Time-expanded decision networks: A framework for designing evolvable complex systems

This paper describes the concept of Time-Expanded Decision Networks (TDNs), a new methodology to design and analyze flexibility in large-scale complex systems. This includes a preliminary application of the methodology to the design of Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles for NASA's space exploration initiative. Synthesizing concepts from Decision Theory, Real Options Analysis, Network Optimization, and Scenario Planning, TDN provides a holistic framework to quantify the value of system flexibility, analyze development and operational paths, and identify designs that can allow managers and systems engineers to react more easily to exogenous uncertainty. TDN consists of five principle steps, which can be implemented as a software tool: (1) Design a set of potential system configurations; (2) quantify switching costs to create a “static network” that captures the difficulty of switching among these configurations; (3) create a time-expanded decision network by expanding the static network in time, including chance and decision nodes; (4) evaluate minimum cost paths through the network under plausible operating scenarios; and (5) modify the set of initial design configurations to exploit high-leverage switches and repeat the process to convergence. Results can inform decisions about how and where to embed flexibility in order to enable system evolution along various development and operational paths. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 10: 167–186, 2007 An earlier version of this paper was published and presented as follows: M. Silver and O. de Weck, Time-expanded decision network methodology for designing evolvable systems, AIAA-2006-6964, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optim Conf, Portsmouth, VA, September 6–8, 2006.

[1]  Kenneth J. Arrow,et al.  Increasing returns: historiographic issues and path dependence , 2000 .

[2]  Paul L. Joskow,et al.  Vertical integration and long term contracts : the case of coal burning electric generating plants , 1985 .

[3]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[4]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Innovation in Industry and the Diffusion of Technology , 1974, Science.

[5]  Armin P. Schulz,et al.  Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle , 2005 .

[6]  R. Henderson.  Of life cycles real and imaginary : the unexpectedly long old age of optical lithography , 1995 .

[7]  L. Trigeorgis.  Real Options in Capital Investment: Models, Strategies, and Applications , 1995 .

[8]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Option Value of Modularity in Design: An Example From Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[9]  James R. Wertz,et al.  Space Mission Analysis and Design , 1992 .

[10]  D. R. Fulkerson,et al.  Flows in Networks. , 1964 .

[11]  Lester C. Thurow,et al.  The Delta Project: Discovering New Sources of Profitability in a Networked Economy , 2001 .

[12]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Staged Deployment of Communications Satellite Constellations in Low Earth Orbit , 2004, J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun..

[13]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

[14]  Avinash Dixit,et al.  Investment and Hysteresis , 1992 .

[15]  P. John Clarkson,et al.  Change and customisation in complex engineering domains , 2004 .

[16]  Martin Skutella,et al.  Time-Expanded Graphs for Flow-Dependent Transit Times , 2002, ESA.

[17]  S. Liebowitz,et al.  Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History , 1995 .

[18]  P. David.  Path Dependence, its Critics, and the Quest for ‘Historical Economics’ , 2005 .

[19]  H. D. Ratliff,et al.  Note—Some Equivalent Objectives for Dynamic Network Flow Problems , 1982 .

[20]  Glenda H. Eoyang,et al.  Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity Science , 2001 .

[21]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Determining Product Platform Extent , 2006 .

[22]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Designing Sustainable Launch Systems: Flexibility, Lock-In and System Evolution , 2005 .

[23]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Flexible design of commercial systems under market uncertainty: framework and application , 2004 .

[24]  Matthew Silver.  Heavy Lift Launch: When is Bigger Not Better? , 2005 .

[25]  Christine Taylor,et al.  Coupled Vehicle Design and Network Flow Optimization for Air Transportation Systems , 2007 .

[26]  T. Guinnane,et al.  Path Dependence, Network Form, and Technological Change , 2000 .

[27]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  10.1.3 Agile SYSTEMS ENGINEERING versus AGILE SYSTEMS engineering , 2005 .

[28]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial - 3rd Edition , 1981 .

[29]  C. Shapiro.  The theory of business strategy. , 1989, The Rand journal of economics.

[30]  Karl Iagnemma,et al.  Reconfigurability in planetary surface vehicles : Modelling approaches and case study , 2006 .

[31]  R. Shishko,et al.  Lessons learned from the space station program: the role of life-cycle cost , 2002 .

[32]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Systems Competition and Network Effects , 1994 .

[33]  R. Cowan.  Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in , 1990, The Journal of Economic History.

[34]  Ulrich Witt,et al.  "Lock-in" vs. "critical masses" -- Industrial change under network externalities , 1997 .

[35]  Simone Wiegand,et al.  Thermal nonequilibrium phenomena in fluid mixtures , 2002 .

[36]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Flexible product platforms: framework and case study , 2007 .

[37]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy , 1996 .

[38]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma , 1997 .

[39]  Eun Suk Suh,et al.  Flexible product platforms: framework and case study , 2007, DAC 2006.

[40]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[41]  Ravindra K. Ahuja,et al.  Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications , 1993 .

[42]  G. Dosi,et al.  Technical Change and Economic Theory , 1989 .