Tradespace Exploration for the Engineering of Resilient Systems

Abstract Tradespace exploration supports the Systems Engineering Technical Management Process of Decision Analysis by identifying compromises, revealing opportunities, and communicating the impacts of decisions across a system's development lifecycle. Critical program decisions are made based on the outcomes of trades; trades being performed with multiple types and quantities of data coming out of tools and methods employing qualitative and quantitative analyses. Tradespace exploration for Engineered Resilient Systems (ERS) is envisioned to coalesce pertinent information tuned to specific decision makers, at the appropriate time, presenting a holistic view of decision impacts on required system capabilities. This study provides an ERS view of tradespace exploration, which reveals that having a valid set of attributes, and an understanding of how a cross-section of tools can satisfy them, is insufficient – what is needed is a deeper understanding of how these tools are used and, more importantly, how they can be used when performing tradespace exploration in support of the Decision Analysis Process. Gaining this understanding will enable users to better assess if they possess the appropriate tradespace exploration tools. A holistic view of 81 candidate tradespace exploration tools is provided. This study seeks to address a fundamental aspect of tradespace exploration by assembling a “best common practice” process for their requirements, identifying a set of attributes that defines an ideal tradespace exploration tool, and surveying existing tools that satisfy these attributes. In this way, a set of tools can be selected to enable the ERS tradespace vision on a particular project. A paradigm shift towards common tradespace methods, tools, cost models, and steps is emphasized.

[1]  Brian J. German,et al.  Rave: A Computational Framework to Facilitate Research in Design Decision Support , 2012, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[2]  W. Cooper,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software , 1999 .

[3]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Integrated Reconfigurable Intelligent Systems (IRIS) for Complex Naval Systems , 2009 .

[4]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Experiences using Visualization Techniques to Present Requirements, Risks to Them, and Options for Risk Mitigation , 2006, 2006 First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV'06 - RE'06 Workshop).

[5]  Melvin J. Dubnick Army Corps of Engineers , 1998 .

[6]  Willie J. McFadden,et al.  Expanding the Trade Space: An Analysis of Requirements Tradeoffs Affecting System Design , 2002 .

[7]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Interactive Dynamics for Visual Analysis , 2012 .

[8]  Lee Sael,et al.  Procedia Computer Science , 2015 .

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

[10]  Pierre Sens,et al.  Stream Processing of Healthcare Sensor Data: Studying User Traces to Identify Challenges from a Big Data Perspective , 2015, ANT/SEIT.

[11]  Antony Unwin,et al.  Infovis and Statistical Graphics: Different Goals, Different Looks , 2013 .

[12]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Visual Steering Commands for Trade Space Exploration: User-Guided Sampling With Example , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[13]  Jeffrey K. Uhlmann,et al.  Goal-orientated computational steering , 1999, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[14]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Visual Steering Commands for Trade Space Exploration: User-Guided Sampling With Example , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[15]  Laura Whitney,et al.  Capability portfolio analysis tool (CPAT) verification and validation report , 2013 .

[16]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design , 1998 .

[17]  Robert Neches Engineered Resilient Systems: A DoD Science and Technology Priority Area , 2012 .

[18]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .