Systems Engineering Research in the

Engineering Systems Context:

Value-Driven Architecting and Design of
Engineering Systems
Presented by:
Dr. Donna H. Rhodes and Dr. Adam M. Ross
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[email protected]
 Topics
PART I. Systems Engineering Research in the
Engineering Systems Context
Brief Overview of Engineering Systems and MIT
Engineering Systems Division
Comparison of Systems Engineering and Engineering
Systems
Impact of Engineering Systems on Systems Engineering
and as a Context Field for Research
MIT Systems Engineering Research within ESD
overview of research portfolio

Part II. Value-Driven Architecting and Design Research

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2

 MIT Engineering Systems Division
Academic Unit for SEAri

Engineering systems is a field of study taking an integrative holistic

view of large-scale, complex technologically enabled systems
with significant enterprise level interactions
and socio-technical interfaces

MITs Engineering Systems Division (ESD) is a cross-cutting

academic unit -- engineering, management, and social sciences.

It broadens engineering practice to include context of challenges

as well as consequences of technological advancement

>50 faculty >300 masters students >60 PhD students

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3

 Engineering Systems
as a Field of Scholarship
Economics, Systems Theory
Statistics

System Architecture
Operations Research
/Systems Analysis
Systems Engineering
Product Development

ENGINEERING
SYSTEMS

Engineering Technology & Policy

Management

Organizational Political
Theory Economy

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4

 Engineering Systems --
Important Perspectives
A very broad interdisciplinary perspective, embracing
technology, policy, management science, and social
science.
An intensified incorporation of system properties (such
as sustainability, safety and flexibility) in the design
process.
Enterprise perspective, focusing on interconnectedness of
product system with enterprise system that develops and
sustains it.
A complex synthesis of stakeholder perspectives, of
which there may be conflicting and competing needs to
be resolved to serve the highest order system need.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5

 Impact of Engineering Systems
on Systems Engineering
personal perspective
ES provides a broader academic field of study (context
field) for SE
ES has been a catalyst for universities coming together
around a broader systems education agenda
ES brings together a more diverse set of researchers
and scholars who can benefit from (and contribute to)
systems engineering principles and research

ES establishes a larger footprint in an university to

drive a strong research focus and investment in
systems research
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6
 MIT Engineering Systems Division
Doctoral Program

Context: The Engineering Systems Division (ESD) at MIT is helping to

pioneer Engineering Systems as a new field of study designed to
transform engineering education and practice.
Mission: The ESD doctoral research programs conduct original and
generalizable scholarship on complex engineered systems in order
to advance theory, policy, or practice. Main objective of the program
is to prepare colleagues who can seed engineering schools with the
integrative ideas of engineering systems.

Transforming engineering education, research, and practice through the

emerging field of engineering systems

Preparing engineers to think systemically, lead strategically, and address

the complex challenges of today's world, for the benefit of humankind

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7

 MIT ESD Doctoral Program

ESD Doctoral Seminar

Quantitative Methods
Social Science Research Methods
Courses in:
Systems Theory -- to design or refine a system
Systems Policy -- to influence or direct a system
Systems Evaluation -- to evaluate / analyze /
characterize a system

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8

 Sample of
ESD Doctoral Theses
The Duality of Innovation: Implications for the Role of the University in Economic
Development
A Life-Cycle Flexibility Framework for Designing, Evaluating, and Managing "Complex"
Real Options: Case Studies in Urban Transportation and Aircraft Systems
Stakeholder-Assisted Modeling and Policy Design Process for Engineering Systems
Shaping the Terms of Competition: Environmental Regulation and Corporate
Strategies to Reduce Diesel Vehicle Emissions
Architectural Innovation, Functional Emergence and Diversification in Engineering
Systems
Managing Unarticulated Value: Changeability in Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration
Climate Policy Design: Interactions among Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Urban Air
Pollution Constraints
Symbiotic Strategies in Enterprise Ecology: Modeling Commercial Aviation as an
Enterprise of Enterprises
System Architecture Analysis and Selection Under Uncertainty
Corporate Decision Analysis: An Engineering Approach
Real Options "in" Projects and Systems Design Identification of Options and
Solution for Path Dependency
Effective Information Integration and Reutilization: Solutions to Technological
Deficiency and Legal Uncertainty
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9
 Comparison of
Systems Engineering and
Engineering Systems

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10

 Engineering Systems:
Field of Scholarship

Engin
eerin
g

Management Engineering
Systems
ci ence
ci a lS
So

ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
A field of study taking an integrative holistic view of large-scale, complex,
technologically-enabled systems with significant enterprise level
interactions and socio-technical interfaces.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 11

 Systems Engineering
Field of Practice

Engin
eerin
g

Management Systems
Engineering

Systems Engineering
Considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers
with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 12

