Advertisement

System Design and the Design Process

  • A. Terry Bahill
  • Azad M. Madni
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses the importance of models and processes associated with decision-making in system design. It begins by introducing the reader to a general process that applies to a variety of domains (for example, system design, drug counseling with teenagers, financial planning, buying products and services). Then it describes abstraction, which is the basis of all design. Our system design process comes next with a simple example that illuminates the key aspects of design. In subsequent sections, we go into progressively greater detail of the system design process. Finally, the designs are documented with diagrams from traditional system design, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and the Systems Modeling Language (SysML).

Keywords

Life cycle Use case Statechart State machine diagram Activity diagram Sequence diagram Class diagram Block definition diagram Parametric diagram Use case diagram 

References

Uncategorized References

  1. 1.
    Bahill AT, Gissing B (1998) Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using systems thinking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 28(4):516–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bahill AT, Dean FF (1999) Discovering system requirements. In: Sage AP, Rouse WB (eds) Handbook of systems engineering and management. Wiley, New York, pp 175–220Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madni AM (2014) Expanding stakeholder participation in upfront system engineering through storytelling in virtual worlds. Syst Eng 18(1):16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Madni AM, Brenner M, Costea I, MacGregor D, Meshkinpour F (eds) (1985) Option generation: problems, principles, and computer-based aiding. Proceedings of the 1985 international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Tuscon, AZGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Madni AM (2013) Generating novel options during systems architecting: psychological principles, systems thinking, and computer-based aiding. Syst Eng 17(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Madni A, Freedy A, Estrin G, Melkanoff M (eds) (1991) Concurrent engineering workstation for multi-chip module product development process. Invited paper presented at QALS Q QE Washington’91 conference and exposition, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moody JA, Voorhees F, Bahill AT, Chapman WL (1997) Metrics and case studies for evaluating engineering designs. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Santayana G (1905) Flux and constancy in human nature. The life of reason, vol 1, Chapter XII. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, p 6 and 62. https://www.wikipremed.com/reading/philosophy/The_Life_of_Reason.pdf
  9. 9.
    Bahill AT, Baldwin DG, Ramberg JS (2009) Effects of altitude and atmospheric conditions on the flight of a baseball. Int J Sports Sci Eng 3(2):109–128Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rechtin E, Maier M (2000) The art of systems architecting, 2nd edn. CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mourlot F (2015) Le Taureau de Picasso. http://mourlot.free.fr/english/fmtaureau.html Accessed Dec 2015
  12. 12.
    OMG. Documents associated with the unified modeling language (UML) 2015, Version 2.5. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/
  13. 13.
    Bahill AT (2010) Design and testing of an illuminance management system. ITEA J 31(1):63–89Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bahill AT (2012) Diogenes, a process for identifying unintended consequences. Syst Eng 15(3):287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daniels J, Bahill AT (2004) The hybrid process that combines traditional requirements and use cases. Syst Eng 7(4):303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedenthal S, Moore A, Steiner R (2014) A practical guide to SysML: the systems modeling language. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore GA (2014) Crossing the chasm, marketing and selling disruptive products to mainstream customers, 3rd edn. Harper Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Madni AM (2012) Elegant systems design: creative fusion of simplicity and power. Syst Eng 15(3):347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Botta R, Bahill AT (2007) A prioritization process. Eng Manag J 19(4):20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wymore AW (1993) Model-based systems engineering. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bahill AT, Szidarovszky F, Botta R, Smith ED (2008) Valid models require defined levels. Int J of Gen Syst 37(5):553–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Madni AM, Sievers MW (2015) Model based systems engineering: motivation, current status and needed advances. University of Southern California, Systems Architecting and Engineering Program, Technical Report, SAE-TR-006-2015Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chapman WL, Bahill AT, Wymore AW (1992) Engineering modeling and design. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Evans E (2004) Domain-driven design: tackling complexity in the heart of software. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (1999) The unified modeling language user guide. Pearson Education India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boehm BW (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 21(5):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simon HA (2012) The architecture of complexity. The roots of logistics. Springer Science + Business Media, New York, pp 335–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quintanar GJ (1999) An age of interfaces. Distrib Comp 15–18Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schulz AP, Fricke E, Igenbergs E (eds) (2000) Enabling changes in systems throughout the entire life-cycle—key to success? Proceedings of the 10th annual INCOSE conference, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Browning TR (2002) Process integration using the design structure matrix. Syst Eng 5(3):180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bahill AT (2006) Tradeoff studies: a systems engineering skills course. BAE Systems, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Douglass BP (2004) Real time UML: advances in the UML for real-time systems. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wymore AW (eds) (2004) The nature of research in systems engineering. Conference on systems engineering research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. HonourcodeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Madni AM, Jackson S (2009) Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering. IEEE Syst J 3(2):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neches R, Madni AM (2013) Towards affordably adaptable and effective systems. Syst Eng 16(2):224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Madni AM, Sievers M (2015) A flexible contract-based design framework for evaluating system resilience approaches and mechanisms. IIE annual conference and expo, 30 May–2 June, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zachman J (2006) The Zachman framework for enterprise architecture. Zachman Framework AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Blaha M, Rumbaugh J (2005) Object-oriented modeling and design with UML. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Overgraad G, Palmkvist K (2005) Use cases patterns and blueprints. Addison-Wesley ReadingGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wymore AW, Bahill AT (2000) When can we safely reuse systems, upgrade systems, or use COTS components? Syst Eng 3(2):82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Botta R, Bahill AT (2006) A prioritization process. INCOSE international symposium, vol 16, no 1, pp 1626–1633Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Botta R, Bahill AT (2004) 6.5.3 the Zachman framework populated with baseball models. INCOSE international symposium, vol 14, no 1, pp 1333–1350Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Madni AM, Yee-yeen CA (1988) Design support system for crew system automation. Proceedings of the 1988 I.E. international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Parnas DL (1972) On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun ACM 15(12):1053–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Suh NP (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fowler M (2004) UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Daniels J, Werner PW, Bahill AT (2001) Quantitative methods for tradeoff analyses. Syst Eng 4(3):190–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chrissis MB, Konrad M, Shrum S (2011) CMMI for development®: guidelines for process integration and product improvement. Part of the SEI Series in Software Engineering Series. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Alistair C (2001) Writing effective use cases. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kulak D, Guiney E (2001) Use cases. SIGSOFT Soft Eng Notes 26(1):101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gomaa H (2006) Designing concurrent, distributed, and real-time applications with UML. Proceeding of the 28th international conference on software engineering—ICSE’06. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    O’Connor PD (2001) Test engineering: a concise guide to cost-effective design, development and manufacture. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Christian J, Olds J (2005) A quantitative methodology for identifying evolvable space systems. First space exploration conference: continuing the voyage of discovery. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sutter JF, Spenser JP (2006) 747: creating the world’s first Jumbo Jet and other adventures from a life in aviation. Smithsonian Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Browning TR (2003) On customer value and improvement in product development processes. Syst Eng 6(1):49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pugh S (1991) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Smith ED, Piattelli-Palmarini M, Bahill AT (2008) Cognitive biases affect the acceptance of tradeoff studies. Decision modeling and behavior in complex and uncertain environments. Springer, New York, pp 227–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Smith ED, Szidarovszky F, Karnavas WJ, Bahill AT (2008) Sensitivity analysis, a powerful system validation technique. Open Cybernet Syst J 2:39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Madni AM, Ross A (2016) Chapter 10: Exploring concept trade-offs. In: Parnell GS (ed) Trade-off analytics: creating and exploring the system tradespace. WileyGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bahill AT, Henderson SJ (2005) Requirements development, verification, and validation exhibited in famous failures. Syst Eng 8(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fricke E, Schulz AP (2005) Design for changeability (DfC): principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle. Syst Eng 8(4):342–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Coster-Mullen J (2016) Atom bombs: the top secret inside story of Little Boy and Fat Man. Coster-Mullen, Waukesh Wisconsin. OCLC 298514167Google Scholar
  64. 64.
  65. 65.
    Weilkiens T (2007) SysML—the systems modeling language. Systems engineering with SysML/UML. Elsevier BV, pp 223–270Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bahill AT, Karnavas WJ (1993) The perceptual illusion of baseball’s rising fastball and breaking curveball. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Watts RG, Bahill AT (2000) Keep your eye on the ball: curve balls, knuckleballs, and fallacies of baseball., Potomac BooksGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Long J (2002) Relationships between common graphical representations in systems engineering. Vitech white paper, Vitech Corporation, Vienna, VA, p 70Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bock C (2006) SysML and UML 2 support for activity modeling. Syst Eng 9(2):160–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bahill AT, LaRitz T (1984) Why can’t batters keep their eyes on the ball. Am Sci 72(3):249–253Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    McHugh DE, Bahill AT (1985) Learning to track predictable target waveforms without a time delay. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26(7):932–937Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bahill AT, Karnavas WJ (1992) Inventorsbat selector. U.S. patent number 5,118,102, 2 June 1992.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bahill AT, Baldwin DG (2003) The vertical illusions of batters. Baseb Res J 32:26–30Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bahill AT, Baldwin DG (2004) The rising fastball and other perceptual illusions of batters. Bioengineering, mechanics, and materials: principles and applications in sports. Springer Science + Business Media, New York, pp 257–287Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bahill AT (2005) Tradeoff study on tradeoff study software. BAE Systems, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bahill AT, Baldwin DG (2007) Describing baseball pitch movement with right-hand rules. Comput Biol Med 37(7):1001–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Baldwin D, Bahill AT, Nathan A (2007) Nickel and dime pitches. Baseb Res J 35:25–29Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mellor SJ (2004) MDA distilled: principles of model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Harel D (1988) On visual formulations. CACM 5:514–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Madni AM, Nance M, Richey M, Hubbard W, Hanneman L (2014) Toward an Experiential Design Language: Augmenting Model-based Systems Engineering with Technical Storytelling in Virtual Worlds. Procedia Comput Sci 28:848–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Botta R, Bahill Z, Bahill AT (2006) When are observable states necessary? Syst Eng 9(3):228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Terry Bahill
    • 1
  • Azad M. Madni
    • 2
  1. 1.Systems and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Astronautical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations