Functionality evaluation of system of systems architecture based on extended influence diagrams

doi:10.21629/JSEE.2018.03.08

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2018, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (3): 510-518.doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2018.03.08

收稿日期:2013-11-22 出版日期:2018-06-28 发布日期:2018-07-02

Functionality evaluation of system of systems architecture based on extended influence diagrams

Mengmeng ZHANG*(), Honghui CHEN(), Xiaoxue ZHANG(), Aimin LUO(), Junxian LIU()

Science and Technology on Information Systems Engineering Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410072, China

Received:2013-11-22 Online:2018-06-28 Published:2018-07-02
Contact: Mengmeng ZHANG E-mail:18670381635@163.com;chh0808@gmail.com;snow1126@126.com;amluo@nudt.edu.cn;18674864900@163.com
About author:ZHANG Mengmeng was born in 1990. He received his M.S. degree in management science and technology from the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), Changsha, China, in 2011. He is pursuing his Ph.D. degree in the School of Information System and Management at NUDT. His research interests are information system architecture design, analysis and validation. E-mail: 18670381635@163.com|CHEN Honghui was born in 1969. He received his M.S. degree and Ph.D. degree from NUDT. He is a professor and the executive vice director of Science and Technology on Information Systems Engineering Laboratory in NUDT now. His current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: chh0808@gmail.com|ZHANG Xiaoxue was born in 1986. She received her M.S. degree and Ph.D. degree from NUDT. She is a teacher in NUDT now. Her current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: snow1126@126.com|LUO Aimin was born in 1971. She received her M.S. degree and Ph.D. degree from NUDT. She is a professor in NUDT now. Her current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: amluo@nudt.edu.cn|LIU Junxian was born in 1973. He received his M.S. degree and Ph.D. degree from NUDT. He is a professor in NUDT now. His current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: 18674864900@163.com
Supported by:
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(71571189);This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71571189)

摘要/Abstract

Abstract:

System of systems architecture (SoSA) has received increasing emphasis by scholars since Zachman ignited its flame in 1987. Given its complexity and abstractness, it is critical to validate and evaluate SoSA to ensure requirements have been met. Multiple qualities are discussed in the literature of SoSA evaluation, while research on functionality is scarce. In order to assess SoSA functionality, an extended influence diagram (EID) is developed in this paper. Meanwhile, a simulation method is proposed to elicit the conditional probabilities in EID through designing and executing SoSA. An illustrative anti-missile architecture case is introduced for EID development, architecture design, and simulation.

Key words: system of systems architecture (SoSA), functionality evaluation, extended influence diagram (EID), anti-missile architecture, simulation

. [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 29(3): 510-518.

Mengmeng ZHANG, Honghui CHEN, Xiaoxue ZHANG, Aimin LUO, Junxian LIU. Functionality evaluation of system of systems architecture based on extended influence diagrams[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 29(3): 510-518.