 SE versus ES
What Is the Difference?
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Traditional)
Systems engineering is the process of selecting and synthesizing the
application of the appropriate scientific and technical knowledge in
order to translate system requirements into system design. (Chase)

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (Advanced)

Systems engineering is a branch of engineering that concentrates on
design and application of the whole as distinct from the parts
looking at the problem in its entirety, taking into account all the facets
and variables and relating the social to the technical aspects. (Ramo)

ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
A field of study taking an integrative holistic view of large-scale,
complex, technologically-enabled systems with significant enterprise
level interactions and socio-technical interfaces.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 13

 Unique Perspectives
Systems Engineering Engineering Systems
Scope Small to large scale subsystems, Large-scale, complex open systems
systems, system of systems that are technologically enabled
Focus Primary focus is on Holistic attention to product/service
product/service system system and larger enterprise system
Policy Viewed as fixed and constraining Viewed as variables --can be created
system solution or adapted for overall solution
Socio- Viewed as considerations in Viewed as primary in an overall
technical engineering system solution
Primary Primary focus on customer and Balanced focus on all stakeholders
Stakeholders end-users with secondary focus impacted by engineering system --
on other stakeholders product, enterprise, environment
Roles System architects, systems System architects, enterprise
engineers, related specialists architects, engineers, operations
performing systems engineering analysts, project managers, policy
process makers, social scientists, and others

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 14

 Essential Points
1. Engineering Systems is not renaming or replacing
Systems Engineering!
Confusion arises as some think MIT just re-ordered the two
words systems and engineering

2. Engineering Systems is a field of academic study

not a practice, profession, or process.

3. Engineering Systems is not equivalent in scope to

Systems Engineering

4. Evolving the field of ES can have a positive impact

on evolving SE as a field and practice

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 15

 Impact of Engineering Systems on
Evolving Systems Engineering?

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 16

 Classical systems engineering principles and
practices need to be adapted and expanded to fully
support engineering of highly complex systems

What SE principles and practices are too limited at present to

effectively deal with large-scale socio-technical systems?

How can these be adapted and expanded with contributions from of

the field of Engineering Systems?

What lifecycles, practices and methods, when harmonized or

adapted, can result in an emergent approach that can better
serve the needs of the entire engineering system (technological
system and enterprise)?

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 17

 ES and SE are both evolving fields it is critical
that they evolve synergistically and not as
decoupled fields

How can the varied definitions and views of Systems Engineering

converge within the context of Engineering Systems?

Is there a common taxonomy that will serve the needs of

Engineering Systems and Systems Engineering?

What other sub-fields of Engineering Systems are highly interrelated

to Systems Engineering, and what research is needed to
explore convergence or cooperation of these sub-fields?

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 18

 For ES to become the context field for SE, there
must be changes in systems education strategies,
policies, structures

Can ES provide the context field for SE which has never quite fit as
engineering science or management science?

How will universities need to evolve their structures and policies?

How will existing Systems Engineering curricula need to change?

What strategies can be used to transition current educational models

to this new model?

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 19

 Engineering Systems Research Landscape
an intellectual environment for systems research

A research landscape is the overall mental model under

which research is formulated, performed, and
transitioned to practice
1. Provides context for research agenda, methods, and projects
2. Determines a community of interest
3. Opportunities for/constraints on funding sources and sponsors
4. Significantly influences research outcomes and impact

Engineering systems is a field of study taking an integrative holistic view of

large-scale, complex technologically enabled systems with significant
enterprise level interactions and socio-technical interfaces

Multi-disciplinary focus engineering, management, social sciences

Draws from both quantitative and qualitative approaches
Deep engagement with real world industry and government projects
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 20
 Advancing SE using ES

Engineering Systems provides the research landscape

context for advancing traditional systems engineering

Using Engineering Engineering Systems Methods/Tools

Systems, research E.g. Social science methods,
technology policy, etc.
advances the
methods and tools Systems Engineering Methods/Tools
for Systems E.g. Engineering methods,
Engineering practice numerical approaches, etc.

Engineering Systems scope includes more than Systems Engineering

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 21

 Systems Engineering Research within
MIT Engineering Systems Division

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 22

 Systems Engineering Advancement
Research Initiative within MIT ESD
MIT SEAri Mission
Advance the theories, methods, and effective practice of systems
engineering applied to complex socio-technical systems through
collaborative research

RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
Considerations: 1. Socio-Technical
Decision Making
1. Mental model and strategic focus
2. Designing for Value
2. Underlying structure for research Robustness
3. Core methods and theoretical base 3. Systems Engineering
4. Research Portfolio organizing projects Economics
5. Sponsor engagement models 4. Systems Engineering
in the Enterprise
6. Sharing research knowledge
5. Systems Engineering
7. Transitioning research to practice Strategic Guidance

