IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v21y2018i5p476-489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entropy‐based system assessment metric for determining architecture's robustness to different stakeholder perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Jaemyung Ahn
  • Minkyu Choi
  • Eun Suk Suh

Abstract

In this study, a new system assessment metric is proposed to evaluate the robustness of system architectures to different stakeholder perspectives and decomposition preferences. Typically, the decomposition of a system architecture into a modular configuration is based on the function‐based perspective of the design teams, which can be different from the perspectives of other stakeholders such as the manufacturing teams and field service organization. In this paper, a system architecture is decomposed into different modular configurations on the basis of the preferred perspectives of various stakeholders. The generated configurations are then compared to function‐based modular configurations in terms of the diffusion of the original function‐based module components into modules generated from different perspectives. The degree of diffusion is measured using a newly proposed entropy based metric referred to as the module diffusion index. The proposed metric provides stakeholders with a quantifiable measure of the robustness of a particular system architecture with respect to the preferred decomposition strategy of different stakeholders. The proposed metric can be used to assess different system architectures in terms of their robustness to perspective‐based decompositions. A case study is conducted wherein different mechanical clock architectures are assessed in terms of the robustness to different perspective‐based decompositions to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed metric.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaemyung Ahn & Minkyu Choi & Eun Suk Suh, 2018. "Entropy‐based system assessment metric for determining architecture's robustness to different stakeholder perspectives," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 476-489, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:21:y:2018:i:5:p:476-489
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21448
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21448?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Basar Oztaysi & Mine Isik & Secil Ercan, 2013. "Multi-Criteria Decision Aid for Sustainable Energy Prioritization Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design," International Journal of Energy Optimization and Engineering (IJEOE), IGI Global, vol. 2(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Pimmler, Thomas U. (Thomas Udo) & Eppinger, Steven D., 1994. "Integration analysis of product decompositions," Working papers 3690-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. Eppinger, Steven D. & Browning, Tyson R., 2012. "Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262017520, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Babak Heydari & Mohsen Mosleh & Kia Dalili, 2016. "From Modular to Distributed Open Architectures: A Unified Decision Framework," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 252-266, May.
    2. Jukrin Moon & Dongoo Lee & Taesik Lee & Jaemyung Ahn & Jindong Shin & Kyungho Yoon & Dongsik Choi, 2015. "Group Decision Procedure to Model the Dependency Structure of Complex Systems: Framework and Case Study for Critical Infrastructures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 323-338, July.
    3. Habib, Tufail & Kristiansen, Jimmi Normann & Rana, Mohammad Bakhtiar & Ritala, Paavo, 2020. "Revisiting the role of modular innovation in technological radicalness and architectural change of products: The case of Tesla X and Roomba," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    4. Uwe Beyer & Oliver Ullrich, 2022. "Organizational Complexity as a Contributing Factor to Underperformance," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.
    6. Morgan Dwyer & Bruce Cameron & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2015. "A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 568-583, November.
    7. Félicia Saïah & Diego Vega & Harwin de Vries & Joakim Kembro, 2023. "Process modularity, supply chain responsiveness, and moderators: The Médecins Sans Frontières response to the Covid‐19 pandemic," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1490-1511, May.
    8. Junguang Zhang & Xiwei Song & Hongyu Chen & Ruixia (Sandy) Shi, 2016. "Determination of critical chain project buffer based on information flow interactions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(9), pages 1146-1157, September.
    9. Pedota, Mattia & Cicala, Francesco & Basti, Alessio, 2024. "A Wild Mind with a Disciplined Eye: Unleashing Human-GenAI Creativity Through Simulated Entity Elicitation," OSF Preprints 3bn95, Center for Open Science.
    10. Alan MacCormack & John Rusnak & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1015-1030, July.
    11. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    12. Liu, Zhixue & Ding, Ronggui & Wang, Lei & Song, Rui & Song, Xinyi, 2023. "Cooperation in an uncertain environment: The impact of stakeholders' concerted action on collaborative innovation projects risk management," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Robert Schmidt & Kasper Sanchez Vibaek & Simon Austin, 2014. "Evaluating the adaptability of an industrialized building using dependency structure matrices," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1-2), pages 160-182, February.
    14. Subarna Basnet & Christopher L Magee, 2017. "Artifact interactions retard technological improvement: An empirical study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
    15. Kaushik Sinha & Seok‐Youn Han & Eun Suk Suh, 2020. "Design structure matrix‐based modularization approach for complex systems with multiple design constraints," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 211-220, March.
    16. Claude Paraponaris & Jean-Louis Ermine & Claude Guittard & Pascal Lièvre, 2012. "Knowledge management in a French research community: a case study of GeCSO congress," Post-Print hal-01119721, HAL.
    17. David A. Broniatowski, 2018. "Building the tower without climbing it: Progress in engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 259-281, May.
    18. Samina Karim & Chi‐Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn‐Weiss, 2023. "Task bottlenecks and resource bottlenecks: A holistic examination of task systems through an organization design lens," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1839-1878, August.
    19. Jyh-Rong Chou, 2021. "A Scoping Review of Ontologies Relevant to Design Strategies in Response to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-27, September.
    20. Mark P. De Lessio & Michel‐Alexandre Cardin & Angel Astaman & Valerie Djie, 2015. "A Process to Analyze Strategic Design and Management Decisions Under Uncertainty in Complex Entrepreneurial Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 604-624, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:21:y:2018:i:5:p:476-489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.