图/表 10

参考文献 39

1	ZACHMAN J A. John Zachman’s concise definition of the Zachman framework. The SIM guide to enterprise architecture. New York, United States: CRC Press, 2009: 106- 110.
2	DoD Architecture Framework Working Group. DoD architecture framework version 2.0. Washington DC: Department of Defense, 2009.
3	Haren V. TOGAF Version 9.1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing, 2011.
4	AIER S, KURPJUWEIT S, SAAT J, et al. Enterprise architecture design as an engineering discipline. AIS Trans. on Enterprise Systems, 2009, 1(1): 36-43.
5	BUCKL S, MATTHES F, ROTH S, et al. A conceptual framework for enterprise architecture design. Proc. of the International Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research, 2010: 44-56.
6	ANDERSEN P, CARUGATI A. Enterprise architecture evaluation. Proc. of the 8th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, 2014: 1-14.
7	VASCONCELOS A, SOUSA P, TRIBOLET J. Enterprise architecture analysis-an information system evaluation approach. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, 2015, 3 (2): 31- 53.
8	AIER S, GLEICHAUF B, WINTER R. Understanding enterprise architecture management design-an empirical analysis. Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, 2011: 645-654.
9	SIMON D, FISCHBACH K, SCHODER D. Enterprise architecture management and its role in corporate strategic management. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 2014, 12 (1): 5- 42.
10	JUNG J, CHOI I, SONG M. An integration architecture for knowledge management systems and business process management systems. Computers in Industry, 2007, 58 (1): 21- 34.
11	BABAR A M, GORTON I. Comparison of scenario-based software architecture evaluation methods. Proc. of the Software Engineering Conference, 2004: 600-607.
12	ULLBERG J, LAGERSTRÖM R, JOHNSON P. A framework for service interoperability analysis using enterprise architecture models. Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, 2008: 99-107.
13	AIER S, BUCKL S, FRANKE U, et al. A survival analysis of application life spans based on enterprise architecture models. Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Enterprise Modeling and Information Systems Architectures, 2009: 141-154.
14	LAGERSTRÖM R, JOHNSON P, HÖÖK D. Architecture analysis of enterprise systems modifiability -models, analysis, and validation. Journal of Systems and Software, 2010, 83 (8): 1387- 1403. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.019
15	RAZAVI M, ALIEE S F, TAFRESHI E A. A fuzzy AHP based approach towards enterprise architecture evaluation. Proc. of the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation, 2009: 408-421.
16	FRANKE U, FLORES R W, JOHNSON P. Enterprise architecture dependency analysis using fault trees and Bayesian networks. Proc. of the 2009 Spring Simulation Multiconference, Society for Computer Simulation International, 2009: 55-70.
17	ISO/IEC TR 9126. International standard-software engineering-product quality: quality model. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2001.
18	ANAYA R A, LUQUE M, GARCÍA-SAIZ T. Recommender system in collaborative learning environment using an influence diagram. Expert Systems with Applications, 2013, 40 (18): 7193- 7202. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.030
19	JOHNSON P, LAGERSTRÖM R, NÄRMAN P, et al. Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams. Information Systems Frontiers, 2007, 9 (2/3): 163- 180.
20	JOHNSON P, LAGERSTRÖM R, NÄRMAN P, et al. Extended influence diagrams for system quality analysis. Journal of Software, 2007, 2 (3): 30- 42.
21	JOHNSON P, LAGERSTROM R, NÄRMAN P, et al. Extended influence diagrams for enterprise architecture analysis. Proc. of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2006: 3-12.
22	LAGERSTROM R, JOHNSON P. Using architectural models to predict the maintainability of enterprise systems. Proc. of the 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2008: 248-252.
23	SOMMESTAD T, EKSTEDT M, JOHNSON P. Cyber security risks evaluation with Bayesian defense graphs and architectural models. Proc. of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2009: 1-10.
24	EKSTEDT M, SOMMESTAD T. Enterprise architecture models for cyber security analysis. Proc. of the Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2009: 1-6.
25	NÄRMAN P, JOHNSON P, EKSTEDT M, et al. Enterprise architecture analysis for data accuracy assessments. Proc. of the Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2009: 24-33.
26	FRANKE U, JOHNSON P, KÖNIG J. An architecture framework for enterprise IT service availability analysis. Software & Systems Modeling, 2014, 13 (4): 1417- 1445.
27	RADERIUS J, NÄRMAN P, EKSTEDT M. Assessing system availability using an enterprise architecture analysis approach. Proc. of the International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, 2008: 351-362.
28	JOHNSON P, LAGERSTRÖM R, NÄRMAN P, et al. System quality analysis with extended influence diagrams. Proc. of the 11th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2007: 1-10.
29	SCHELP J, STUTZ M. A balanced scorecard approach to measure the value of enterprise architecture. Proc. of the Second Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research, 2007: 5-11.
30	NÄRMAN P, BUSCHLE M, EKSTEDT M. An enterprise architecture framework for multi-attribute information systems analysis. Software & Systems Modeling, 2014, 13 (3): 1085- 1116.
31	SCHMIDT R, WIßOTZKI M, JUGEL D, et al. Towards a framework for enterprise architecture analytics. Proc. of the Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations, 2014: 266-275.
32	LANGE M, MENDLING J, RECKER J. An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of enterprise architecture management success. European Journal of Information Systems, 2016, 25 (5): 411- 431. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2014.39
33	URBACZEWSKI L, MRDALJ S. A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues in Information Systems, 2006, 7 (2): 18- 23.
34	VAN DER RAADT B, VAN VLIET H. Assessing the efficiency of the enterprise architecture function. Proc. of the Working Conference on Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation, 2009: 63-83.
35	LI D P, YANG G Y, TAN L Z. Warship formation network centric cooperative antimissile under early warning aircraft support. Modern Defence Technology, 2013, 1 (3): 1- 10.
36	SUN Q, TAO J F, JI J L. Research on target acquisition requirements to a guidance radar of anti-missile weapon system. Proc. of the International Conference on Information Technology and Computer Application Engineering, 2013: 373.
37	KUHN A, MURPHY G C, THOMPSON A C. An exploratory study of forces and frictions affecting large-scale model-driven development. Proc. of the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 2012: 352-367.
38	DOHR F, EISENBART B, HUWIG C, et al. Software support for the consistent transition from requirements to functional modeling to system simulation. Proc. of the 10th Norddesign Conference, 2014: 775-784
39	CHHANIYARA S, SAAJ M C, MAEDIGER B, et al. Model based system engineering for space robotic systems. Proc. of the 11th Symposium on Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, 2011: 1-9.

