See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360863845

Intelligent digital twins and the development and management of complex

systems

Article · May 2022

DOI: 10.12688/digitaltwin.17574.1

CITATIONS READS
0 609

1 author:

Michael Grieves
Digital Twin Institute
28 PUBLICATIONS   2,476 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digital Twin View project

Organization, Operation, and Information Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Grieves on 28 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Digital Twin Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022

OPINION ARTICLE

Intelligent digital twins and the development and

management of complex systems [version 1; peer review: 1
approved]
Michael Grieves
Digital Twin Institute, Cocoa Beach, FL, 32931, USA

v1 First published: 25 May 2022, 2:8 Open Peer Review

https://doi.org/10.12688/digitaltwin.17574.1
Latest published: 25 May 2022, 2:8
https://doi.org/10.12688/digitaltwin.17574.1 Approval Status

1
Abstract
The interest in defining and implementing Digital Twins (DT) is at the version 1
forefront of today’s product organizations. The evolution of 25 May 2022 view
increasingly complex systems requires that their information be
organized and managed via digital twins.  In addition, the
1. William Randell McNair , Stichting USPI-
development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will result in an increasing
degree of system complexity. These complex systems will exhibit true NL, Randstad, The Netherlands
emergent behavior as AIs modify system aspects as the result of goal University of South Florida, Muma College of
seeking and learning. DTs will need to increase in capability, becoming
Business, Tampa, USA
intelligent in their approach. This article presents a discussion on how
these Intelligent Digital Twins (IDTs) will evolve and assist in MetaPassageways, Lakeland, USA
developing and managing complex systems.
Any reports and responses or comments on the
Keywords article can be found at the end of the article.
Digital Twin, DT, Intelligent Digital Twin, IDT, Physical Twin, IoT

Corresponding author: Michael Grieves (mgrieves@mwgvp.com)

Author roles: Grieves M: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Visualization
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright: © 2022 Grieves M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite this article: Grieves M. Intelligent digital twins and the development and management of complex systems [version
1; peer review: 1 approved] Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 https://doi.org/10.12688/digitaltwin.17574.1
First published: 25 May 2022, 2:8 https://doi.org/10.12688/digitaltwin.17574.1

 
Page 1 of 18
 Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022

1 Introduction
While the concept of Digital Twins (DTs) has existed for over
a decade and a half (Marr, 2017), it is only over the last few
years that digital twins have become one of the most critical and
important technologies for product manufacturers. At the same
time, products1 continue to become more complex and, with
the advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), will also
exhibit emergent behavior.
Digital twins will need to keep pace. DTs will need to become
more than information repositories and take on an intelli-
gent role. The premise that digital twins will evolve to include
“intelligence” has existed for a few years (Grieves, 2018).
This discussion will define what intelligence means in this con-
text and present the characteristics and capabilities that these
Intelligent Digital Twins (IDTs) will need to possess.
There still exists confusion as to what a digital twin is. As is
not unusual for complex concepts, simple definitions do not
adequately capture the scale and scope of the digital twin
concepts. Models are much richer and do much better job of
conveying concepts. This article will provide the latest models and
their explanations.
side that exists in the virtual or digital world (“the Digital
Twin”), and the communication channel of data and information
between these two elements (the “Digital Thread”).
The Digital Twin Model was first introduced in 2002 without
a name (Grieves, 2002). As shown in Figure 2, it was simply
captioned as the “Ideal for PLM.” PLM stood for Product
Lifecycle Management and was the concept emerging at the
time of a product-centric versus a functional-centric (engineer-
ing, manufacturing, support) approach to product development.
It focused on the information about a product being populated
and consumed from a logically centralized source across the four
phases of a product’s lifecycle: create, build, operate/sustain,
and dispose.
This logically centralized information about the product through-
out its lifecycle was in essence the “Digital Twin.” It received
its current name in 2010 from John Vickers of NASA (Piascik
et al., 2010). However, it remained a high level, undifferenti-
ated model until 2016 when it was divided into types (Grieves
& Vickers, 2017). These types were associated with the different
phases of the product lifecycle and are illustrated in Figure 3

2 Digital twins
It is useful to review just what a DT is. The Digital Twin Model
is a concept that, as shown in Figure 1, consists of three main
elements: an actual or intended physical element on the left
side that currently exists or will exist in the physical world (the
“Physical Twin”), the virtual or digital counterpart on the right

R
1
Terminology can be very fuzzy around the concept of manmade artifacts. I
have been fairly consistent in my use of “product” over the years to refer to
tangible artifacts such as airplanes, spacecraft, power generation equip-
ment, medical devices, etc. These products can also be considered systems,
although all systems are not products. I will use products and systems inter-
changeably with the assumption these systems are products. The use of the
term “product” is also consistent with the terminology of Product Lifecycle
Management.

Figure 2. Original digital twin concept. PLM, Product Lifecycle

Management.

Figure 1. Digital twin model. Figure 3. The four phased product lifecycle.

Page 2 of 18

The types are:
• D igital Twin Prototype (DTP), the prototypical product
with variants or all the products that can be built
• D
 igital Twin Instance (DTI), the individual products
themselves or all the products that are built
• D
 igital Twin Aggregate (DTA), the aggregation of all
the DTIs or all the products that have been built
2.1 Digital twin types and the product lifecycle
As Figure 4 shows, the digital twin types are associated
with the phases of the lifecycle and persistent throughout the
lifecycle. The digital twin begins at the beginning of a new
product’s lifecycle and persists throughout the lifecycle, even
extending beyond the disposal phase when the physical twin no
longer exists.
2.1.1 Create phase. The product lifecycle begins with the
create phase and the development of the Digital Twin Prototype
(DTP). This is the prototypical digital twin. All the products
that will be built in this generation originate from this source.
The DTP is all the information that will be needed to build
this product generation and all its variants.
The information needed here are usually the requirements,
Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, Bill of Materials
(BoM), behavioral simulations, embedded software, and any
and all information that would be needed to fully describe the
new product. In addition, it would also consist of any informa-
tion needed to build this new product, such as Bill of Process,
Bill of Manufacturing Systems, quality control information, and
manufacturing simulations.
It is important to note, the digital twin does not need to be a
separate information repository. Since it is information, the
Figure 4. The digital twin model through the lifecycle. DTP, Digital Twin Prototype; DTI, Digital Twin Instances; DTA, Digital Twin
Aggregate.
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
DTP may contain links to existing repositories of this informa-
tion. Current and future Product Lifecycle Management systems
may contain most, if not all of these informational constructs.
However, the important aspect is that this information is
linked into a product-centric view.
Ideally, more and more of the work will be done in this phase
with this type of digital twin. Our ability to do so marks a struc-
tural change in innovation regimes. We are rapidly moving
from a classic industrial innovation regime to a digital inno-
vation regime (Lyytinen, 2021). Bits are cheaper than atoms
and allow us more resources to innovate. Bits will continue
to get cheaper as atoms will continue to get more expensive.
Therefore, we would like to move more and more physical
work into virtual work, working with the DTP.
The ideal future state is that we would like to design the prod-
uct, test the product, manufacture the product, and support and
sustain the product all virtually. Once we get it as perfected as
we can, only then do we actually go out and move around expen-
sive atoms to make it. This is going to get more important as
our products become systems of greater complexity.
The ability to fully understand the systems and to physically
test all of the variations has already become an impossible task.
It is only if we can use the digital twin in this phase will we be
able to sufficiently understand and test these new complex
products.
2.1.2 Build phase. When we move into the build phase, physi-
cally producing these products, we still continue to use the
DTP. If we have done our work in the create phase properly, the
build phase is a matter of executing on the manufacturing plans
that we have developed there to realize the physical
product.
Page 3 of 18

