Using Pareto Trace to determine system passive value robustness

An important role of system designers is to effectively explore the tradespace of alternatives when making design decisions during concept phase. As systems become more complex, formal methods to enable good design decisions are essential; this can be empowered through a tradespace exploration paradigm. This paper demonstrates the use of the Pareto Trace and associated metrics to identify system alternatives across tradespaces with high degrees of passive value robustness—alternatives that continue to deliver value to stakeholders in spite of changes in needs (attributes) or context. A value-driven tradespace approach is used to represent the baseline performance versus cost of a large number of system alternatives. The classical notion of Pareto Set is extended to identify alternatives and their characteristics that lead to their inclusion in Pareto Sets across changing contexts. Using a low-earth orbiting satellite case example, five types of context changes are used to demonstrate this method: 1) addition or subtraction of attributes; 2) change in the priorities of attributes; 3) change in single attribute utility function shapes; 4) change in multi-attribute utility aggregation function; and 5) addition of new decision maker. This approach demonstrates the ability for system designers to pose questions about assessment of alternatives during early conceptual design. Suggestions for application of Pareto Trace beyond the case example are discussed and presented, including application of a “fuzziness” factor and statistical measures. In particular, distinctions from traditional sensitivity analysis are made, as well as linkages to dynamic analysis for discovery of generalized value robust alternatives.

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

[2]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  The Tradespace Exploration Paradigm , 2005 .

[3]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

[5]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[6]  Timothy J. Spaulding,et al.  Tools for evolutionary acquisition : a study of Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration (MATE) applied to the Space Based Radar (SBR) , 2003 .

[7]  D.H. Rhodes,et al.  Architecting Systems for Value Robustness: Research Motivations and Progress , 2008, 2008 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference.

[8]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Responsive Systems Comparison Method: Case Study in Assessing Future Designs in the Presence of Change , 2008 .

[9]  Adam M. Ross,et al.  11.1.1 Using Natural Value-Centric Time Scales for Conceptualizing System Timelines through Epoch-Era Analysis , 2008 .

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

[11]  Adam Michael Ross,et al.  Multi-attribute tradespace exploration with concurrent design as a value-centric framework for space system architecture and design , 2003 .

[12]  O. Weck,et al.  MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION : HISTORY AND PROMISE , 2004 .

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

[14]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  11.4.3 The Tradespace Exploration Paradigm , 2005 .

[15]  Rudolf Marcel Smaling,et al.  System architecture analysis and selection under uncertainty , 2005 .