Towards a Prescriptive Semantic Basis for Change-type Ilities

Abstract The concept of incorporating “ilities” into systems seems a self-evidently good idea, as expressed by both written and spoken positions by technical and political leaders. Indeed, incorporating lifecycle properties such as flexibility, adaptability, and recently affordability and resilience, into systems is touted as the solution to modern day's ever increasing complexity, schedule and budget pressures, and the need for finding sustainable solutions. While expressing desires for ilities seems straightforward, tracing these desires to verifiable system instantiations remains ambiguous at best. This paper describes the semantic challenge underlying the concept of a coherent set of system properties, a sampling of various efforts to ascribe meaning to particular ilities, and proposes a prescriptive 20 category semantic basis for specifying a set of ilities, while avoiding the assertion of new definitions. The intention for this first pass prescriptive semantic basis is to begin a structured approach for exploring the existence of one or more semantic fields, which together form a coherent semantic framework for tracing desired ilities into verifiable system requirements and specifications. Preliminary results indicate that at least three semantic fields exist within the larger set of system lifecycle properties including change-type, architecture-type, and new ability-type ilities.

[1]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Using the ISO/IEC 9126 product quality model to classify defects: A controlled experiment , 2012, EASE.

[2]  Azad M. Madni,et al.  Engineered Resilient Systems: A DoD Perspective , 2014, CSER.

[3]  Adam Ross,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory-systems Approach to a Science of the Ilities , 2015 .

[4]  Richard de Neufville,et al.  Flexibility in Engineering Design , 2011 .

[5]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  Developing Methods to Design for Evolvability: Research Approach and Preliminary Design Principles , 2011 .

[6]  Joseph H. Saleh,et al.  Flexibility: a multi-disciplinary literature review and a research agenda for designing flexible engineering systems , 2009 .

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

[8]  Adam Michael Ross,et al.  Managing unarticulated value : changeability in multi-attribute tradespace exploration , 2006 .

[9]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Defining changeability: Reconciling flexibility, adaptability, scalability, modifiability, and robustness for maintaining system lifecycle value , 2008 .

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

[11]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  7.1.1 Survivability Design Principles for Enhanced Concept Generation and Evaluation , 2009 .

[12]  Afreen Siddiqi,et al.  Modeling Methods and Conceptual Design Principles for Reconfigurable Systems , 2008 .

[13]  John M. Colombi,et al.  An ontological framework for clarifying flexibility‐related terminology via literature survey , 2013, Syst. Eng..

[14]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Examining Survivability of Systems of Systems , 2011 .

[15]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Flexible and Reconfigurable Systems: Nomenclature and Review , 2007, DAC 2007.

[16]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  Measuring space systems flexibility : a comprehensive six-element framework , 2005 .

[17]  Leonard E. Miller,et al.  NASA systems engineering handbook , 1995 .