Once we start building actual instances of the plans, we will be
producing unique physical instances or the “Physical Twins”.
It is at this stage that we are creating the Digital Twin Instances
(DTIs) of the individual physical products. It is critical that
we capture this information, because this provides the as-built
of the individual physical products that we will rely on as
we make product changes for the rest of the physical twin’s
lifecycle.
Because we now have an actual physical twin, we no longer
have a tolerance of the geometry that we want to build. We actu-
ally have a physical measurement of what we did build. We
will capture what we actually built, the testing we did on that
specific physical twin, the serial numbers of important assem-
blies and components that have gone into that particular physical
twin, and the software versions that we have embedded into that
instance. We still want to couple the information of the DTP
with that DTI and not duplicate information that we do not need
to duplicate.
2.1.3 Operations/sustainment phase. When the product is
completed and put into use, we obviously move into the
operations/sustainment or usage phase. The DTIs are connected
to specific physical twins and will remain connected throughout
the entire life of that physical twin.
We would not only want to capture physical changes to the
product, but, for complex products, we would like to capture
behavioral profiles. How did the product perform in actual use
given the inputs that this system, our product, received? For
aircraft, what were the various flight profiles, and how did that
aircraft respond and perform?
It is in this phase that we create our DTA, which is all the prod-
ucts that we did build. Collecting, aggregating, and correlating
input information with performance output will allow us to
assess and predict performance. Collecting sufficient infor-
mation about the correlation of certain sensor readings with
subsequent component failures will allow us to replace compo-
nents when we see that same pattern of sensor readings. If we
can capture a pattern of component and performance degradation,
we can feed that into a learning loop for future products.
While the concept of the digital twin encompasses the entire
product lifecycle, it is these individual product types that line
up with the phases of the lifecycle. The value of the digital
twin, especially for complex products, is that it is product cen-
tric rather than functional centric. Information from these prod-
ucts will be populated and consumed over the entire product’s
life and not siloed in any single function.
2.1.4 Disposal phase. The disposals phase is an often over-
looked part of the product lifecycle. Interest in the disposal
phase ebbs and flows primarily with the activity of government
regulation. When there is high government regulation interest,
the disposal phase gets a great deal of attention. Conversely when
there is low regulation activity, this phase gets far less attention.
(Grieves 2006, pgs. 106-109)
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
However, there are good business reasons to focus on this phase
and apply the digital twin concepts. It is in this phase that the
specific physical twin ceases to exist. There is very little reason
for the digital twin to suffer the same fate. The cost of main-
taining the digital twin after its physical twin has been disposed
of is close to zero.
There are two primary reasons for the digital twin in the
disposal phase. First is that the information needed to dispose of
the physical twin safely and efficiently would have originated
in the create phase. This may have been years, decades, or even
up to a century or more before. Information should reside in
the digital twin and guide the disposer into disassembling and
safely disposing of the components, especially toxic ones.
The Circular Economy has a goal of recycling as much of a
product as possible (Zeiss et al., 2020). Even if the interest is
not environmental, the capability to recycle the material of prod-
ucts and reuse them in new products generally makes good
economic sense.
The second reason is that there may be interesting design and
product features that exist in this product that has reached its
physical end of life. Without the continuation of the digital
twin, this information will be lost with the disposal of the
physical product. The ability to use this information informs
future designs and saves the expense and time of “reinventing
the wheel.” Again, information is a replacement for wasted
physical resources. Losing the information that might prove
useful for new products is unfortunate and a cost that could
be avoided.
2.2 The “digital twin exists ONLY after there is a physical
product” fallacy
There is a fallacy2 that the digital twin does not exist until
and unless there is a physical product3. Along with a simple
lack of understanding the digital twin concept, this may be an
attempt to over specify the “twin” metaphor.
Metaphors are extremely powerful in invoking complex mental
constructs and even entire mental spaces in humans. Metaphors
are not simply comparisons, but generative devices that allow
rich understandings, new perspectives, and generative ideas
that open up areas of opportunities that had not previously
been thought of (Grieves, 2000).
The twin metaphor has only two key attributes: duality and
strong similarity. With respect to this fallacy discussion, there
is no metaphorical requirement for timeline simultaneity or
for the precedence of one type of twin before another type of
twin. That is, there is no requirement that a twin only exists if
its counterpart exists simultaneously. Nor is there a requirement
R
2
See for example, the AIAA Digital Twin Position paper (https://www.aiaa.
org/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/issues-and-advocacy/policy-papers/
digital-twin-institute-position-paper-(december-2020).pdf).
3
In fact, Digital Twins are beginning to be proposed for constructs where
there is not a distinct physical object, such as supply chains, financial
systems, process systems, logistic systems.
Page 4 of 18

that one type of twin, the physical twin, must exist before there
is the other type of twin, the digital twin, can also exist. The
only requirement is that a twin’s counterpart exist at some point
in the twin’s lifecycle. This means the digital twin can exist
prior to there being a physical counterpart and can also exist
after the physical counterpart ceases existence.
The requirement that there must be an actual physical thing
before there can be a digital twin is simply a wrong perspec-
tive. The key differentiator of whether a digital model and
associated information is a digital twin is that it is intended that
this model become a physical product and that its physical
counterpart is realized.
It is that intention and the work that goes into the realization of
that intention that differentiates a digital model from a digital
twin. If the physical counterpart is never realized, then the
digital model was never a digital twin. A digital model of a flying
carpet will never become a digital twin because there is no
intention, let alone ability, to make it a physical product.
From its inception, the digital twin has always been intended
to exist in all four phases of the product lifecycle: create, build,
operate/sustain, and dispose (Grieves, 2006). It is embod-
ied in the saying that “no one goes into a factory, pounds
on some metal, and hopes an airplane will come out.” A
tremendous value of the digital twin is that it does exist before
there is a physical product.
Dispelling these misperceptions of the “twin” metaphor, there
are five major reasons why the digital twin does not require a
physical product before the digital twin exists. These reasons
are:
• T he DT framework should cover the entire product
lifecycle
• T
 he DT is especially valuable during the create phase
• T
 he DT does exist prior to the physical product –it just
has a different name
• T
 he DT regresses to being functionally siloed if there
is no DT prior to the physical product
• T
 he DT existing only after there is a physical product
is conceptually inelegant and piecemeal
The practical reality even for those making a claim that the
digital twin does not exist prior to there being a physical prod-
uct is that there actually is a digital twin in their organization
before there is a physical product. This product information
does exist throughout the entire product lifecycle. In all those
situations, it simply has a different name. It may be called the
digital model, the digital design, the digital systems model,
or some such variation. However, it has most if not all the
characteristics of the Digital Twin Prototype (DTP).
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
While the digital twin has value across the product lifecycle,
the DTP is especially valuable in the create phase. It is this
phase of the lifecycle that work can be moved from the physical
world into the virtual world. If virtual products can be modelled
and tested in a virtual environment, replacing physical proto-
types and testing, the potential for a reduction of wasted physical
resources is substantial. These wasted resources include material,
energy, and labor time, but also elapsed development
time.
Even though the create phase may be short in comparison
to the entire lifecycle of a product that may span decades,
decisions in this phase have a major impact in determining
future product costs. Estimates of product cost determination
during the create phase are as high as 80% (Iansiti, 1998).
There is an increasing ability to perform virtual testing at a
fraction of the cost and in less time to replace physical test-
ing. This has the potential to reduce costs, improve quality, and
reduce time to market.
A major problem with renaming the DTP to something differ-
ent and not having that something in the digital twin framework
is that it encourages and maintains functional siloing. If this
different named thing exists in engineering prior to manufactur-
ing having a digital twin of the instance of a physical product,
then this information will tend not to be shared between
engineering and manufacturing.
The powerful aspect of the digital twin is that it is product
centric throughout the entire product lifecycle. Information is
populated and consumed irrespective of the functional area.
For the digital twin to exist only after moving to manufacturing
diminishes greatly its effect. A substantial amount of the infor-
mation for a specific Digital Twin Instance (DTI) is contained
in the DTP.
Finally, it is inelegant and piecemeal to not have the digital
twin encompass the entire product lifecycle. As described
in Section 2, the intent of the digital twin is to have a frame-
work that persists throughout the entire lifecycle. That has
been the intent since the origination of the digital twin concept.
Requiring the digital twin to only exist once there is a physical
product is inconsistent with that approach. Having different
types of digital twin, DTP, DTI, and DTA (Digital Twin
Aggregate), allows us to have a consistent framework, yet
differentiate how the digital twin manifests itself at different phases
of product lifecycle.
3 The digital twin and time
One of the least discussed and perhaps most unappreciated
aspects of the digital twin is its relationship with time. In the
physical world, we are stuck in the moment. If we want to
go forward in time, we can. However, we can only do so at the
pace of each tick of the clock. If we want to go to the past in
time, we are simply out of luck.
Page 5 of 18

