IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v9y2006i3p228-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When are observable states necessary?

Author

Listed:
  • Rick Botta
  • Zach Bahill
  • Terry Bahill

Abstract

In order to use commercial off‐the‐shelf (COTS) products, the engineer must be able to prove that the COTS product is equivalent to the specified design. In most cases, this requires observable states, which are usually not available, because the supplier may not know or may not want to disclose the internal states of the system. This paper first presents the following reasons for proving system equivalence: to reuse existing systems, to upgrade systems, to use COTS products, to replicate failures, to verify that a physical system conforms to its design, and to test evolving systems. Next, the paper presents the following techniques that have been used in lieu of proving system equivalence: Create multiple reset (or test) states and prove I/O equivalence with respect to all initial state pairs, implement built‐in self‐tests, use regression testing, define pre and post conditions, only use COTS products in places where you do not care about observable states, put a wrapper around COTS products, record the mode the system was in when the event of interest occurred, abstract the code into a state machine, build an observer to estimate the system states, and add extra outputs so that the states can be identified by examining the outputs. Finally, this paper gives examples where states are necessary and unnecessary in modeling systems. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 5: 228–240, 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Rick Botta & Zach Bahill & Terry Bahill, 2006. "When are observable states necessary?," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 228-240, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:9:y:2006:i:3:p:228-240
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.20053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20053
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.20053?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. Jesse Daniels & Paul W. Werner & A. Terry Bahill, 2001. "Quantitative methods for tradeoff analyses," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 190-212.
    2. A. Wayne Wymore & A. Terry Bahill, 2000. "When can we safely reuse systems, upgrade systems, or use COTS components?," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 82-95.
    3. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    4. A. Terry Bahill & Steven J. Henderson, 2005. "Requirements development, verification, and validation exhibited in famous failures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael W. Grenn & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2014. "The Requirements Entropy Framework in Systems Engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 462-478, December.
    2. A. Terry Bahill, 2012. "Diogenes, a process for identifying unintended consequences," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 287-306, September.
    3. A. Terry Bahill & Ferenc Szidarovszky, 2009. "Comparison of dynamic system modeling methods," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 183-200, September.

    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. Eric D. Smith & Young Jun Son & Massimo Piattelli‐Palmarini & A. Terry Bahill, 2007. "Ameliorating mental mistakes in tradeoff studies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 222-240, September.
    2. Torgler, Benno & Schneider, Friedrich & Schaltegger, Christoph A., 2007. "With or Against the People? The Impact of a Bottom-Up Approach on Tax Morale and the Shadow Economy," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt6331x6vz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    3. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    4. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    5. Jae Wook Yoo & Richard Reed & Shung Jae Shin & David J. Lemak, 2009. "Strategic Choice and Performance in Late Movers: Influence of the Top Management Team's External Ties," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 308-335, March.
    6. Giovanni Calice & Levent Kutlu & Ming Zeng, 2021. "Understanding US firm efficiency and its asset pricing implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 803-827, February.
    7. Westerhoff, Frank H. & Dieci, Roberto, 2006. "The effectiveness of Keynes-Tobin transaction taxes when heterogeneous agents can trade in different markets: A behavioral finance approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 293-322, February.
    8. José Castro Caldas & Helder Coelho, 1999. "The Origin of Institutions: Socio-Economic Processes, Choice, Norms and Conventions," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 2(2), pages 1-1.
    9. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    10. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    11. Westerhoff Frank H., 2008. "The Use of Agent-Based Financial Market Models to Test the Effectiveness of Regulatory Policies," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 228(2-3), pages 195-227, April.
    12. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    13. Shi, Yi & Deng, Yawen & Wang, Guoan & Xu, Jiuping, 2020. "Stackelberg equilibrium-based eco-economic approach for sustainable development of kitchen waste disposal with subsidy policy: A case study from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Lawrence Bunnell & Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson & Victoria Y. Yoon, 0. "RecSys Issues Ontology: A Knowledge Classification of Issues for Recommender Systems Researchers," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-42.
    15. da Silveira, Jaylson Jair & Lima, Gilberto Tadeu, 2021. "Wage inequality as a source of endogenous macroeconomic fluctuations," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 35-52.
    16. Nathan N. Cheek & Jacob Goebel, 2020. "What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,†indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 7-24, January.
    17. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    18. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Manolis, Chris & Nygaard, Arne & Stillerud, Bård, 1997. "Uncertainty and vertical control: An international investigation," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 6(5), pages 501-518, October.
    20. Umar, Tarik, 2022. "Complexity aversion when SeekingAlpha," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).

    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:9:y:2006:i:3:p:228-240. 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.