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 23

 SEAri Underlying Research Structure
Prescriptive methods seek to advance state of the practice based on
sound principles and theories, as grounded in real limitations and
constraints
Normative research: identify principles and theories -- should be
Descriptive research: observe practice and identify limits/constraints

Qualitative and
quantitative
methods

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 24

 Research Predisposed
Toward Application
For most engineering students, the goal of a career in industry
motives their pursuit of advanced study and this will
increasingly be the case on the future. Because of this,
engineering students outlook on research is predisposed
toward application in engineering practice
National Academy of Engineering, 2005

Survey of
SEANET
doctoral
students
shows only
25% plan
academic
careers

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 25

 Sponsor Engagement Models

Classical basic research sponsors

Targeted topic toward broad scientific goals

Innovation grant sponsors SE

Higher risk/higher payoff research Research
Contract research sponsors requires
Toward solving sponsor problem real world
laboratory

Consortium sponsors
Pooled funds for shared research benefits
Deep engagement partnerships
Symbiotic relationship

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 26

 Examples of Research

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 27

 Engineering Systems --
Important Perspectives

A very broad interdisciplinary perspective, embracing

technology, policy, management science, and social
science.
An intensified incorporation of system properties (such
as sustainability, safety and flexibility) in the design
process.
Enterprise perspective, focusing on interconnectedness of
product system with enterprise system that develops and
sustains it.
A complex synthesis of stakeholder perspectives, of
which there may be conflicting and competing needs to
be resolved to serve the highest order system need.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 28

 Epoch-Era Analysis for Evaluating
System Timelines in Uncertain Futures
Changing Futures Impact on System
Dynamic analysis technique Two aspects to an
for evaluating system Epoch:
1. Needs
performance under large (expectations)

number of future contexts 2. Context

(constraints, etc.)
and needs
Draws from theories and
approaches from multiple Epoch

disciplines Dynamic Strategies for Systems

Involves the enumeration of
future needs and contexts
including technology, policy,
social and environmental
factors, and others

Ross and Rhodes, 2008

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 29
 Engineering Systems --
Important Perspectives
A very broad interdisciplinary perspective, embracing
technology, policy, management science, and social
science.
An intensified incorporation of system properties (such
as sustainability, safety and flexibility) in the design
process.
Enterprise perspective, focusing on interconnectedness of
product system with enterprise system that develops and
sustains it.
A complex synthesis of stakeholder perspectives, of
which there may be conflicting and competing needs to
be resolved to serve the highest order system need.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 30

 Architecting for Survivability
Definition of Survivability
Dynamic, value-centric Ability of a system to minimize the impact of a finite disturbance on value delivery through
either (I) the reduction of the likelihood or magnitude of a disturbance or (II) the satisfaction

conceptualization of of a minimally acceptable level of value delivery during and after a finite disturbance
V(t) disturbance
Epoch:
value Time period with a fixed context; characterized by

survivability static constraints, design concepts, available

technologies, and articulated attributes (Ross 2006)

original state Type I Survivability

Set of general design disturbance

duration
Td

ry
principles for

ve
co
Type II Survivability

re
degra
Vx

datio
required value
Ve
survivability threshold

n
emergency value
threshold
Tr
permitted recovery time

Empirically validated Epoch 1a Epoch 2 Epoch 1b time

Design Principles of Survivability

Extensions of dynamic 1.1 prevention 2.1 hardness 2.10 replacement

preemption
2.2 redundancy 2.11 repair

1.5
2.3 margin

tradespace exploration 2.4 heterogeneity

2.5 distribution

1.6 avoidance
1.2 mobility

to accommodate hostile 1.3

concealment
1.4
deterrence
2.6 failure mode
reduction
2.7 fail-safe
active
passive

and natural disturbances 2.8 evolution

2.9 containment

Richards, et al 2008

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 31

 Engineering Systems --
Important Perspectives
A very broad interdisciplinary perspective, embracing
technology, policy, management science, and social
science.
An intensified incorporation of system properties (such
as sustainability, safety and flexibility) in the design
process.
Enterprise perspective, focusing on interconnectedness of
product system with enterprise system that develops and
sustains it.
A complex synthesis of stakeholder perspectives, of
which there may be conflicting and competing needs to
be resolved to serve the highest order system need.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 32

 Collaborative Distributed
Systems Engineering
Empirical case studies to identify
successful practices and
lessons learned when SE
teams collaborate across
geographic locations
Enterprise social and technical
factors studied: collaboration Success Factor: Invest in
scenarios, tools, knowledge Up-front Planning Activities
and decision management, Spending more time on the
culture, motivations, others front- end activities and gaining
team consensus shortens the
Successful development of the implementation cycle. It avoids
technical product dependent pitfalls as related to team mistrust,
upon socio-technical factors in conflict, and mistakes that surface
the enterprise during implementation.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 33