The interest in the ability to predict future events has existed
for centuries. The famous mathematician, Laplace, said, “Give
me the positions and velocities of all the particles in the uni-
verse, and I will predict the future” (Laplace, 1917)4. However,
as will be pointed out in a later section, this would apply only to
the inanimate universe.
In the virtual world, we are under no such time constraint
and have made great strides in realizing Laplace’s vision. We
can go back in time via two mechanisms. We can simply run
our simulations backward from the current time. Simulations
do not care whether they run forward or backward. The time
arrow for simulations runs both forward and backward. The
second mechanism is to have captured the state changes as
our product has gone through time. We can simply reverse
those state changes to our current digital twin to reproduce any
point in the past time.
To move into the future, we simply run our simulations for-
ward. We can pick our increment of time and duration. We can
set the time as nanoseconds and duration in seconds as we do
for nuclear explosion simulations or at a little larger time incre-
ments for vehicle crash tests. We can set the time increment in
years and the duration in decades for determining the durability
and potential degradation of an airframe.
There are two critical requirements here. The first is that we
have an understanding of the physics that take place over time
and second that we have enough computing power in order to
simulate those physics in the time increment and duration that
we require. Both these capabilities continue to increase at an
ever-rapid pace.
Figure 5 illustrates this with the DTP during the create phase.
T0 represents the point in time when we have a complete dig-
ital twin that could be made into a physical product with full
functionality. Tx, represent the current time in the product’s
R system. The resulting outputs are then used both internally and
4
This is the popular version. Laplace’s actual quote is, “Given for one instant
an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is
animated and the respective situa-tion of the beings who compose it—an
intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis—it would
embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of
the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be
uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes.”
Figure 5. Digital twin in time. M&S, Modeling and Simulation.
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
life. Tx+y represents a time in the future of the product’s life.
We can move back and forth in time from Tx.
Modeling and simulation incorporate the physics and assump-
tions that will drive these simulations. In the create phase, we
want to virtually create the product, test the product, manufacture
the product, and sustain and operate the product. We would like
to model and simulate short periods of time as in a crash test
and long periods of time as in determining the durability over
decades of an airframe.
When we get undesirable results, we can step back in time
with our simulations to see where the deviation between what
we thought should occur and what actually did occur. We can
then modify our design so as to obtain the desired system
outcomes.
The goal in the create phase is to work out all the issues and
problems with these complex products and only when we get
it all right, do we want to go and physically make the product.
The ability to manipulate time is a capability that will allow
us to better understand our complex systems.
4 Complex systems
We have been referring to complex products or systems, but
what do we mean when we use that term? In defining what
a complex system is the first task is to define what we mean
when we say a system. An accepted definition of the system is
(Grieves, 2012)5:
 system is two or more components that combine together
A
to produce from one or more inputs one or more results that
could not be obtained from the components individually
A system consists of three components: inputs, operations,
and outputs. Inputs are what drive the system behavior. The
three main inputs of systems are materials, forces, and infor-
mation. These inputs are processed by the operations of the
externally to the system.
A taxonomy of systems lists this hierarchy: simple systems,
complicated systems, system of systems (SoS), complex systems,
collaborative SoS, adaptive systems, and complex adaptive
systems (Baldwin et al., 2011). For purposes of this article,
we will consider the systems beyond complicated systems as
the class of complex systems.
Thus, there are three types of systems: simple, complicated, and
complex. Simple and complicated systems are closely related
and differ only in the matter of scope. For simple systems,
R
5
Modified from the original to add that the results could not be obtained from
the components individually. While there are much more detailed descriptions
of systems and their characte-ristics (see Ackoff, R.L., Towards a System of
Systems Concepts. Management Science (pre-1986), 1971. 17(11): p. 661,
this definition suffices for the points we wish to make here.
Page 6 of 18

the inputs, operations, and outputs are readily discernable.
There is little or no information needed by a simple system. The
system states are few. A lever and fulcrum constitute a simple
system.
Complicated systems have those same characteristics. The
major difference is that there are more components that inter-
act. The inputs, operations, and outputs may not be easily
discernable, but the system can be broken down into discrete
subsystems. These subsystems can be readily understood. The
interface between subsystems are few and simple. There are
more system states, but again they are easily discernable.
Complicated systems have little if any information as inputs.
What information is entered into the system is entered by
physical material changes – flipping a switch, pulling a lever,
etc. Mechanical systems and complicated systems have a
high, if not complete, overlap. A watch is an example of a
complicated system.
There is not very good agreement as to what constitutes
complexity (Ledford, 2008). While complicated systems are an
extension of simple systems, complex systems are something
very different. Complexity seems to come into play when there
is not a good grasp of the number of states that the system can
take and/or the number of systems states is too numerable
to calculate.
Like complicated systems, a key aspect of complex systems
is that there are numerous components in complex systems.
However, there are also multiple interface points between
components and many to many communication channels
(Mitchell, 2009). Complexity is also linked to system behav-
iors with systems having more possible behaviors being more
complex than systems with less possible behaviors (Siegenfeld
& Bar-Yam, 2019).
It is also proposed that complexity is all about the informa-
tion processing that differentiates complex systems from
simple and complicated systems. The information inputs, both
into the system and within the system drive system complexity
(Stacey et al., 2017). Sophisticated information processing by
the system also makes predictions of system states difficult.
Complexity drives the need for the digital twin. While not
clear cut, at a certain level of possible systems states and infor-
mation exchange and processing, products are considered
complex. As I have often said, a jet fighter needs a digital
twin. A paperclip does not.
5 Complex systems and emergent behavior
The complex systems of today are said to have emergent behav-
ior (Grieves & Vickers, 2017). However, that is not entirely
accurate. Emergent behavior is considered to be behavior that
the system did not have initially but emerges over time as the
system operates. The reality is that, in most man-made systems,
new behavior did not emerge. It has been in the system from
its inception. What actually has emerged is the understanding
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
that the system could perform in ways that were not foreseen
by the product developers.
The requirement that a system have actual emergent behav-
ior occurs under one of two conditions. The first condition is
common. It involves a human interaction with the system that
changes something in that system to affect its behavior. How-
ever, if we view the human as external to the system itself,
then again this is not really emergent behavior. If a human
interacts with the system in a way that the system design-
ers never anticipated or if the human makes a change to the
system, then the system would have always acted in that
manner. The behavior wasn’t so much as emergent as it was a
deterministic outcome of the human behavior.
Where a system exhibits actual emergent behavior is when deci-
sions are taken, or parameters are adjusted that have not been
designed into the system. At one end of the spectrum, these
decisions could be completely random, as in generating random
numbers to put together different processes. At the other
end of the spectrum is Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) which in
effect is to put humanlike intelligence (goal seeking) into the
system to make better decisions to effect outcomes.
Systems with this kind of randomness will be the actual
emergent systems. However only systems with AI will have
emergent behavior that is goal seeking.
6 AI and M&S (Artificial Intelligence and Modeling
and Simulation)
AI and M&S are two sides of the same digital coin. AI con-
sists of computers replicating only human intelligence. M&S
consists of computers replicating the rest of the physical uni-
verse, except for human intelligence. Together AI and M&S
can provide a form of intelligence for digital twins in a virtual
world.
Both of these capabilities rely heavily on the advances in
computing. Since 1970, computing performance which is
proxied by the number of transistors on a chip has been increas-
ing exponentially as predicted by Moore’s Law (Moore, 1965).
As shown in the logarithmic graph in Figure 6 computing
performance has been doubling approximately every 18
months. In 2020, we have reached 54 billion transistor den-
sity. If we continue to keep at this pace, by 2030 we will reach
approximately six trillion transistors or an equivalent capability.
It is difficult to comprehend what this level of computing
capability will mean. However, we can be pretty confident
that the ideas presented here will not be compute bound.
6.1 AI or Artificial Intelligence
The term Artificial Intelligence or AI was coined in the 1960s
by John McCarthy of MIT for the initiative of creating “thinking
computers” (Moravec, 1988). The term AI is in pretty liberal
use today. Perform a Google inquiry of the term in 2021, and
Google returns in the neighborhood of 4 billion results. In
discussion, AI spans the spectrum from expert systems
Page 7 of 18

Figure 6. Moore’s Law – logarithmic plot of transistor density.
algorithms to computer-based, self-aware intelligent entities
(Kurzweil, 2005).
I define intelligence as goal seeking while minimizing resources.
Nature does goal seeking in survival of the fittest. However,
nature does not minimize resource. Nature attempts to produce
all possible combinations and allows the environment to select
the fittest, eliminating all the rest. Nature can take eons of time
and nearly infinite resources to accomplish this. Humans do
not have that luxury.
6.1.1 The state of AI. The idea that computers might repli-
cate human intelligence has been around since at least the mid-
dle of the last century. The most famous example of this is
the Turing test, which was proposed by Alan Turing in 1950
(Turing, 1950). Basically, the test proposes that if a human
observer cannot tell the difference between another human
being and a computer by asking a series of questions, the Turing
Test is passed.
The Turing test has been deemed not rigorous enough. It relies
on an observer who might rate high on the ability to be deceived,
so other tests have been proposed. The Winograd Schema
Challenge (Levesque et al., 2012) is a test that asks ambigu-
ous questions. This relies on human common sense that the
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
deep-learning systems of today find difficult if not impossible to
reproduce.
Take for example the simple statement, “the cat sat on the
mat, and it yawned.” Ask any human of even a very young age,
and we will immediately get the correct answer. A computer
currently finds this kind of question very difficult, requiring
both extensive ontological and deep learning programming.
In addition, there is a question as to whether we really want
computers to replicate human intelligence. In fact, there is a
serious question as to whether computers can replicate human
intelligence. What often is overlooked is that the human
brain and computers have very different hardware.
Computer hardware is implemented in digital circuitry. The
human brain is implemented in interconnected neurons, with
specialized areas for different mental functions (Seung, 2012).
A cognitive science area theorizes that the way humans think is
hugely shaped by its embedded connections with human sensory
and motor processes (Ramachandran, 2011).
The intent here is not to have a comprehensive discussion of
what does or does not constitute artificial intelligence, but to
discuss elements that make a digital twin appear to be intelligent.
Page 8 of 18

Intelligence is for our purposes understanding context and
making predictions in the support of goal seeking while
minimizing physical resource usage.
It may be that AI does not replicate human intelligence, but
implements goal seeking and problem solving in ways that do
not replace humans but augments them. The evidence for this is
that tasks that computers find trivial, e.g., multiplying two 9-digit
numbers, is difficult for almost all humans. Tasks that are easy
for humans, captcha recognition and ambiguous sentences like
the one above, are difficult for computers (Tegmark, 2017).
However, the good news is that the actual requirement of AI
for the IDT is not to have human like intelligence. We have
plenty of humans. It is to augment human intelligence by
processing massive amounts of data and presenting relevant
information for consideration. As will be discussed next, the
digital twin has from its inception proposed that augmenting,
not replacing, human intelligence was a core characteristic.
6.1.2 Cued availability. From the earliest stages of the
digital twin concept, it was proposed that digital twins under-
stand context and provide proactive assistance to the users of
the digital twin. The characteristics of the digital twin from
its inception were: singularity, correspondence, traceability,
reflectiveness, and cued availability (Grieves, 2006).
As a brief refresher, singularity means that there is a
single representation of product information and not duplicate,
inconsistent versions. Correspondence means that products
are both physical and virtual. Cohesion means that all repre-
sentations or views of facets of the product information must
adhere to the laws of physics the same way their atom-based
physical twin does. Traceability means that the digital twin
tracks the history of the product through the phases of the
lifecycle. Reflectiveness means that, as a physical twin changes,
its DTI changes. All of these characteristics are currently
part of the digital twin.
What has not been an aspect of the digital twin is the last char-
acteristic, cued availability. This is where the IDT becomes
relevant. While not the most elegant term, cued availability
was the concept that the digital twin would provide information
to the user based on the task that they were doing.
Cued availability is simply being able to have the “right infor-
mation and processes when we need it” (Grieves, 2006). The
digital twin would be aware of the information of what the
user was doing and provide additional information based on
that context.
6.2 M&S or modeling and simulation
With apologies to Alan Turing, the critical requirement is to
have the computer emulate everything in the universe, except
human intelligence. If, as noted above, we can fully simulate
the inanimate universe but only obtain assistance from AI,
we will obtain tremendous value for products throughout
the product lifecycle.
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
Modeling and simulation is about representing physical
products and their behaviors in a digital or virtual environ-
ment. In this context, a model is a static representation of the
physical product. The current technology allows for this
model to be a three-dimensional replication that has complete
fidelity in terms of dimensioning. The behavior is modeled in
mathematical form, describing the forces acting on the physical
product and the forces the physical product generates and acts
upon the environment.
Simulation is dynamic. Simulation adds the component of time
and describes how the product changes as forces act on it, and
how the forces the product generates act on the environment.
Simulation shows the changes in geometry as the mathematical
behavior model of forces transforms material. A simulation
of a vehicle crash test shows at a user defined time scale the
deformation of all components of the automobile as it crashes
into a barrier.
Simulation relies on two things: an increasing knowledge of
the physics and/or data that determine the physical environ-
ment and the computing power to calculate the physics at the
required scale and fidelity. This has meant that there have been
limitations of the products that could be modelled and simulated.
A few decades ago, only simple product systems could be
simulated. With the doubling of Moore’s Law over time,
today even complex product systems can be simulated.
The question is how do we decide how well we are doing with
M&S? Over a decade and a half ago, I proposed some Tests
of Virtuality to answer that question. The Tests of Virtuality
were modeled on the Turing Test (Grieves, 2006, pgs. 18–19).
The original formulation of the Grieves Test of Virtuality had
three distinct tests: a visual test, a performance test, and a reflec-
tion test. The format of the tests was similar. An observer was
exposed to the physical and the virtual versions. If he or she
could not tell the difference between the two versions, then the test
was passed.
In the visual test, the observer looked at the video screens
of a product placed in a physical room and the digital twin
version. The observer could ask for any spatial manipula-
tion to be done. The observer could ask to see the product
from any angle.
The observer could ask that the product be disassembled and
look at any individual component. In the example of a car,
the observer could ask that the doors be opened to look inside
at the interior or that the hood be opened and to look in the
engine compartment. If the observer cannot tell the difference
between the physical version and the digital twin version, then
Grieves Visual Test is said to be passed.
The behavioral test was a little more difficult. The observer had
the same two views of the product, the physical and the digital
twin one. The observer could then ask that forces be generated
and/or applied to both the physical and virtual and observe
Page 9 of 18

