Decision support methodology for evolutionary embedded system design

Design decisions are made in an early-design phase of system development. These decisions have a big impact on the resulting system design and realization. Making design decisions in this stage is a complex and risky task, because there are a lot of uncertainties regarding their impact on the system qualities. Moreover, in many cases, trade-offs have to be made when there are conflicting objectives. This paper presents a methodology to support decision making for evolutionary systems, to decide on the most suitable design. The focus is on the embedded part of a system. Information is structured with explicit relations, such that the realization of a design can be traced towards the concerns a stakeholder has for the system. This structure enables architects and designers to understand and reason about the impact of a design with a system-wide perspective. The method consists of a calibration step which imports a current design, a design exploration step in which designs are selected, and a decision step where the most suitable design is chosen. The methodology is demonstrated by exploring and revealing the trade-offs for platooning designs from the automotive domain.

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

[2]  Tjerk Bijlsma,et al.  A fail-operational truck platooning architecture , 2017, 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[3]  Matthias Riebisch,et al.  Introducing Impact Analysis for Architectural Decisions , 2007, 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'07).

[4]  Leonard J. Bass,et al.  SAAM: a method for analyzing the properties of software architectures , 1994, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[5]  G. J. Muller,et al.  CAFCR: A Multi-view Method for Embedded Systems Architecting. Balancing Genericity and Specificity , 2004 .

[6]  M. Heemels,et al.  Boderc: Model-based design of high-tech systems : A collaborative research project for multi-disciplinary design analysis of high-tech systems , 2007 .

[7]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making - Methods and Applications , 1992, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[8]  Rick Kazman,et al.  The architecture tradeoff analysis method , 1998, Proceedings. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (Cat. No.98EX193).

[9]  Ed F. Deprettere,et al.  A Methodology to Design Programmable Embedded Systems - The Y-Chart Approach , 2001, Embedded Processor Design Challenges.

[10]  Bernard Yannou,et al.  Multiple-domain design scorecards: a method for architecture generation and evaluation through interface characterisation , 2012 .

[11]  F. Heylighen.  The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution , 1999 .

[12]  Peng Liang,et al.  Architectural design decision: Existing models and tools , 2009, 2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture & European Conference on Software Architecture.

[13]  Alberto L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,et al.  Exploring Trade-off’s Between Centralized versus Decentralized Automotive Architectures Using a Virtual Integration Environment , 2006, Proceedings of the Design Automation & Test in Europe Conference.

[14]  I. Gorton,et al.  A quality-driven systematic approach for architecting distributed software applications , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

[15]  D. K. Hammer,et al.  Scenario-based software architecture evaluation methods : an overview , 2002 .

[16]  Liming Zhu,et al.  A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods , 2004, 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference. Proceedings..

[17]  James E. Tomayko,et al.  Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM) , 2003 .

[18]  Wpmh Maurice Heemels,et al.  The use of the key driver technique in the design of copiers , 2006 .

[19]  Tjerk Bijlsma,et al.  A knowledge domain structure to enable system wide reasoning and decision making , 2019, Procedia Computer Science.

[20]  John E. Ettlie,et al.  Design Reuse in Manufacturing and Services , 2008 .