 Engineering Systems --
Important Perspectives

A very broad interdisciplinary perspective, embracing

technology, policy, management science, and social
science.
An intensified incorporation of system properties (such
as sustainability, safety and flexibility) in the design
process.
Enterprise perspective, focusing on interconnectedness of
product system with enterprise system that develops and
sustains it.
A complex synthesis of stakeholder perspectives, of
which there may be conflicting and competing needs to
be resolved to serve the highest order system need.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 34

 Stakeholder Alignment

Stakeholder
Analysis Methods
for Identifying and
Aligning System
Value Propositions








seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 35

Part II. Value-Driven Architecting and
Design Research
Presented by:
Dr. Adam M. Ross and Dr. Donna H. Rhodes
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[email protected]
 SEAri Research Portfolio

RESEARCH PORTFOLIO TOPICS

1. Socio-Technical Decision Making
2. Designing for Value Robustness
3. Systems Engineering in the Enterprise
4. Systems Engineering Economics
5. Systems Engineering Strategic Guidance

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 37

 Research Portfolio (1)
SOCIO-TECHNICAL DECISION MAKING
This research area seeks to develop multi-disciplinary representations, analysis methods,
and techniques for improving decision making for socio-technical systems.
Examples include:

Studies of decision processes and effectiveness of techniques

Constructs for representing socio-technical systems for impact
analysis on costs, benefits, and uncertainties
Effective visualization of complex tradespaces
Understanding and mitigating cognitive biases in decision processes
Developing dynamic system strategies (e.g. timing technology
investments and execution of system change options)
Methods for representing distribution of costs and benefits to multiple
stakeholders of socio-technical systems

Representations, analysis methods, and techniques for

improving socio-technical decision making
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 38
 The Scope of Upfront Decisions

Conceptual Design is a Key Phase Activities

high leverage phase in Needs Captured
system development

Design
~66%

Resources Scoped

Reliance upon BOGGSAT could have large consequences

How can we make better decisions?
In Situ

vs. Top-side sounder

After Fabrycky and Blanchard 1991 Concept(s) Selected

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 39
 Three keys to good upfront
decisions
Structured program selection process
Choosing the programs that are right for the
organizations stakeholders
Classical systems engineering
Determining stakeholder needs, generating concept
of operations, and deriving requirements
Conceptual design practices
Finding the right form to maximize stakeholder value
over the product (or product family) lifetime

Good system decisions must include both socio

as well as technical components

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 40

 Flexibility Representations
Managing Uncertainty in Socio-Technical
Enterprises using a Real Options
Framework
Tsoline Mikaelian, Aero/Astro PhD 2009

What enterprise representation/models can be used to

identify potential real option investment opportunities?

How can real options be used for holistic decision

making and architecting of socio-technical enterprises
under uncertainty?
Uncertain future
Utility = 0 Mx mission

Optimal Design for M1

M2 Metrics for Flexibility in the Operationally
M1
Optimal design has
much more utility Responsive Space Paradigm
Lauren Viscito, Aero/Astro SM 2009
Designs with Acceptable
Transition path
0< U(M) < 1

Can a flexibility metric be used for explicit trades in

Mission with one
design of U(M)>0 conceptual space system design?
M5
M4 M3

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 41

 Visualization Constructs for
Tradespace Exploration
Survivability Tradespace - no filtering (n=2560) 1
1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

design utility (dimensionless)

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

median time-weighted utility loss (dimensionless)

0.1 0.1
threshold availability (5th percentile)

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
cost ($M)

threshold availability - 5th percentile (filtered)

Utility Trajectory - DV(1137) 0.9 1
0.25

average time-weighted average utility (dimensionless)

0.9
0.8
120

0.2 127 88 0.8

87
55
0.7
utility (dimensionless)

62
0.7
29
0.6
0.15 0.6

0.5 0.5
27

0.1
0.4
0.4
no avoidance, no servicing
no avoidance, servicing 0.3
5
Mapping to Survivability 0.3 avoidance, no servicing
0.05 Definition avoidance, servicing 0.2
V(t) 3 servicing response
Threshold 0.2 avoidance response
0.1
number specifies baseline design vector shielding response
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
time (years) cost ($M)

Richards, M.G., Ross, A.M., Shah, N.B., and Hastings, D.E., Metrics for Evaluating Survivability in Dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration, AIAA Space 2008,
San Diego, CA, September 2008.

