Architecting Systems of Systems with Ilities: An Overview of the SAI Method

The uncertain and fast-changing nature of operational environments is driving a growing interest in systems that display desirable lifecycle properties (i.e., ilities). A survivable, flexible, or evolvable (among other properties) system is able to sustain value delivery over time by responding to exogenous changes in the operational environment. This paper introduces the SoS Architecting with Ilities (SAI) method, which enables systems architects to design for ilities from the conceptual design phase. An overview of the SAI method is presented, to expose the reader to the most important steps and activities of the method, and how they are specifically targeted at enabling SoS design with ilities.

[1]  Brian Mekdeci,et al.  Managing the impact of change through survivability and pliability to achieve viable systems of systems , 2013 .

[2]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[3]  Jay Clark Beesemyer.  Empirically characterizing evolvability and changeability in engineering systems , 2012 .

[4]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  A Generalized Options-based Approach to Mitigate Perturbations in a Maritime Security System-of-Systems , 2013, CSER.

[5]  T. Saaty.  Decision making — the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP) , 2004 .

[6]  Donna H. Rhodes,et al.  Model-based estimation of flexibility and optionability in an integrated real options framework , 2009, 2009 3rd Annual IEEE Systems Conference.

[7]  Mark W. Maier,et al.  Architecting Principles for Systems‐of‐Systems , 1996 .

[8]  Matthew E. Fitzgerald,et al.  Considering alternative strategies for value sustainment in systems-of-systems , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon).

[9]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Multi-attribute tradespace exploration for survivability , 2013 .

[10]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  Five aspects of engineering complex systems emerging constructs and methods , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Systems Conference.

[11]  Azad M. Madni,et al.  Towards affordably adaptable and effective systems , 2013, Syst. Eng..

[12]  L. Spaanenburg,et al.  Design space exploration for a DT-CNN , 2008, 2008 11th International Workshop on Cellular Neural Networks and Their Applications.

[13]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Investigating Alternative Concepts of Operations for a Maritime Security System of Systems , 2012 .

[14]  Kristen Baldwin,et al.  An implementers' view of systems engineering for systems of systems , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Systems Conference.

[15]  Perry Edwards.  Systems Analysis, Design and Development with Structured Concepts , 1985 .

[16]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Controlling Change Within Complex Systems Through Pliability , 2012 .

[17]  John Klein,et al.  Army Workshop on Exploring Enterprise , System of Systems , System , and Software Architectures , 2009 .

[18]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  Evaluating system change options and timing using the epoch syncopation framework , 2012, CSER.

[19]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[20]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  Responsive systems comparison method: Dynamic insights into designing a satellite radar system , 2009 .

[21]  D. Rhodes,et al.  Title : A Prescriptive Semantic Basis for System Lifecycle Properties , 2012 .

[22]  Matthew E. Fitzgerald,et al.  8.4.1 Assessing Uncertain Benefits: a Valuation Approach for Strategic Changeability (VASC) , 2012 .

[23]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[24]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  Investigating Relationships and Semantic Sets amongst System Lifecycle Properties (Ilities) , 2012 .

[25]  A. M. Ross,et al.  A taxonomy of perturbations: Determining the ways that systems lose value , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Systems Conference SysCon 2012.