2.3.2 An Architecture‐Centric Approach for Systems Design

The most critical requirements for the lifetime value of a system are its non-functional requirements such as reliability, security, maintainability, changeability, etc. These are collectively known as the ‘ilities’ and are typically addressed in system design once the functional architecture has been developed. In this paper we propose the use of architecture-centric design that modifies this standard workflow so that those non-functional requirements, which actually reflect the true business needs, are addressed first. This ensures that the final system better reflects and embodies those architecturally-significant requirements rather than having them addressed secondarily. This is an important change since the ‘ilities’ are systemic properties (properties of the system as a whole) rather than systematic properties (properties of individual components or sub-systems) and are therefore difficult to address once the functional architecture has been determined and the separation of concerns is already somewhat completed. We provide an example of the approach based around a simplified case study of an online, on-board health monitoring system for shipboard gas turbine electricity generators that collects, filters, analyzes, transmits, and mines sensor data from the generators subsystems.

[1]  Alexander H. Levis,et al.  C4ISR architectures : III. An Object-Oriented approach for architecture design , 2000 .

[2]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Measuring the Value of Flexibility in Space Systems: A Six‐Element Framework , 2007, Syst. Eng..

[3]  Colin J. Neill,et al.  Adding temporal modeling to the UML to support systems design , 2002 .

[4]  David Garlan,et al.  Software Architecture and Object-Oriented Systems , 2000 .

[5]  Markus Levy,et al.  Measuring Multicore Performance , 2008, Computer.

[6]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options , 2008 .

[7]  Philippe Kruchten,et al.  The 4+1 View Model of Architecture , 1995, IEEE Softw..

[8]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Measuring the life-cycle value of enduring systems , 2008 .

[9]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Defining changeability: Reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value , 2008 .

[10]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Measuring the Value of Flexibility in Space Systems: A Six-Element Framework: Regular Papers , 2007 .

[11]  Mark W. Maier System and software architecture reconciliation , 2006 .

[12]  Alexander H. Levis,et al.  C4ISR architectures: II. A structured analysis approach for architecture design , 2000 .

[13]  Colin J. Neill,et al.  How Business Goals Drive Architectural Design , 2007, Computer.

[14]  Cihan H. Dagli,et al.  Modeling and simulation of net centric system of systems using systems modeling language and colored Petri-nets: A demonstration using the global earth observation system of systems , 2008 .

[15]  Colin J. Neill,et al.  Structural Complexity in Architecture-Centric Software Evolution , 2008, Computer.

[16]  Michael R. Macedonia The Future Arrives ... Finally , 2007, Computer.

[17]  Alexander H. Levis,et al.  C4ISR Architectures: I. Developing a Process for C4ISR Architecture Design , 2000 .

[18]  Colin J. Neill,et al.  Integrating a software architecture-centric method into object-oriented analysis and design , 2008, J. Syst. Softw..