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 42

 Research Portfolio (2)
DESIGNING for VALUE ROBUSTNESS
This research area seeks to develop methods for concept exploration, architecting and
design using a dynamic perspective for the purpose of realizing systems, products,
and services that deliver sustained value to stakeholders in a changing world.
Examples include:

Methods for and applications of dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace

Exploration
Architecting principles and strategies for designing survivable systems
Architecting strategies and quantitative tradespace exploration of
systems of systems
Quantification of the changeability of system designs
Techniques for the consideration of unarticulated stakeholder and
latent system value
Taxonomy for enabling stakeholder dialogue on ilities

Representations, analysis methods, and techniques for

designing systems for success in dynamic contexts
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 43
 Meeting Customer Needs

Goal of design is to create value (profits,

usefulness, voice of the customer, etc)
Requirements capture a mapping of needs
to specifications to guide design
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 44
 Deploying a Valuable
System

Contexts change

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 45

 Meeting Customer Needs
(cont.)

Goal of design is to create value (profits, usefulness,

voice of the customer, etc)
Requirements
People changecapture
their minds
a mapping of needs to
specifications
To continue totodeliver
guidevalue,
designthe systems may need to
pursue changeability or versatility

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 46

 Selecting Best Designs

Best
Best design?
design?
Doesnt
Doesnt look
look good
good anymore!
anymore!
Benefit1

Benefit2
B F
D C E
A D
C E B
A
Time

Cost Cost

As uncertainty resolves, new contexts reveal new cost-benefit trades

How can a program select best designs in an uncertain and changing context?
Designing for Value Robustness directly addresses this challenge
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 47
 LAI/AF Systems Engineering for
Robustness Workshop
Washington, DC in June 2004
According to Dr. Marvin Sambur, Systems Engineering for
Robustness means developing systems that are
Capable of adapting to changes in mission and requirements
Expandable/scalable, and designed to accommodate growth in capability
Able to reliably function given changes in threats and environment
Effectively/affordably sustainable over their lifecycle
Developed using products designed for use in various platforms and systems
Easily modified to leverage new technologies

Robustness scope expanded beyond classical robustness

Experts questioned
What does it mean?
How can it be measured/analyzed?
Who is going to pay for it?
How can designers account for this new robustness?
*Adapted from Ross, A., Rhodes, D., and Hastings, D., Defining System Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility, Adaptability,
Scalability, and Robustness for Maintaining System Lifecycle Value, INCOSE Intl Symposium 2007, San Diego, CA, June 2007
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 48
 Six Areas of Research
How do stakeholders (1) Attribute Class Spectrum
perceive value?
How can stakeholders (2) Change Taxonomy
have a dialogue on value?
How can value robustness (3) Metrics for Value Robustness
be quantified?
How can value robust (4) Tradespace Exploration Method
systems be identified?
How can we architect for (5) Architecting for Ilities
value robustness?
What about systems of (6) SoS Tradespace Exploration
systems?

A.M Ross and D.H. Rhodes, Architecting Systems for Value Robustness: Research Motivations and Progress,
2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, Montreal, CA, April 4-5, 2008 **BEST PAPER AWARD**

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 49

 Attribute Class Spectrum
Articulated, Unarticulated and Latent Value

Research focuses on an approach for ensuring designers account for

unarticulated as well as articulated value perceptions, by
intentionally building latent system value attributes according to the
ease by which a system can display them

Implications for Systems Engineering Practice

1. Better decisions by improving the practice
through more rigorous constructs that
characterize system attributes and their costs
2. Ability to more effectively explore unarticulated
stakeholder and latent system value can uncover
essential needs and desires early in the process
3. Observation during experimentation or early
use of how stakeholders leverage latent value
can be an important source of innovation

A.M Ross and D.H. Rhodes, Using Attribute Classes to Uncover Latent Value during Conceptual
Systems Design, 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, Montreal, CA, April 4-5, 2008

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 50

 Change Taxonomy
Flexibility, Adaptability, Scalability, Modifiability, etc.

Research focuses on developing a rigorous, consistent taxonomy for

specifying, evaluating, and validating temporal system properties,
sometimes called the new ilities

Implications for Systems Engineering Practice

1. Remove ambiguity and provide quantitative
description of ilities to improve acquisition and
development
2. Potential to lead to the normative specification of
the ilities as a basis for prescriptive guidance
3. Taxonomy provides a common lexicon
for stakeholder dialogue

A.M Ross and D.H. Rhodes, Defining Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility, Adaptability, Scalability, Modifiability, and Robustness for
Maintaining Lifecycle Value, Systems Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, Fall 2008, pp. 246-262
M.G. Richards, D.E. Hastings, D.H. Rhodes, and A.L. Weigel, Defining Survivability for Engineering Systems, 5th Conference on Systems
Engineering Research, Hoboken, NJ, March 2007
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 51
 Metrics for Value Robustness
Versatility or Changeability for Maintaining Value

Research focuses on developing rigorous, quantitative metrics for

evaluating and comparing, on a common basis, the ability of
alternative systems to maintain value delivery over time

