ICoRD'13 pp 707-719 | Cite as

Modeling and Analyzing Systems in Application

  • Maik Maurer
  • Sebastian Maisenbacher
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Technical products and processes do not represent complex but complicated systems. Complexity gets implemented into such systems by including users and use cases. Hereby, technical systems can be interpreted as enablers, which fulfill functions for the user. We define the combination of users and enablers as a “system in application” and propose applying methods from structural complexity management for its modeling and analysis. Therefore, we introduce two structural characteristics and their interpretation. Based on modeling, analysis and interpretations we present procedures for system improvement and evaluation in terms of increased system usability. The practical application of the new approach on the check-in process for air travel shows achievable benefits from systematic improvement and evaluation strategies. Future work will cover the extension of applicable structure analyses and methods of multi-domain analyses.


Structural complexity Enabler User Design structure matrix 


  1. 1.
    Calvano C, John P (2004) Systems engineering in an age of complexity. J Syst Eng 7(1):25–34Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung L, Cooper K (2004) Defining goals in a COTS-aware requirements engineering approach. J Syst Eng 7(1):61–83Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kohn A, Lindemann U (2009) Combination of algorithms and visualization techniques considering user requirements—a case study. 11th international design structure matrix conferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cotsftis M (2009) What makes a system complex?—an approach to self organization and emergence. In: Aziz-Alaoui M et al (ed) From system complexity to emergent properties. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–99Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amaral L, Ottino J (2004) Complex networks. Eur Phys J B 38:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richardson K (2001) On the status of natural boundaries: a complex systems perspective. Systems in management 7th annual ANZSYS conference, pp 229–238Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson P (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Organ Sci 10(3):216–232Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marti M (2007) Complexity management: optimizing product architecture of industrial products. Dissertation University St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Von der Maßen T, Lichter H (2002) Modeling variability by UML use case diagrams. International workshop on requirements engineering for product lines, EssenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koch N, Kraus A (2002) The expressive power of UML-based web engineering. Second international workshop on web oriented software technology CYTED, pp 105–119Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindemann U, Maurer M, Braun T (2009) Structural complexity management. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gulliksen J (1996) Designing for usability—domain specific Human-computer interfaces in working life. PhD thesis, University of UppsalaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Product DevelopmentTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations