IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v18y2015i3p229-240.html

Seeing Complex System through Different Lenses: Impact of Decomposition Perspective on System Architecture Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Eun Suk Suh
  • Noemi Chiriac
  • Katja Hölttä‐Otto

Abstract

Creating a representation of the base system architecture is one of the first and most critical steps for system development. Typically, the system architect would start by decomposing the existing or proposed system into smaller subsystems or modules. It is widely recognized that at the overall systems level a system can be viewed from different viewpoints. However, unlike often assumed, also when focusing on a single view, such as a systems view, the system decomposition can be done in many alternative ways thus resulting in a different base architecture every time. Depending on the system architect's perspective, representation of system can vary widely, having a profound impact on subsequent system architecture development. In this paper, quantitative analysis of system architecture representation, using a design structure matrix (DSM), and its effect on system modularity is presented. The analysis reveals that the results of the system analysis, namely modularity, are different for the same system, depending on the system architect's perspective. This work highlights the need for more structured approaches to system decomposition and system analysis based on that decomposition.

Suggested Citation

  • Eun Suk Suh & Noemi Chiriac & Katja Hölttä‐Otto, 2015. "Seeing Complex System through Different Lenses: Impact of Decomposition Perspective on System Architecture Analysis," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 229-240, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:18:y:2015:i:3:p:229-240
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21294
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21294?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. Rudolf Smaling & Olivier de Weck, 2007. "Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Avner Engel & Tyson R. Browning, 2008. "Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 125-146, June.
    3. David M. Sharman & Ali A. Yassine, 2004. "Characterizing complex product architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 35-60.
    4. Tyson R. Browning, 2009. "The many views of a process: Toward a process architecture framework for product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 69-90, March.
    5. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    6. Ali A. Yassine & Luke A. Wissmann, 2007. "The Implications of Product Architecture on the Firm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 118-137, June.
    7. Eun Suk Suh & Michael R. Furst & Kenneth J. Mihalyov & Olivier de Weck, 2010. "Technology infusion for complex systems: A framework and case study," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 186-203, June.
    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. Eun Suk Suh & Michael R. Furst & Kenneth J. Mihalyov & Olivier de Weck, 2010. "Technology infusion for complex systems: A framework and case study," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 186-203, June.
    2. Pedro Parraguez & Steven Eppinger & Anja Maier, 2016. "Characterizing Design Process Interfaces as Organization Networks: Insights for Engineering Systems Management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 158-173, March.
    3. Tobias Knabke & Sebastian Olbrich, 2018. "Building novel capabilities to enable business intelligence agility: results from a quantitative study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 493-546, August.
    4. Sunder Shyam, 2011. "Imagined Worlds of Accounting," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-14, January.
    5. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    6. Basile, Luigi Jesus & Carbonara, Nunzia & Pellegrino, Roberta & Panniello, Umberto, 2023. "Business intelligence in the healthcare industry: The utilization of a data-driven approach to support clinical decision making," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Loris Gaio, 2005. "A diversity-based approach to requirements tracing in new product development," ROCK Working Papers 031, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 13 Jun 2008.
    8. B. A. Huberman & N. S. Glance, "undated". "Diversity and Collective Action," Working Papers _001, Xerox Research Park.
    9. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    10. 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.
    11. David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Voting Decisions Exploring a 160-Year Period," Working Papers 2012.70, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Meir Tahan & Joseph Z. Ben‐Asher, 2005. "Modeling and analysis of integration processes for engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 62-77.
    13. Valente, Matteo & Reniers, Genserik & Cozzani, Valerio, 2026. "Techno-Economic Analysis of Protection Barriers Against Fire-Induced Domino Effects in the Chemical and Process Industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 266(PB).
    14. Benjamin Rohr & John Levi Martin, 2025. "The State and the Emergence of the First American Party System: Roll Call Voting in the New York State Assembly during the Early Republic," American Sociological Review, , vol. 90(4), pages 726-754, August.
    15. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    16. H. Christopher Frey & Sumeet R. Patil, 2002. "Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 553-578, June.
    17. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Michel Gutsatz, 2000. "Managerial Competencies for Organizational Flexibility: The Luxury Goods Industry between Tradition and Postmodernism," Post-Print hal-01892018, HAL.
    18. Rennard, Jean-Philippe, 2006. "Artificiality in Social Sciences," MPRA Paper 1458, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    20. Dalila Cisco Collatto & Aline Dresch & Daniel Pacheco Lacerda & Ione Ghislene Bentz, 2018. "Is Action Design Research Indeed Necessary? Analysis and Synergies Between Action Research and Design Science Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 239-267, June.

    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:18:y:2015:i:3:p:229-240. 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.