Using Real Options In Embedded Automotive System Design

The automotive customers demand new functionality with every new product release and the time-to-market is constantly shortened. The automotive embedded systems are characterized by being mechatronic systems which adds complexity. The systems are often resource constrained and trade-offs between the system behaviour and the resources required is of great importance. The system complexity and the many uncertain factors create a need for support in the design process. Many design features such as memory and processor capacity can be seen as options, i.e. giving you the right but not the obligation to use them in the future. The valuation method using Real Options provides the opportunity to analyze the cost of designing for future growth of a platform, based on the estimated value of the future functionality.In this paper the use of Real Options is applied on a real case within the automotive industry. The studied company develops commercial vehicles for a broad range of applications. In this case study a valuation is performed on two different design alternatives of function allocation. The design alternatives vary in hardware, software, cabling etc. The case study has been per-formed together with the developing organization and it has therefore been possible to observe the acceptance of the method. The study shows how Real Option valuation provides valuable guidance when making system design decisions and more importantly also show how it can be used and accepted by system engineers. The method does not only provide a way of valuing sys-tem designs, but it also forces the system engineer to think about the future in a systematic manor. The value of a flexible design can thereby be quantified making the trade-off between short and long term solutions more accurate.

[1]  Rami Bahsoon,et al.  Evaluating software architectures: development, stability, and evolution , 2003 .

[2]  T. Copeland Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide , 2001 .

[3]  Rick Kazman,et al.  Making Architecture Design Decisions: An Economic Approach , 2002 .

[4]  J. Hull Options, futures, and other derivative securities , 1989 .

[5]  Mark Klein,et al.  Making Architecture Design Decisions: An Economic , 2002 .

[6]  Rami Bahsoon,et al.  Using real options to select stable middleware-induced software architectures , 2005, IEE Proc. Softw..

[7]  Max P. Michaels,et al.  The real power of real options , 1997 .

[8]  Mikael Lindvall,et al.  Evaluating software architectures , 2004, Adv. Comput..

[9]  Somesh Jha,et al.  Software Design as an Investment Activity: A Real Options Perspective , 1998 .

[10]  Tao Wang,et al.  Real Options "in" Projects and Systems Design: Identification of Options and Solution for Path Dependency , 2008 .

[11]  R. Neufville Real Options: Dealing With Uncertainty in Systems Planning and Design , 2003 .

[12]  Johnathan Mun Real Options in Practice , 2009 .

[13]  Nikolaos Georgiopoulos Real Options , 2006 .

[14]  Rami Bahsoon,et al.  ArchOptions: A Real Options-Based Model for Predicting the Stability of Software Architectures , 2003 .

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

[16]  Prithviraj Banerjee,et al.  Describing, Assessing and Embedding Flexibility in System Architectures with Application to Wireless Terrestrial Networks and Handset Processors , 2004 .

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

[18]  Jakob Axelsson Cost Models with Explicit Uncertainties for Electronic Architecture Trade‐off and Risk Analysis , 2006 .

[19]  Ola Larses,et al.  Architecting and Modeling Automotive Embedded Systems , 2008 .