{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016594516594516596, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.935, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of Command‐and‐control Management and Governance in Systems Engineering

Command‐and‐control management has traditionally been the primary methodology used in Systems Engineering (SE) to manage systems. However, even though command‐and‐control has a significant and important role in managing traditional systems, it lacks adaptability and flexibility in dealing with complex systems. A general understanding exists that systems differ in terms of their typology and several different typologies have been proposed in order to assist systems engineers to distinguish between various types of systems. Since different types of systems require different management approaches, the governance method has been recently introduced in SE as a potentially more effective management style for certain types of systems, especially complex adaptive systems. This paper addresses issues faced by systems engineers in choosing whether to apply command‐and‐control management or governance in a particular situation. Additionally, it includes information about different criteria and a profiling methodology. These can be used to help practitioners to differentiate between system types and suggest the appropriate type of management style to apply to a given system. Two cases are presented to illustrate the application of both management approaches under differing degrees of complexity.