the results. For an airplane, this could mean that the two planes
jet engine would be turned on, and the planes sent down
the physical and virtual runways to take off. This would be
an internal force.
The observer could also ask that once the planes were flying
that they be put into a steep dive and see the forces that
acted upon them. That would be an external force test. If the
observer could not tell the difference between the physical
and the virtual performance, then it passed the Grieves Test of
Performance.
The third test is a test of reflectivity. Reflectivity was defined
as any change to the physical product would be reflected in
its digital twin. Again, we have the observer and the physi-
cal twin and digital twin versions. In this particular case, the
test is that the observer can see no differences between the two
versions. Using an example of an oil rig, if the observer were
to compare every valve setting, every gauge, every pump
serial number, there would be no difference between the
two versions. If that was the case, then the Grieves Test of
Reflectivity would be passed.
These tests were meant to be ideal test. They were always
meant to be tied to use cases that would provide value to the
user. It was intended that only those things that provided value
would be the things that were intended to be tested. If there
was no value in disassembling a product and determining if the
physical twin and digital twin versions were identical, then
that would not be part of the test. If a component of the oil
rig above was serialized, but there was no interest in track-
ing serial numbers, then the physical twin and digital twin
versions not being identical would be irrelevant.
So where are we a decade and a half later? The short answer is
that these test of virtuality are easily passed on a daily basis. A
decade and half ago, we were close to passing the visual test.
Today there is no question that the visualization of physical
products and its digital twins have the fidelity and granularity
that we need for most use cases.
The behavior and reflectivity tests were proposed before
Internet of Things (IoT) became so prevalent. Back then, the
issue for these tests was going to be being able to get the appro-
priate sensoring data in order to maintain the digital twin
version. Today with our smart products, we routinely get the
sensoring information that we need in order to pass both
those tests. Again, we need to remember that this is driven by
use cases. The value to the user needs to be there in order to
expend the resources necessary to maintaining the digital twin
for all these tests.
At this time, I would like to propose a new Grieves Test of
Virtuality. This is Grieves Test of Prediction. This is a slightly
different test and much harder. In this test version, the observer
asks that the digital twin version be moved a certain amount
of time into the future. The observer then waits that amount of
time. When that time has elapsed, the observer now
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
compares the two versions. If the states of the physical twin and
digital twin are effectively identical, then the Grieves Test of
Prediction is passed.
6.3 Merging AI with M&S
The natural habitat of AI is in the virtual world. It is much
better suited in dealing with the information of the virtual world
than with the tangible structures and environment of the physical
world. In dealing with the physical world, AI is dependent
on sensors to capture the physical world state changes in
context and relies on physical actuators to cause changes in
tangible structures.
To provide a simple example, a pilot of an airplane sitting on a
taxiway waiting for take-off can, at a glance, assess the situa-
tion they are in: the state of the runway, the position of other
aircraft, the state of the engines, the weather conditions, the
trustworthiness of air control, and numerous other factors. The
sensoring and programming required to have an AI system
have all that same information and replace the pilot completely
is a daunting if not insurmountable task.
That is not to say that AI does not have a role in assisting the
pilot, even on mundane taxiways. It does. With the informa-
tion and assessments AI can do, it could prevent disasters such
as the 1977 Tenerife 747 accident that was the result of a tragic
miscalculation by the pilot (Weick, 1990). The AI would have
alerted the pilot that a crash was unavoidable in time for the
takeoff to be aborted.
Where AI is the most at home is in the virtual world of M&S.
In fact, it acts more like nature than like humans. In the
virtual world, AI is goal seeking but with a much-relaxed
requirement to minimize resources. As computing capability
continues its exponential growth, the capability of simulating
more and more possible combinations and evaluating their
outcomes becomes faster and less expensive. Crash testing
a vehicle physically is an expensive proposition. Crash test-
ing a virtual vehicle gets less and less expensive over time
because of Moore’s Law. This means that more and more testing
variations can be done for minimal costs.
7 Intelligent Digital Twins
The digital twin has traditionally had a characteristic of
passiveness. The digital twin has been described as a reposi-
tory of product information. Information is populated in the
digital twin and consumed from it. The digital twin could be
interrogated by its users to use information in order to replace
wasted physical resources.
The Intelligent Digital Twin (IDT) has these characteristics:
• A ctive
• O
 nline
• G
 oal seeking
• A
 nticipatory
Page 10 of 18

7.1 Active
A key characteristic of the IDT is that it is active. A tacit
understanding of the current digital twin is that it is passive.
It is usually referred to as a repository of product informa-
tion. To obtain that information, users inquire or search for
information that they need. While predictions are part of the
current digital twin, it is usually in the framework of users
initiating the request for specific predictions of their choosing.
The IDT actively assists working with and providing informa-
tion as it is needed. As discussed previously, the intent is to
not replace humans and human intelligence. It is to augment it.
7.2 Online
Referring back to the digital twin model in Figure 1, one of
the three elements is the communication links between the
digital twin and its environment and the physical twin and its
environment. The communication goes both ways. We feed
data from the physical side to the virtual side and information
goes from the virtual side to the physical side.
The frequency of the communications between the physi-
cal and virtual is rarely mentioned. When it has been, it is tied
to a particular use case. Air bags deploying require instant
communication. Maintenance updates could be batched and
could lag for days.
However, even the instant air bag deployment communication
is passive. It requires that data be sent from the physical
airbag system to its digital twin in order for some action to
occur. The communications between the digital twin and its
physical counterpart is offline until the physical counterpart
performs some action.
For the digital twin to be active requires that it be online. What
this means is that the DT continues to scan the PT and its
environment. The primary initialization moves from the physi-
cal side of the DT model to the active DT side. Depend-
ing on the phase of the lifecycle, the physical side includes
the environment, the physical twin, and the humans involved.
The DT evolves from a passive repository to a proactive
repository and constant agent assistance.
7.3 Goal seeking
In the current digital twin model, humans provide all the goal
seeking. With the IDT, goal seeking is shared between it and
its human users. This means that a key aspect will be the crea-
tion and articulation of goals throughout the phases of the
product lifecycle.
There will need to be defined goals for the different phases. For
the creation phase, the goals are related to developing products
that meet the defined requirements. In the build phase, the
goals are producing these products using the minimum
amount of physical resources, i.e., time, energy, and materials.
In the operate/sustain phase, the goals are the continued
operations with minimum downtime and performance that
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
meets the requirements set out in the create phase. The disposal
phase goals are the safe and effective disposal and recycling.
The intent of the IDT is to assist and augment the human in
reaching the goals that have always been present. It is not to
change the goals.
7.4 Anticipatory
The IDT is anticipatory. This is something that humans instinc-
tively do, although sometimes not very successfully. As goal
seeking/resource minimizing agents, humans attempt to look
ahead in time and adjust their current actions to obtain their
future goals. A common example of that is driving. Humans
continually evaluate the surrounding vehicles and adjust their
direction and velocity to avoid collisions. That humans do not
do a wonderful job is evidenced by the frequency of accidents.
The IDT could be of major assistance to humans in at least two
major areas: performing complex calculations to accurately
model and simulate physical events and preventing human
biases from tainting decision making.
I have in previous works discussed this type of capability
and given it the name of Front Running Simulation (FRS)
(Grieves, 2019). FRS attempts to anticipate the future and run
out “in front” of the physical twin. FRS is a constant running
simulation using the digital twin of complex products.
We have discussed the first characteristic of FRS at length in
the section on M&S. A core characteristic of the digital twin
is the ability to virtually model and simulate physical events.
It relies on the previously discussed digital twin’s ability to
manipulate time.
For the anticipatory IDT, what we would like is the IDT to
be constantly running simulations of the product as the prod-
uct performs its duties. Figure 7 takes Figure 5 and adds the
aspect of the physical twin. At every new defined T0, the physical
twin feeds its new, current state information into the IDT.
The IDT would then run a new simulation, utilizing not only
the history and current state of this physical twin but also infor-
mation from the Digital Twin Aggregate (DTA) of all products
in this class. The IDT would run this new simulation from
Figure 7. Front Running Simulation (FRS).
Page 11 of 18