Implications for Systems Engineering Practice State 1 State 2

Filtered Outdegree
1. Construct for quantitatively assessing st
Co t
A
s
changeability of candidate designs in a 1
Co
Cost B
2
tradespace A
Cost

2. Provides designers with analytic construct for C

making design decisions

3. Contributes to composing repeatable
and verifiable requirements for
changeability

A.M Ross and D.H. Rhodes, Defining Changeability: Reconciling Flexibility, Adaptability, Scalability, Modifiability, and Robustness for
Maintaining Lifecycle Value, Systems Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, Fall 2008, pp. 246-262
N.B. Shah, L. Viscito, J.M. Wilds, A.M. Ross, and D.E. Hastings, Quantifying Flexibility for Architecting Changeable Systems, 6th
Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Los Angeles, CA, April 2008
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 52
 Dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration
Value-driven Conceptual Design for Evolving Systems

Research focuses on developing value-drive method for exploring

relationship between dynamic value space and design space of
many system alternatives on a common basis across time

Implications for Systems Engineering Practice

1. Ability to explore many design options and
prevent too early focus on single point design
2. Enables quantitative assessment of factors such
as variability in technical performance and cost,
and impacts in markets
3. Suitable to multiple domains and demonstrated
to improve design decision making
Tradespace exploration uses computer-based
models to compare thousands of alternatives
Avoids limits of local point solutions
Maps decision maker preference structure to
potential design space
A.M. Ross and D.H. Rhodes, The Tradespace Exploration Paradigm, INCOSE International Symposium 2005, Rochester, NY, July 2005
A.M. Ross, Managing Unarticulated Value: Changeability in Dynamic Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration, PhD Dissertation, MIT, June 2006
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 53
 Architecting for ilities
Design Principles for Dynamic System Properties

Research focuses on developing rigorous, empirically supported design

principles for guiding design toward better performance in temporal
system properties, such as survivability

Implications for Systems Engineering Practice

1. Validated design principles provide more
rigorous guidance than classical heuristics
2. Provides a explicit mapping of design
4
principles to timing of context events V(t)
Vx
Tr
Ve
Epoch 1a Epoch 2 Epoch 1b
time
1.1 prevention 2.1 hardness 2.10 replacement

preemption
2.2 redundancy 2.11 repair

1.5
2.3 margin
2.4 heterogeneity
2.5 distribution original
1.2 mobility

1.6 avoidance
2.6 failure mode modified
1.3 1.4
reduction
concealment deterrence new
2.7 fail-safe
2.8 evolution
(Ball 2003) 2.9 containment

M.G. Richards, A.M. Ross, D.E. Hastings, and D.H. Rhodes, Design Principles for Survivable System Architecture, 1st Annual IEEE
Systems Conference, Honolulu, HI, April 2007
M.G. Richards, A.M. Ross, D.E. Hastings, and D.H. Rhodes, Two Empirical Tests of Design Principles for Survivable System Architecture,
INCOSE International Symposium 2008, Utrecht, the Netherlands, June 2008, **BEST PAPER AWARD**
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 54
 SoS Tradespace Exploration
Determining SoS Components and Interfaces

Research targeted at providing a more rigorous method for system of

systems engineering, which requires continuous tradespace
exploration as constituent systems enter and exit the system

Implications for Systems Engineering Practice

1. Identified unique considerations for exploring
SoS tradespaces versus traditional systems
2. Methods for negotiating across multiple Aircraft Satellite

stakeholder value propositions becomes UAV

central to successful SoS development Time-Varying Available Component Sets

3. Reinforces the importance of proper interface Legacy

Systems
New
Systems
Legacy
Systems
New
Systems
Legacy
Systems
New
Systems

design as essential to SoS value delivery

...
Switching
Cost
SoSA SoSB component SoSN
systems
Time
T1 T2 TN

D. Chattopadhyay, A.M. Ross and D.H. Rhodes, A Framework for Tradespace Exploration of Systems of Systems, 6th Conference on
Systems Engineering Research, Los Angeles, CA, April 2008
R. Valerdi, A.M. Ross, and D.H. Rhodes, "A Framework for Evolving System of Systems Engineering," CrossTalk--The Journal of Defense
Software Engineering, October 2007
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 55
 Distributed Decision Making in
Systems of Systems

Extended from Schneeweiss (2003) Distributed Decision Making

System of System research has tended to focus on technical interfaces of constituent systems. Proper
design of both technical and non-technical interfaces is essential for creating value-enhancing and stable
SoS. Taking a value-centric approach reveals the importance of distributed decision making in SoS and
mechanisms for influencing or affecting these decisions to create value robust SoS.

