System Lifecycle Cost Under Uncertainty as a Design Metric Encompassing the Value of Architectural Flexibility

Abstract

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Service oriented cooperation architecture for distributed satellite networks

“…Both architectures have their advantages. For homogeneous DSN, payload similarity offers redundancy so that DSN is robust to subsystem fault [13], while the heterogeneous DSN is more flexible and responsive to user requirement change [4]- [5].…”

From Modular to Distributed Open Architectures: A Unified Decision Framework

“…We use typical values and distribution functions for satellite systems design suggested in Brown et al. []. For approximating subsystems' failure, we use Weibull probability distribution.…”

3.2.2 A More Flexible Approach to Valuing Flexibility

“…The type of stochastic events he considers are only those specific events that critically influence the success of a satellite system, i.e., launch failure and on-orbit component failure. Brown explicitly does not consider other aspects of life cycle uncertainty that affect virtually all programs, such as "requirements creep, funding stream volatility, technology development risk, and volatility of demand" [14]. Yet he clearly does recognize that the model could be applied to these other sources of uncertainty, noting that these variables are "left for future analysis."…”

“…The notion that this can be done by accounting for random events that affect the system forms the basis of life cycle cost under uncertainty (also referred to as stochastic life cycle cost), which was mentioned earlier as part of the discussion on valuedriven design. The idea of applying this strategy to acquiring military systems appears to have been first introduced by Brown in two papers related to the F6 satellite program [14,28]. As described by Brown, stochastic life cycle cost is premised on three assertions.…”

“…By valuing non-traditional system characteristics like flexibility, VDD essentially provides a more efficient and strategic approach to systems acquisition, potentially providing a more accurate and integrated assessment of true system cost than other extant putative measures of life-cycle cost. Brown outlines a method to leverage VDD in this manner, which he refers to as "lifecycle cost under uncertainty" [14]. The notion of a life cycle cost metric that attempts to account for nondeterministic events in a program's life cycle is at the heart of the "more flexible approach to valuing flexibility," which will be outlined in the final section of this paper.…”