that point in time into the future to determine how the product
would perform given this new T0 current state and environment.
This would allow the IDT to predict future adverse events that
would occur if the product continued on its current course.
With the exponential advances of computing power, the IDT
could run multiple scenarios and use Bayesian probabilities
to give probabilities of adverse events, allowing the human
to assess the risk.
The second characteristic of FRS is to prevent human biases
from tainting and even preventing good decisions. Humans
have two biases that often lead to disastrous decision. These
biases are the confirmation bias and the optimism bias
(Kahneman, 2011).
Confirmation bias is the human tendency to only value infor-
mation that confirms the perception that a person already has.
Optimism bias is the tendency to view optimistic outcomes as
having a much higher probability than they actually have. Exam-
ples abound of disasters that have resulted from these biases, the
Tenerife accident discussed above, the Air France 447 accident
off of Brazil (Palmer, 2013), the BP Gulf Disaster (Graham
et al., 2011), and many others (Perrow, 1984).
On that basis, the IDT can provide valuable assistance to
humans. The IDT can process all the data and information avail-
able to it in an accurate and unbiased manner. It can explore a
wide variety of scenarios by modifying parameters, calculating
probabilities, and providing humans with estimates of outcomes
based on current conditions and actions.
7.5 Intelligent digital twins throughout the lifecycle
The digital twin’s value is always driven by use cases. The
question always needs to be: can the information from the
digital twin replace wasted physical resources of time, energy,
and material? If it can, and the cost of collecting, processing,
storing, and retrieving the information is less than the cost of
wasting material resources, then the information should be
created and used.
Figure 8 shows common digital twin use cases organized by
product lifecycle phase. This is by no means a comprehen-
sive list, but it shows a scope of the usage of digital twins in
today’s modern product organization.
Our intent is to move as much work from the physical world
to the virtual world as we can and as makes economic sense.
Virtual bits will continue get become cheaper at an exponential
rate. Physical atoms will become more expensive, if only at
the rate of inflation.
7.5.1 Create phase. The create phase is obviously the most
important part of product development. It is in this phase
that we start the life of a new product. Theoretically there is
nothing that exists at the beginning of this phase. There is no
digital twin and certainly no physical twin.
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
Figure 8. Digital twin use cases.
The reality is that we rarely start from a blank sheet of paper
for a revolutionary new product. The vast majority of the
time we start with some components that are already in exist-
ence and that may be repurposed for the new product. A great
deal of the time we are developing the next generation of a
previous product.
If as stated previously, we want to create the product
virtually, test the product virtually, manufacture the product
virtually, and support and sustain the product virtually, then
the create phase is about using as much virtual capability as we
can. It is in this create phase that the IDT, linking AI and M&S,
can provide tremendous value.
Our first order of business is to create the requirements that
we want this product to have. These requirements will drive the
development of the DTP that will provide the foundation for
the physical products to come. This DTP is defined as all the
products that we can make, with all its variants.
Once we have our requirements, which in essence is the new
product system, this forms the basis for our new DTP. We use
the tools of the Product Lifecycle Management system (PLM)
that share the characteristics of our IDT. We want this capabil-
ity to be active, online, goal seeking, and anticipatory. We can
almost think of this as an uber digital twin.
This is where cued availability comes in the play, with an active
IDT looking to assist the product developers. It is active. As
a developer works on a new product, from requirements to
full product design and manufacturing realization, the IDT
can assist him or her. The IDT can monitor the work and
present the designer with material that he or she may not even
know that they need. This requires constant online access.
The IDT can assess shapes and present exemplars of things
already designed in order to assist. It can look for designs
Page 12 of 18
 Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022

that are similar in form and function or even the same as parts
that have been previously designed and present those designs,
so they are not re-created. It can continually run analysis on
designs using the requirements in order to make early deter-
minations of the design meeting the requirements and provide
early warnings when that is not the case.
The IDT needs to be anticipatory. The IDT can look for inter-
face problems among different designers and engineers, so as
to eliminate problems of parts not fitting together. It can run
early simulations of related components to ensure that they are
interfacing and working the way they are intended. Looking
at the list of use cases, there are always use cases that would
benefit by an IDT maintaining the information and providing
analysis as an early warning to product designers and engineers.
Goal seeking at this stage is driven by the requirements. Our
goal is to produce a new product that meets the characteris-
tics of the requirements, minimizing the use of resources in
doing so. We test that by M&S capabilities that check to see
if the requirements are met as we go through the test phase and
model and simulate operation / sustainment performance.
In this phase, we not only need to create a product that meets
the design requirements, but we also need to create a produc-
tion process that will produce a physical representation of
our digital product. We need to do so efficiently and effec-
tively. This means that we will need a digital twin of the factory
production process in order to determine that this production
process will result in the physical product we desire. Again,
M&S of the factory will allow us to determine that our pro-
duction process will produce the physical twins effectively
and efficiently.
7.5.2 Build phase. In the build phase, the focus is on
creating a physical twin that as closely as possible replicates a
variant of the DTP. It is in this phase that we also want to create
the DTI of the specific physical twin that we manufacture. We
would like this manufacturing process to as closely as possible
duplicate the M&S manufacturing process that we developed
in the create phase.
As shown in Table 1, manufacturing facilities exist on a
spectrum from simple to complex. On the simple end of the
spectrum, a single machine may be the manufacturing proc-
ess. It may not need a DT, let alone an IDT. On the complex
end of the spectrum, where we have a large number of machines
performing different processes, we need DTs of the machines
organized in a consistent system.
In the latter case, the IDT that we want to employ is the IDT of
the factory itself. We want that IDT of the factory to be active
and online. We want the IDT to be constantly monitoring the
factory floor for issues that will impact either the productivity
or the quality of the products that we are manufacturing.
The concept of factory replication is that information about
our factory is always instantaneously and simultaneously avail-
able to any authorized user (Grieves, 2014). Factory replication
requires that the IDT be online at all times. The goal seeking
that we want is producing quality parts as efficiently as
possible. The IDT, through cued availability, would be
suggesting improvements in our processes as it determined
how we actually produce the product versus how we thought we
were going to produce the product.
The anticipatory aspect comes into play with FRS. By con-
stantly simulating the future state of the factory, we can predict
issues such as bottlenecks before they occur and take remedial
action to prevent those issues. With the right information, we can
do that at this macro level for the factory and at the micro level
for individual equipment. We want to be able to move
from periodic maintenance based on MTBF to prognostic
maintenance based on performance indicators. This
means that we would fix problems before they occur as
opposed to performing maintenance on a periodic basis.