Example	Description	Approach	Indicator
Joachim Schelp(2007) ^[29]	A framework to identify and quantify the valueof architecture was proposed.	Balanced Scorecard	Value
Johan Ullberg(2008) ^[12]	Enterprise service interoperability analysis wasconducted with a framework and metamodel.	EID	Interoperability
Stephan Aier (2009) ^[13]	Survival abilities of SoSA models were analyzed and suggestions for model adoption were proposed.	Life table mode	Maintainability
Mahsa Razavi (2009) ^[15]	An integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was proposed for multi-attributes analysis.	Fuzzy AHP	Multi-attributes (e.g., maintainability)
Teodor Sommestad (2009) ^[23]	The cyber security risk provided by different architectural scenarios was analyzed.	EID	Security risk
Ulrik Franke (2009) ^[16]	A method was provided for how architecture models can be depended with each other.	Fault trees, Bayesian networks	Dependency
Robert Lagerstrom (2010) ^[14]	An instantiated architectural model was presented for enterprise systems modifiability analysis.	EID	Modifiability
Per Närman (2011) ^[25]	Data accuracy analysis was conducted with Archimate language and formalism models.	}Probabilistic relational models	Data accuracy
Per Närman (2014) ^[30]	A framework was presented based on the Archimate metamodel for architecture assessment.	Meta-model&	Application usage, system availability, service response time, data accuracy
Ulrik Franke (2014) ^[26]	An integrated enterprise architecture framework was proposed for assessing service availability.	Meta-model	Availability
Rainer Schmidt (2014) ^[31]	A special suited maturity framework of architecture management was introduced.	Meta-model	Utility
Matthias Lange (2016) ^[32]	Architecture management success factors were identified and a theoretical model was proposed for measuring management success.	Questionnaire	Management success

War...	Quick								Slow
Pro...	Quick				Slow				Quick				Slow
Tra...	Quick		Slow		Quick		Slow		Quick		Slow		Quick		Slow
Pre...	Quick	Slow	Quick	Slow	Quick	Slow	Quick	Slow	Quick	Slow	Quick	Slow	Quick	Slow	Quick	Slow
Quick	1	0.4	0.53	0.45	0.51	1	0.5	0.31	0.95	0.5	1	0.6	0.5	1	0.3	0.08
Slow	0	0.6	0.47	0.55	0.49	0	0.5	0.69	0.05	0.5	0	0.4	0.5	0	0.7	0.92

Functionality evaluation of system of systems architecture based on extended influence diagrams

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 39

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价