.” Management Science, 2(3), pp. 197–208.
• Kineman, J.J. (2011). “Relational Science: A Synthesis.” Axiomathes, 21(3), pp. 393–437.
• Koestler, A. (1967). The Ghost in the Machine. London, UK: Hutchinson.
• Rasmussen, L. (2024). Seeing: Patterns in Living Systems. Synearth Publishing.

• Troncale, L.R. (1978). Nature’s Enduring Patterns. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.

Primary References

• Capra, F. and Luisi, P.L. (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.
• Rosen, R. (1991). Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. New York, NY: Columbia University Pres

Additional References

None