Table 1. Levels of manufacturing.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Single, independent Multiple, independent Large number of Large number of Multiple interdependent
machines with simple machines limited in machines, both machines, both machines geographically
processes with single number with simple independent and independent and dispersed both within the
material source processes performed in interdependent, with interdependent, with both organization and through
performed within the a static, linear fashion. both simple and simple and complicated a supply network with
machine. Product is Material is limited to a complicated processes. processes. Routing of complicated processes
simple in form with no few sources. Product Routing of parts is parts is dynamic. There is and a wide range of
variants or assemblies. has limited number of dynamic. High volume a wide variety of material. materials. Requires
Only information variants with simple of data. Wide variety of Multiple locations with real-time data exchange
required can be assembly information material. Single location. coordinated material/parts between machines.
visually obtained and can be tracked on flow.
managed/controlled simple paper forms
by a supervisor. Single or single screen apps.
location. Single location.

Simple Complicated Complicated Complex Complex

Page 13 of 18

This is where the digital twin differs from Industry 4.0. Indus-
try 4.0 has as its goal the reduction of time from an adverse
event to its remediation (Schuh et al., 2016). If we can collect
sufficient information of our factory equipment, we should
be able to predict failures and fix them before they occur
(Nikolopoulos, 2020).
The other anticipatory aspect is to be looking for weak
signals or anomalies. These are signals that are often ignored by
humans, but an indication that something is going wrong (Weick
& Sutcliffe, 2007). The IDT would process this information
taking into account that looking for weak signals is important,
so that the IDT can detect conditions that will result in failures
in the future and surface them early.
7.5.3 Operate/sustain. In the operation/sustainment phase, there
are numerous opportunities for the IDT. The complex products
of today, modern jet fighters, massive drilling platforms, and
sophisticated medical devices, are beyond human processing
capabilities in order to understand exactly what these products
are doing. The IDT in this phase needs to be active in looking
for issues of performance, comparing them to the perform-
ance expected, and either adjusting software to compensate
for the degradation, alerting humans to the issue early on, or
at least identifying the problem for future generations of the
product. At a minimum, we want to close the loop between the
operations/sustainment phase and the creation phase. We do this
by feeding the data of the actual performance of the product
to the designers and engineers who create these products.
While the classical digital twin could collect a great deal of this
information, it was on a periodic basis, with potential long lag
times between collecting the data and transmitting that infor-
mation to its digital twin. The online aspect means that we
would be collecting information on a constant basis.
Goal seeking is built in the requirements for the product, so the
intent of the IDT would be to continually to match the actual
performance with requirements and make whatever adjust-
ments were required to obtain the required performance. This
would also mean that the IDT would learn as the product
matured in life so that it could compensate for degradation. It
would then feed that information to the Digital Twin Aggregate
so that it would be propagated to other DTIs.
The emergent aspect of complex systems due to AI being incor-
porated into these products make IDTs critical. The initial
product designers of these systems are by definition unable to
References
Baldwin WC, Felder WN, Sauser BJ: Taxonomy of increasingly complex
systems. Int J Ind Syst Eng. 2011; 9(3): 298–316.
Publisher Full Text
Graham B, Reilly W, Beinecke F, et al.: Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
predict all the system responses. The IDT will be needed to
provide overwatch capability for these emergent systems. As
the AI changes parameters of the system, these changes need to
be transmitted to its DTI. At a minimum, the DTI will have a
record of the changes made to analyze if something goes wrong,
and the physical twin is damaged or destroyed. In the ideal situ-
ation, the intelligent DTI will predict the adverse condition
and intervene to prevent it from happening.
8 Conclusions
Digital twins have emerged as a top technological initiative
in the 21st century. The ability to move work from the physi-
cal world into the virtual world will enable products to be
faster, better, and cheaper6. The proliferation of products that
are more complex with emergent capabilities will require the
information capabilities of digital twins throughout the entire
product lifecycle. Digital twins exist from the moment there
is an intended product since the information about a product
will always precede its physical manifestation.
Digital twins will need to evolve in order to meet the challenge
of increasingly complex products. The advances in AI and M&S
will make possible the Intelligent digital twin. Digital twins
will move from being an information repository to providing
constant guidance to their human users.
The characteristics of IDTs are that they are active, online, goal
seeking, and anticipatory. This will enable IDTs, enabled by the
exponential increases in computing capability, to apply their
abilities in moving in time to predict the future by constantly
performing simulations of possible futures from current
states. The Front Running Simulations (FRS) of IDTs will
provide, at a minimum, overwatch of their associated Physical
Twins and ideally predict adverse condition so as to prevent
those adverse events from happening.
The movement of work from the physical world to the virtual
world will be a hallmark of the 21st century. AI and M&S will
enable Intelligent Digital Twins and will greatly assist humans in
the work with developing emergent products. Intelligent Digital
Twins will not replace humans.
Data availability
No data are associated with this article.
R
6
There was a longstanding joke at NASA that went: “Faster, better,
cheaper – pick two.”
the Future of Offshore Drilling. National Commission on the BP Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill Offshore Drilling - GPO. 2011.
Reference Source
Grieves M: Business is war: An investigation into metaphor use in Internet
Page 14 of 18

and non-Internet IPOs. EDM diss., Weatherhead School of Management, Case
Western Reserve University. 2000.
Grieves M: Completing the Cycle: Using PLM Information in the Sales and
Service Functions [Slides]. SME Management Forum, Troy, MI. 2002.
Grieves M: Product Lifecycle Management: Driving the Next Generation of
Lean Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2006.
Reference Source
Grieves M: Virtually Indistinguishable: Systems Engineering and PLM.
In Product Lifecycle Management: Towards Knowledge-Rich Enterprises, edited
by L. Rivest, A. Bouras and B. Louhichi, Montreal: Springer, 2012; 226–242.
Reference Source
Grieves M: Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence through Virtual Factory
Replication (White Paper). Florida Institute of Technology. 2014.
Reference Source
Grieves M: The Evolution of the Digital Twin. IM+io Best and Next Practices,
March, 2018; 66–69.
Reference Source
Grieves M: Virtually Intelligent Product Systems: Digital and Physical
Twins. In Complex Systems Engineering: Theory and Practice, edited by Shannon
Flumerfelt, Katherine Schwarttz, Dimitri Mavris and Simon Briceno, In Progress
in Astronautics and Aeronautics, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. 2019; 175–200.
Publisher Full Text
Grieves M, Vickers J: Digital Twin: Mitigating Unpredictable, Undesirable
Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems. In Trans-Disciplinary Perspectives
on System Complexity, edited by Franz-Josef Kahlen, Shannon Flumerfelt and
Anabela Alves, Switzerland: Springer. 2017; 85–114.
Publisher Full Text
Iansiti M: Technology integration: making critical choices in a dynamic
world. The management of innovation and change series. Boston, Mass.
Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
Reference Source
Kahneman D: Thinking, fast and slow. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2011.
Reference Source
Kurzweil R: The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. New
York: Viking, 2005.
Reference Source
Laplace PS: A philosophical essay on probabilities. 2d ed. New York: J. Wiley,
1917.
Reference Source
Ledford H: Language: Disputed Definitions. Nature. 2008; 455(7216):
1023–1028.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Levesque HJ, Davis E, Morgenstern L: The winograd schema challenge.
Thirteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge
Representation and Reasoning, 2012.
Reference Source
Lyytinen K: Innovation logics in the digital era: a systemic review of the
emerging digital innovation regime. Innovation: Organization & Management.
2021; 1–22.
Publisher Full Text
Marr B: What Is Digital Twin Technology - And Why Is It So Important?
Forbes.com. Accessed Sept 9. 2017.
Reference Source
Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022
Mitchell M: Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford England; New York: Oxford
University Press. 2009.
Publisher Full Text
Moore GE: Cramming more components onto integrated circuits.
Electronics, 1965.
Publisher Full Text
Moravec HP: Mind children: the future of robot and human intelligence.
Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. 1988.
Reference Source
Nikolopoulos S: Digital Twins Are the Next “Advancement Over Industry
4.0”. Thomas Insights. (blog), Thomas Industry. June 3, 2020.
Reference Source
Palmer W: Understanding Air France 447. 2013.
Reference Source
Perrow C: Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. New York:
Basic Books. 1984.
Reference Source
Piascik R, Vickers J, Lowry D, et al.: Technology Area 12: Materials, Structures,
Mechanical Systems, and Manufacturing Road Map. NASA Office of Chief
Technologist. 2010.
Reference Source
Ramachandran VS: The tell-tale brain: a neuroscientist’s quest for what
makes us human. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton. 2011.
Reference Source
Schuh G, Anderl R, Gausemeier J, et al.: Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index:
Managing the Digital Transformation of Companies. acatech (acatech).
2016.
Reference Source
Seung S: Connectome: how the brain’s wiring makes us who we are. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2012.
Reference Source
Siegenfeld AF, Bar-Yam Y: An Introduction to Complex Systems Science and
its Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1912.05088. 2019.
Reference Source
Stacey BC, Allen B, Bar-Yam Y: Multiscale information theory for complex
systems: Theory and applications. Inform Complexity. World Scientific. 2017;
176–199.
Publisher Full Text
Tegmark M: Life 3.0: being human in the age of artificial intelligence. First
edition. ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 2017.
Reference Source
Turing A: Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind. 1950; LIX(236):
433–460.
Publisher Full Text
Weick KE: The Vulnerable System: An Analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster.
J Manage. 1990; 16(3): 571–593.
Publisher Full Text
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM: Managing the unexpected: resilient performance
in an age of uncertainty. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 2007.
Reference Source
Zeiss R, Ixmeier A, Recker J, et al.: Mobilising information systems
scholarship for a circular economy: Review, synthesis, and directions for
future research. Inform Syst J. 2020; 31(1): 148–183.
Publisher Full Text
Page 15 of 18
Digital Twin Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022

