A Robust Optimization Framework to Architecting System of Systems

Davendralingam, Navindran; DeLaurentis, Daniel A.

doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.027

Cited by 23 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FSS interfaces lifecycle cost [1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24] MUSD Cost constraint [20,40,80,∞] MUSD a policy on S. C c is the cost constraint to apply to the architecture of the system being commissioned, which has a cost C sys associated. T is a threshold value of synergy, that in this particular demonstration case we take as equal to the Q-highest value of synergy of the successor states in S. More specifically, in this example we will take Q = 3.…”

Section: Parameter Sweepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a rich body of literature about SoS, concerned with definitions, developing specific approaches, and addressing key issues such as dependency analysis of SoS, distributed resource management in SoS, decentralized optimization in SoS, and incentive‐based negotiation models . FoS are a subclass of SoS, and as per the current definitions of SoS, fall under the category of virtual SoS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, architects designing a system to be federated are trading design options that depend both on network externality effects 8 and specifications of systems outside their control. This means that There is a rich body of literature about SoS, concerned with definitions, 9 developing specific approaches, 10,11 and addressing key issues such as dependency analysis of SoS, 12 distributed resource management in SoS, 13 decentralized optimization in SoS, 14 and incentivebased negotiation models. 15 FoS are a subclass of SoS, and as per the Several authors have discussed the nature of an SoS, in an attempt of distinguishing them from conventional systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Architecting federations of systems: A framework for capturing synergy

Lluch

Golkar

2019

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper defines Federations of Systems, introduces a tailored architecting framework, and demonstrates it in a satellite design case study. While certainly not being new concepts in the literature, federations are a class of Systems of Systems (SoS) that have not been extensively explored due to the scarcity of applied examples and still few practitioners facing their specific design challenges. This is expected to change with the advent of the Internet of Things, Machine to Machine applications, collaborative consumption, and Federated Satellite Systems. It has become henceforth necessary to develop approaches in design and architecting capable of addressing such interconnected sets of systems. Federations are SoS characterized by the absence of global goals and stakeholders, and cooperation enabled only on an opportunistic basis. Systems engage in federations when the perceived benefit exceeds the costs of the necessary interfaces. The proposed framework quantifies the upper limits to the net benefits of cooperation between systems through the concept of synergy. Using synergy as a heuristic to navigate federated design spaces, the framework predicts the appearance and evolution of federations. The demonstration of the framework in a six‐satellite federation shows that advantages of federating emerge with the collaboration between just two systems. Interface costs, architectural cost preferences, and network topology drive the achievable benefits. Specifically, when considering communication architectures under 80 MUSD for satellite systems, federating is advantageous when the interface lifecycle costs are below 15 MUSD. This demonstration case exemplifies how federating can assist systems in achieving design points that dominate the solutions of their local tradespace.

show abstract

Section: Parameter Sweepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Architecting federations of systems: A framework for capturing synergy

Lluch

Golkar

2019

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A data‐centric SoS architecture modeling approach is proposed in Ge et al [, ] for iterative architecture refinement where SoS requirements are changing. An analytic workbench framework is designed in Davendralingam and DeLaurentis [] where a variety of models are investigated to support tradeoff analysis in SoS architecture while considering the positive and negative effects of interdependencies among systems.…”

Section: Models Of Sosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentive‐Based Negotiation Model for System of Systems Acquisition

Kilicay‐Ergin

Dağli

2015

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lack of collaboration between individual systems and system of systems (SoS) program management is identified as one of the leading problems in SoS acquisition. This is especially a major concern in acknowledged SoS where a designated SoS program management has no authority over the constituent systems. Therefore, it is important to consider mechanisms to persuade individual systems to participate in the SoS development. In SoS where individual systems have their own self-interests, negotiation becomes an important mechanism to increase participation in SoS development. Another mechanism, incentives, is used in a wide range of applications to improve performance and collaboration. In this paper, an incentive based negotiation model is outlined as a mechanism to increase participation of individual systems into the SoS development. The negotiation model is integrated into an SoS Engineering and Architecting multilevel model referred to as Flexible & Intelligent Learning Architectures for SoS (FILA-SoS). Various aspects of SoS acquisition are modeled in the FILA-SoS including SoS metaarchitecture generation, evaluation as well as negotiation between SoS and individual systems. Individual systems exhibit behaviors, ranging from selfish to cooperative. The negotiation model is demonstrated on an SoS engineering application: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) SoS acquisition case where a desired meta-architecture is selected for negotiation, and incentives are determined for systems based on deviation from the desired meta-architecture quality. The analyses of the results from this application domain provide insights into how incentives can be used by decision makers to increase participation in SoS engineering and development. C⃝ 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 18: 310-321, 2015

show abstract

“…A generic SoS architecture shows how are the structural and administrative relationships between the constituent systems. According to (Davendralingam & DeLaurentis) 25 , a SoS architecture has a layered hierarchy in which is possible organizes the constituent systems. Thinking in a SoS as a set of operationally independent layers fundamental block esented by systems clusters that come ystems and the command and control policies for development, operation, and evolution of the SoS.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%