Nirav Shah, PhD Candidate, 2009

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 56
 Tradespace Exploration Coupled
with Value-driven Design
Many system designs can be Models and simulations determine
compared through attribute performance of many
tradespace exploration: designs (1000s to 10000s or more)
1. Elicit Value with attributes and utility
2. Generate Concepts using design
variables and cost model insights
3. Develop models/sims to assess
designs in terms of cost and utility
Co
st
,U
DESIGN VARIABLES: tili
Design trade parameters ty
Orbital Parameters
Apogee Altitude (km)
Perigee Altitude (km)
Orbit Inclination (deg) ATTRIBUTES:
Design decision metrics
Spacecraft Parameters Data Lifespan (yrs)
Antenna Gain
Equatorial Time (hrs/day)
Communication Architecture
Latency (hrs)
Propulsion Type
Latitude Diversity (deg)
Power Type
Sample Altitude (km)
Total Delta V

Assessment of cost and utility of large space of possible system designs

Using value metrics focuses analysis on most important system aspects
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 57
 Example Real Systems
Spacetug vs CX-OLEV XTOS vs Streak

Total Lifecycle Cost

($M2002)

XTOS (2002 study) Streak (Oct 2005 launch)

Electric Cruiser CX-OLEV Wet Mass kg 325 - 450 420

(2002 study) (2009 launch)
Lifetime (yrs) 2.3 - 0.5 1
Wet Mass kg 1405 1400
Orbit 300 -185 km @ 20 321a-296p -> 200 @ 96
Dry Mass kg 805 670*
LV Minotaur Minotaur
Propellant kg 600 730*
Utility 0.61 - 0.55 0.57 - 0.54*
Equipment kg 300 213*
Modified Utility** 0.56 - 0.50 0.59
DV m/s 12000 16500*** 15900**
Cost $M 75 - 72 75***
Utility 0.69 0.69
Instruments Three (?) Ion gauge and atomic
Cost 148 130* oxygen sensor
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 58
 Tradespace Analysis: Selecting
best designs
Classic
Classic best
best design
design New
New best
best design
design

Utility2
Utility1

B D C
E
B D
C E
A
A

Cost Cost
Time

If the best design changes over time, how does one select the best design?

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 59

 Tradespace Networks
Example: X-TOS Transition Rules

Utility
Utility

Rule Description Change agent origin

R1: Plane Change Increase/decrease inclination, decrease V Internal (Adaptable)
R2: Apogee Burn Increase/decrease apogee, decrease V Internal (Adaptable)
R3: Perigee Burn
Transition
Increase/decrease perigee, decrease V Internal (Adaptable)
rules
R4: Plane Tug Increase/decrease inclination, requires tugable External (Flexible)
R5: Apogee Tug Increase/decrease apogee, requires tugable External (Flexible)
R6: Perigee Tug Increase/decrease perigee, requires tugable External (Flexible)
R7: Space Refuel Increase V, requires refuelable External (Flexible)
R8: Add Sat Cost
Change all orbit, V External (Flexible) Cost

Cost 1
Tradespace designs = nodes 2

3
Applied transition rules = arcs 1
4
2

Transition rules are mechanisms to change one design into another

The more outgoing arcs, the more potential change mechanisms
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 60
 Tradespace Networks: Changing
designs over time
Classic
Classic best
best design
design New
New best
best design
design

Utility2
Utility1

B D C
E
B D
C E
A
A

Cost Cost
Time

Select changeable designs that can approximate best designs in new contexts

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 61

 Using Epochs to Represent
Contexts and Expectations
Attributes (performance, expectations)
Two aspects to an Epoch:
1. Needs (expectations)
System Expectation 4 2. Context (constraints including
Expectation 3 resources, technology, etc.)
Expectation 2 NEW NEED
METRIC
Expectation 1 Expectation 1
Needs:
+
Context Context Context Context Context Time Context:
1 2 2 3 4 (epochs)

Epoch 1 Epoch 2 Epoch 3 Epoch 4 Epoch 5

New Context: new
Value value function
Example system: degradation (objective fcn)
Service to
Major failure

Major failure upgrade

Serviceable satellite System BOL T1 T2 Tn System EOL
U Epoch 1 Epoch 2 Epoch n

0
Value outage:
S1,b S1,e S2,b S2,e Sn,b Sn,e
System timeline with serviceability-enabled Servicing time
Service to Same system, Service to
paths allow continued value delivery restore but perceived restore
value decrease

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 62

 Epoch-Era Analysis: Epochs
Epoch
Time period with a fixed context and needs; characterized by static constraints,
design concepts, available technologies, and articulated attributes (Ross 2006)
Ti Tj
U U U Epoch T
Epoch i Ti

Define Epochs
j j
U U U Epoch T
Epoch i Ti j j
U U U Epoch j
Epoch i

Potential Contexts Potential Needs 0 0 0

0 0 0
0 0 0

Construct Eras
Epoch Series Dynamic Strategies

Discretization of change timeline into short run and long run enables analysis
Allows for rigorous consideration of many possible futures
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 63
 Epoch-Era Analysis: Eras
Era
System life with varying contexts and needs, formed as an ordered set of epochs; characterized
by varying constraints, design concepts, available technologies, and articulated attributes
Ti Tj
U U U Epoch T
Epoch i Ti