Open Peer Review

Current Peer Review Status:

Version 1

Reviewer Report 27 May 2022

https://doi.org/10.21956/digitaltwin.18853.r26976

© 2022 McNair W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

William Randell McNair

1 Stichting USPI-NL, Randstad, The Netherlands
2 University of South Florida, Muma College of Business, Tampa, FL, USA
3 MetaPassageways, Lakeland, FL, USA

The author's tone is authoritative and reflects an in depth understanding of the subject matter
and principles covered in the article. There is high fidelity with the current literature on the topic,
and in each case of author's use of self-citations they are included for brevity and in some
instances to point out that his own perspective is evolving with the maturity of the digital twin
domain. The rapid increase in scholarship on the subject of digital twins is evidenced by the
relatively recent creation of this journal.

I found the author's use of metaphor helpful in communicating abstract concepts and clearly
reflects the most recent scholarship related to evolution of digital twins to higher levels of
maturity and complexity. The illustrations, though somewhat dated as modern infographics go,
are consistent with respect to technical accuracy and alignment with generally accepted academic
standards for published material in peer-reviewed open access journals. 

The citations included accurately reflect the content or arguments made by the author or the
context of the principles described in the article. However, there were a few minor exceptions that
the author should consider revising in the publication in order to improve it potential impact with
respect to its scientific rigor.

Specifically, in section 3, where the author introduces a quote attributed to Pierre Simon, the
Marquis de Laplace. I could not find any translation of that actual statement in the 1902 version of
the essay included as a link in the reference section. A google search included several instances of
that quote being attributed to "Pierre Simon Laplace", but none met the standard of academic
credibility expected for a journal article. My suggestion would be to change the statement as
follows: "The famous mathematician, Pierre Simon de Laplace, has been popularly paraphrased as
saying 'Give me the positions...' (Laplace, 1902)". Then include a footnote that states this adage is
most likely a popularization of the statement regarding "an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit

 
Page 16 of 18
Digital Twin Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022

these data to analysis" (Laplace, 1902, p. 4) in the first edition English translation of the 6th edition
of PSL's essays published in French during the 19th Century (circa 1814). At a minimum, I suggest
a correction of the embedded link for this reference to point to the 2nd Edition English Translation
(1917) or change the reference to the 1st Edition English translation (1902). 

In a couple instances in section 6, the author indicates present tense when referring to activity
occurring in 2020 ("we have reached 54 billion...") and in 2021 ("Perform a Google inquiry.. and
Google returns...4 billion results"). The actual current google return in 2022 is now over 10 billion,
further illustrating the author's point, however the way it is worded may imply the article was
written over the span of several years.

In the case of the 2020 reference mentioned above, the discussion about the impact of Moore's
law does not account for the fact that there is some debate in academia as to whether Moore's
Law will still be valid in light of quantum computing innovations. This topic is discussed in the 2021
IRDS Executive Summary (ieee.org). I do not think the author overstated transistor capacity, if
anything it is understated as the scale moves from logarithmic to exponential once quantum
computing processing power dynamics are factored; according to the International Roadmap for
Devices and Systems (IRDS) quantum computing capabilities will just begin to make an impact by
2030 (IRDS, 2021a, p.12). My only suggestion here would be to reference the IRDS 2021 Executive
Summary report as a way of reinforcing the concept of capacity dynamics so that the so called "
Moore more" initiated reader does not get distracted by the potential scaling limitations of
Moore's Law. A simple footnote may suffice. 

There was one minor instance where the link included in the reference section pointed to a review
of the text rather than the referenced text itself. I have already mentioned the issue with the
incorrect link for the article's "(Laplace, 1917)" reference on page 15 but this could be mitigated
easily as suggested above. 

Overall, the author does an excellent job articulating the subject matter of this article and makes a
compelling argument for applying the revised "Grieves Test of Virtuality" to the domain of
"prediction". I agree that the application of AI coupled with Digital Twin technology in the arena of
incident prevention is strong use case for greater adoption of Modeling and Simulation with AI. I
recently attended an interesting presentation at the Connected Worker Summit in Houston
featuring Nigel Packham, Associate Director of Safety at NASA. He made an impassioned plea for
industry to leverage AI and Modeling and Simulation technology to prevent the next major
industrial disaster. He stated that in 1981 the space shuttle assessed the probabilistic risk
assessment for loss of crew (LOC) as between 1:1,000 and 1:10,000. By the end of NASA's space
shuttle program in 2011, more modern analytical tools and data from actual incidents revealed
that the true probability of LOC was 1:12 (Packham, 2021). 

What latent risk is the modern complex industrial facility decision maker missing that could be
exposed by AI and advanced Modeling and Simulation? The author of this article has proposed a
viable technique for assessing that value and strengthens the business case for investing in more
and more testing of assumptions.

In summary, this opinion article entitled "Intelligent digital twins and the development and
management of complex systems" is impactful in that it provides the reader with concise
nomenclature, clearly describes complex concepts in understandable terms, employing relevant

 
Page 17 of 18
 Digital Twin Digital Twin 2022, 2:8 Last updated: 27 MAY 2022

examples and strong academic rigor in the research conducted to support the author's
conclusions. The author makes the case for full lifecycle management of complex digital twins and
that supports recent scholarship on this matter.

I believe the few minor opportunities for improvement identified here in this review can be easily
mitigated resulting in an influential publication that will certainly be cited by others in this
research domain for many years to come.

Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current
literature?
Yes

Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Yes

Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Digital Twins of Complex Facilities, Information Asset Management, Energy
Transition, Process Safety Information Management, Digital Transformation, Sustainability, 3D
Modeling, Decision Informing Systems, Informing Science

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 
Page 18 of 18

View publication stats