Inducing the Investigative Process (includes associated papers 24108 and 24395 )
Authors: Millheim Keith K. 
Published: December 2007

Summary.
This paper deals with (1) reductionism and reductionisticthinking and how they inhibit the investigative process;(2) systems andsystemic thinking, a way to induce the investigative process;(3) thecommitment paradigm and how commitment level is a key ingredient for inducing the investigative engineering (IE) process; and (4) system dynamics, a practical way of leading the engineer from a predominantly reductionistic way of thinking to the experience of systemic thinking.

Introduction
The first step in the induction process is toform a distinction between reductionistthinking and systems thinking. This paper, a sequel to "The New Engineering Paradigm and the Emergence of Investigative Engineering,"I shows how engineers, scientists, and others active in analyticaldisciplines are initially trained (starting as farback as junior high school) to embrace areductionist cognitive process and howuniversity and industry training and jobexperience reinforce and refine this way ofthinking. This paper explains howreductionist thinking confuses the systemiccognitive process. As analytical thinkers, we allare, to some degree, captives of ourtraining and history. Once a person ororganization can see the level of reductionist thinking being practiced, it is easier to takethe next step and develop a program thatintroduces the systemic way of thinking. The next section describes how thesystemic cognitive process differs from thereductionist way of thinking and how thesystems approach can lead to theinvestigative process. Numerous references areincluded to provide more details on systems and systemic thinking. The concept ofdealing with mental models (paradigms)in apractical way comes from systemic thinking. The intellectual distinction that systemsthinking can lead to the investigativeprocess is usually not enough to induce aparadigm shift for an individual ororganization to start the routine practicing of IEFor the shift to occur, the individual mustbe at a commitment level that leads theperson and the organization to want to do theinvestigative process. This paper depicts thecommitment paradigm and explains how itworks for the individual and theorganization. The practical insight from theunderstanding of this paradigm is that individuals or organizations can grade themselves ontheir degree of commitment. The last part of the paper introducessystem dynamics, a discipline that practicessystemic thinking in a way that naturallyencourages the investigative process. Thispaper presents the basic concepts of systemdynamics and introduces the use of thetechnology through a computer algorithm. An example systems analysis illustrates howsystem dynamics can be used to encouragesystemic thinking. The overall purpose of this paper is to plant the seeds on how to start inducing the IE process. One could call this a part of thetechnology of doing technology.

Why IE?
"The New Engineering Paradigm and the Emergence of Investigative Engineering" presented a model (or paradigm) ofengineering practices or, in a broader sense, ofhow engineers currently operate as anengineering community. The paper wasslanted toward the engineering community in the E and P sectors of the oil business. The samereasoning, however, could describe anengineering paradigm in the aerospace, automotive, mining, marine, electrical, andother engineering communities. That firstpaper introduced the idea of IE as part ofthe current engineering paradigm: "IE is an engineering discipline that searches for newand innovative designs, practices, andtechniques that have not been integrated into thestandard practice of the organization." Ispeculated that very few individuals (maybe1 in 10) possess the natural ability to do IEThe term "natural athlete" referred to thoserare individuals who could. I also proposedthat the investigative experience could belearned by engineers who do not possess aninstinctive investigative inclination. Since I presented that paper at the 1988SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in Houston, the interest in this subject has continued to grow. I have beeninvited many times to present the same talk, and an expanded version, and to participatein round-table discussions on theengineering paradigm and IE. In all my discussions, the question most commonly asked is,"How can we induce the IE process in ourorganization?"This question leads to other provocativequestions:What is the value ofencouraging the practice of IE? How much IE should an organization do? How is IE managed?How does IE fit into the structure of acompany? How are IE results measured?
JPT
P. 1132^