Define Epochs
j j
U U U Epoch T
Epoch i Ti j j
U U U Epoch j
Epoch i

Potential Contexts Potential Needs 0 0 0

0 0 0
0 0 0

Construct Eras
Epoch Series Dynamic Strategies

Discretization of change timeline into short run and long run enables analysis
Allows for analysis of system varying performance over possible futures
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 64
 Tradespace Networks in the
System Era
Passive Value Robustness as System Era
Pareto Trace across Epochs T1 T2 T3 Tn
U Epoch 1 Epoch 2 Epoch 3 Epoch n

0
S1,b S1,e S2,b S2,e S3,b S3,e Sn,b Sn,e

Time
Change Tradespace (N=81), Path: 81-->10, Goal Util: 0.97 Change Tradespace (notional), Goal Util: 0.97
1 1
0.9

0.8

Changeability Quantified as 0.7

Filtered Outdegree 0.6

U
0.5
U

Nk 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Rk 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4
Total Delta C Total Transition Time
ODk

Multiple metrics and analytic techniques available across system timeline

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 65
 Era Paths Reveal System
Evolution Strategies
System Era
T1 T2 T3 Tn
U Epoch 1 Epoch 2 Epoch 3 Epoch n

0
S1,b S1,e S2,b S2,e S3,b S3,e Sn,b Sn,e

Time

Active value robustness strategy: Maintain given level of value through Context changes
Epoch 63 Epoch 171 Epoch 193 Epoch 202 Epoch 171

2 yrs 4 yrs 1 yr 3 yrs 3 yrs

Temporal strategy can be developed across networked tradespaces

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 66
 Achieving Value Robustness
Research suggests two strategies for
Value Robustness Active Passive

T1 T2

Utility
New Context Drivers Epoch 1 Epoch 2
External Constraints
Design Technologies
Value Expectations

1. Passive 0 Time
Choose versatile designs that remain S1,b State 1 S1,e S2,b State 2 S2,e
high value U

Utility
DV2DV1
Quantifiable: Pareto Trace number
DV2=DV1

2. Active
Choose changeable designs that can
deliver high value when needed
Quantifiable: Filtered Outdegree
Cost Cost
Value robust designs can deliver value in spite of inevitable context change
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 67
 Designing for Value Robustness

Mindshift: recognize dynamic contexts and fallacy of static preferencesthe

inevitability of change

Two primary strategies:

Matching changeable systems to changing needs leads to sustained system success
Creating versatile systems with latent value leads to sustained system success
Methods for increasing Changeability
Increase number of paths (change mechanisms)
Lower cost or increase acceptability threshold (alter apparent changeability)
Changeability can be used as an explicit and consistent metric for designing systems
Methods for increasing Versatility
Increase number of displayed fundamental or combinatorial system attributes
Decrease cost for displaying or hiding attributes

Designed for changeability or versatility, systems will be

empowered to become value robust, delivering value in spite of
context and preference changes
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 68
 MPP Project: Applying MATE to
Transportation System
Different Cost Dimensions
Research Questions WHERE
WHEN
Spatial distribution
1. How can different cost types be used in tradespace
studies during the planning of transportation systems?
WHO PAYS
2. How can changing environments be accounted for in WHAT Currency Distribution
between
- Monetary
sensitivity analysis of cost-benefit analysis? - Environmental stakeholders
- Social
Goal: Improve Classical Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) -

Shortcomings of CBA Single- Attribute Expense Functions

Time discounting and aggregation
Monetization of non-monetary impacts
Information loss of distribution impacts
Aggregation of impacts across stakeholders
Manipulation of uncertainty projections of future impacts
Diller, N.P., Utilizing Multiple Attribute Tradespace Exploration with Concurrent Design for Creating Aerospace Systems Requirements, 2002
Method: Apply MATE using Expense Functions for
representing non-monetary costs
Case Applications
Airport Express for City of Chicago
Portuguese Transportation project TBD

Julia Nickel, ESD SM, Expected June 2009

seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 69
 Summary

Present-day socio-technical complexities require new

academic perspectives for advancing Systems
Engineering methods and tools such as
Visualization of complex data sets
Cost and benefit modeling under uncertainty
Value-elicitation and representation
Engineering Systems provides a powerful research
landscape and context for developing rigorous, cross-
disciplinary systems engineering research, merging
Social science
Engineering science
Management science
Physical science
MPP ES Anchor Program provides opportunity for fundamental contributions to SE
seari.mit.edu 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 70
 Questions?

http://seari.mit.edu

[email protected]
[email protected] and [email protected]