Theoretical Foundations for Preference Representation in Systems Engineering

The realization of large-scale complex engineered systems is contingent upon satisfaction of the preferences of the stakeholder. With numerous decisions being involved in all the aspects of the system lifecycle, from conception to disposal, it is critical to have an explicit and rigorous representation of stakeholder preferences to be communicated to key personnel in the organizational hierarchy. Past work on stakeholder preference representation and communication in systems engineering has been primarily requirement-driven. More recent value-based approaches still do not offer a rigorous framework on how to represent stakeholder preferences but assume that an overarching value function that can precisely capture stakeholder preferences exists. This article provides a formalism based on modal preference logic to aid in rigorous representation and communication of stakeholder preferences. Formal definitions for the different types of stakeholder preferences encountered in a systems engineering context are provided in addition to multiple theorems that improve the understanding of the relationship between stakeholder preferences and the solution space.

[1]  R. Chisholm.  The Intrinsic Value in Disjunctive States of Affairs , 1975 .

[2]  Paul Wach,et al.  Constructing True Model-Based Requirements in SysML , 2019, Syst..

[3]  Seth Graybeal.  Systems Engineering Postulates, Principles, Hypotheses , 2018 .

[4]  Ronald S. Carson.  1.6.4 Requirements Completeness: A Deterministic Approach , 1998 .

[5]  Christina Bloebaum,et al.  A Game Theory approach to Bargaining over Attributes of Complex Systems in the context of Value-Driven Design , 2016 .

[6]  D. Selva,et al.  The impact of technical complexity on the decision to collaborate and combine , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[7]  Eliot Winer,et al.  A Value-Driven Design Approach to Optimize a Family of Front-Loading Washing Machines , 2016, Design Automation Conference.

[8]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Preferences in artificial intelligence , 2016, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[9]  Ronald S. Carson,et al.  Requirements Completeness : A Deterministic Approach , 1998 .

[10]  Fenrong Liu,et al.  Von Wright’s “The Logic of Preference” revisited , 2010, Synthese.

[11]  Dirk van Dalen,et al.  Logic and structure , 1980 .

[12]  Bryan Mesmer,et al.  Integrating Model-Based Systems Engineering and Value-Based Design with an NEA Scout Small Satellite Example , 2017 .

[13]  Improved foundations for a logic of intrinsic value , 1977 .

[14]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Handbook of epistemic logic , 2015 .

[15]  Peter Hollingsworth,et al.  An Investigation of Value Modelling for Commercial Aircraft , 2011 .

[16]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  CP-nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning withConditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[17]  Olivier Roy,et al.  Preference logic, conditionals and solution concepts in games , 2005 .

[18]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements , 2005, TSEM.

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

[20]  Lawrence D. Pohlmann,et al.  The Engineering Design of Systems – Models and Methods , 2000 .

[21]  Daniel D. McCracken,et al.  Backus-Naur form (BNF) , 2003 .

[22]  C. J. Leising,et al.  Spacecraft complexity subfactors and implications on future cost growth , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[23]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .

[24]  Raian Ali,et al.  Reasoning with contextual requirements: Detecting inconsistency and conflicts , 2013, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[25]  Garima Bhatia,et al.  Mathematical Representation of Stakeholder Preferences for the SPORT Small Satellite Project , 2018 .

[26]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  The Concept of Order of Conflict in Requirements Engineering , 2016, IEEE Systems Journal.

[27]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Everything Else Being Equal: A Modal Logic for Ceteris Paribus Preferences , 2009, J. Philos. Log..

[28]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[29]  Christina L. Bloebaum,et al.  Preference Modeling for Government-Owned Large-Scale Complex Engineered Systems: A Satellite Case Study , 2018 .

[30]  Bryan Mesmer,et al.  Representation of knowledge for a NASA stakeholder value model , 2019, Syst. Eng..

[31]  B. Hansson.  Fundamental axioms for preference relations , 1968, Synthese.

[32]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking , 1996 .

[33]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Logical representation of preference: a brief survey , 2006, Decision Theory and Multi-Agent Planning.

[34]  Adrian Murphy,et al.  An Analytical Study of Surplus Value using a Value Driven Design Methodology , 2011 .

[35]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Managing Conflicts in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[36]  Thomas E. Allen,et al.  CP-nets: From Theory to Practice , 2015, ADT.

[37]  N. Rescher.  The Logic of Preference , 1968 .

[38]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  Multidisciplinary Design Optimization for Complex Engineered Systems: Report From a National Science Foundation Workshop , 2011 .

[39]  Ali E. Abbas,et al.  Foundations of Multiattribute Utility , 2018 .

[40]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Handbook of Modal Logic , 2007, Studies in logic and practical reasoning.

[41]  E. Sosa,et al.  On the Logic of "Intrinsically Better" , 1966 .

[42]  Eliot Winer,et al.  Toward a Value-Driven Design Approach for Complex Engineered Systems Using Trade Space Exploration Tools , 2014, DAC 2014.

[43]  S. Hansson.  A new semantical approach to the logic of preference , 1989 .

[44]  P. Malone,et al.  Measuring system complexity to support development cost estimates , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[45]  Christina Bloebaum,et al.  Impact of Organization Structure on the Value of a System in Systems Engineering , 2015 .

[46]  James Robertson,et al.  Mastering the Requirements Process: Getting Requirements Right , 2012 .

[47]  Nicholas J. Moutafakis,et al.  The Logics of Preference: A Study of Prohairetic Logics in Twentieth Century Philosophy , 1987 .

[48]  Heinz Stoewer.  System Engineering Analysis, Design, and Development: Concepts, Principles, and Practices, 2nd Edition by Charles S. Wasson Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley @ Sons, Inc., 2016 (ISBN-978-1-118-44226-5) , 2017 .

[49]  David A. Bearden,et al.  A complexity-based risk assessment of low-cost planetary missions: when is a mission too fast and too cheap? , 2003 .

[50]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  The Tension Matrix and the Concept of Elemental Decomposition: Improving Identification of Conflicting Requirements , 2017, IEEE Systems Journal.

[51]  Nic Wilson,et al.  Extending CP-Nets with Stronger Conditional Preference Statements , 2004, AAAI.

[52]  Hanumanthrao Kannan,et al.  An MDO augmented value-based systems engineering approach to holistic design decision-making: A satellite system case study , 2015 .

[53]  P. Malone,et al.  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles unique cost estimating requirements , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[54]  G. Wright.  The logic of preference reconsidered , 1972 .

[55]  Sven Ove Hansson.  Preference-based deontic logic (PDL) , 1990, J. Philos. Log..

[56]  Christina L. Bloebaum,et al.  Increased System Consistency through Incorporation of Coupling in Value-Based Systems Engineering , 2017, Syst. Eng..

[57]  Paul Collopy,et al.  Value-Driven Design , 2009 .

[58]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  Introduction to Logic, Second Edition , 2013, Introduction to Logic.

[59]  C. Bloebaum,et al.  Incorporation of Value-Driven Design in Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 2013 .

[60]  Paul Collopy,et al.  Report on the Science of Systems Engineering Workshop , 2015 .

[61]  James Scanlan,et al.  Application of value-driven design to commercial aero-engine systems , 2010 .

[62]  John Yen,et al.  An analytic framework for specifying and analyzing imprecise requirements , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[63]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic , 2012 .

[64]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Dynamic logic of preference upgrade , 2007, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.