Systems Informatics and Analysis - Engineering and Science of Biomass Feedstock Production and Provision - page 220

• The idea of concurrent science, engineering, and technology, as shown in
Fig. 8.7 , must be promoted. Successful implementation of this approach should
provide a systems integration framework where information and knowledge
regarding systems can be gathered, processed, analyzed, and disseminated in a
timely manner [ 6 ]. To support that goal, it is of great importance to have the abil-
ity to capture the essence of the results from different tasks, to create value-added
information and knowledge via modeling and analysis, to investigate interrela-
tionships among tasks and their outcome, to provide decision support for priori-
tizing research and development activities, and to compute the degree of
confi dence on the results of predictive modeling and analysis. These components
can be integrated to achieve concurrency in science, engineering, and technology
by making the decision-making tools accessible to domain experts.
References
1. Shastri YN, Hansen AC, Rodriguez LF, Ting KC (2010) Optimization of Miscanthus harvest-
ing and handling as an energy crop: BioFeed model application. Biol Eng Trans 3(1):37-69
2. Von Bertalanffy L (1969) General system theory: foundations, development, applications. G.
Braziller, New York, NY
3. Nygaard K (1986) Basic concepts in object oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the
1986 SIGPLAN workshop on Object-oriented programming, New York, NY
4. Newman BD, Conrad KW (2000) A framework for characterizing knowledge management
methods, practices, and technologies. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on
practical aspects of knowledge management (PAKM2000), October 30-31, Basel,
Switzerland
5. Smith PG (2007) Concurrent product-development teams. In: Cleland DI (ed) Field guide to
project management. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 594-608
6. Ting KC, Fleisher DH, Rodriguez LF (2003) Concurrent science and engineering for phyto-
mation system. J Agric Meteorol 59(2):93-101
7. Finkelstein A, Kramer J (2000) Software engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the
conference on The future of Software engineering, ACM Press, New York, NY, p 4-11
8. Liao Y, Rodriguez LF, Shastri Y, Hansen AC, Ting KC (2011) Concurrent science, engineer-
ing and technology (ConSEnT) for biomass feedstock production decision support; August
2011. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI
9. Sokhansanj S, Kumar A, Turhollow A (2006) Development and implementation of integrated
biomass supply analysis and logistics model (IBSAL). Biomass Bioenergy 30:838-847
10. Keating B, Carberry PH, Hammer GL, Probert M, Robertson M, Holzworth D, Huth N et al
(2003) An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation. Eur J
Agron 18:267-288
11. Modell ME (1998) A professional's guide to systems analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
12. Epplin F (1996) Cost to produce and deliver switchgrass biomass to an ethanol-conversion
facility in the southern plains of the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 11(6):459-467
13. Huisman W, Venturi G, Molenaar J (1997) Cost of supply chain for Miscanthus × Giganteus.
Ind Crop Prod 6:353-366
14. Styles D, Thorne F, Jones MB (2008) Energy crops in Ireland: an economic comparison of
willow and Miscanthus production with conventional farming systems. Biomass Bioenergy
32(5):407-421
15. Khanna M, Dhungana B, Clifton-Brown J (2008) Costs of producing Miscanthus and switch-
grass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenergy 32:282-293