SpringerLink
Log in

MDRE System Supportability Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Requirements Engineering: Laying a Firm Foundation

  • 1558 Accesses

Abstract

Every system that is fielded must be operated and maintained (supported). Lack of supportability analysis and requirements will affect the design and deployment and may make the resulting system unsupportable in the field. Here we discuss the notion of supportability and its criticality to successful system development and operations. We start by describing a sensor system and then move into more general discussions of supportability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

AC:

Alternating current

ACQ:

Acquisition

ADC:

Analog-to-digital converter

AFRL:

Air Force Research Labs

AI/ML:

Artificial intelligence/machine learning

ASOE:

Affordability System Operational Effectiveness

ATM:

Automated teller machine

ATP:

Authorization to Proceed

Az:

Azimuth

BIT:

Built-in Test

BSP:

Board Supply Packages

CBM:

Condition-based maintenance

CERN:

European Organization for Nuclear Research

cm:

Centimeter

COTS:

Commercial off the shelf

COVID-19:

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CPPI:

Continuous process/product improvement

CSWaP:

Cost, size, weight and power

CW:

Continuous wave

DAC:

Digital-to-analog converter

dB:

Decibel

dBm:

Decibel reference to a milliwatt

dBsm:

Decibel per square meter

DC:

Direct current (also 0 Hz)

DFM:

Design for Maintenance

DFS:

Design for Supportability

DMA:

Damage Mode Analysis

DoD:

Department of Defense

DREX+:

Digital receiver/exciter

DSP:

Digital signal processing

EKF:

Extended Kalman filter

El:

Elevation

ESD:

Electrostatic discharge

EW:

Electronic Warfare

F:

Fahrenheit

FAA:

Federal Aviation Administration

FAA:

Federal Aviation Agency

FMEA:

Failure Modes and Effect Analysis

FMECA:

Failure Mode, Effects, and Critical Analysis

FOV:

Field of view

FPGA:

Field programmable gate array

ft.:

Feet

Gbps:

Giga bits per second

GHz:

Giga-Hertz

GPP:

General purpose processor

H/W:

Hardware

HF:

High frequency

HPC:

High-performance computing

HVAC:

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

I/O:

Input/output

ID:

Identification

IOT&E:

Initial Operational Test and Evaluation

KPI:

Key Performance Indicator

kW:

Kilo-watt

LCC:

Life cycle cost

LED:

Light emitting diode

LHC:

Large Hadron Collider

LRU:

Line replaceable unit

m:

Meter

MDA:

Missile Defense Agency

MDRE:

Multidisciplinary requirements engineering

MHz:

Mega-Hertz

MIL-STD:

Military Standard

MoE:

Measures of Effectiveness

MOS:

Metal oxide semiconductor

MTBF:

Mean time between failure

MTBMA:

Mean time between maintenance action

MTTR:

Mean time to repair

MWC:

Miner wearable component

nm or nmi:

Nautical miles

O&M:

Operational and Maintenance

O&S:

Operations and Support

OoI:

Object of Interest

OSHA:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PD:

Pulse Doppler

pps:

Pulse per second

R&D:

Research and Development

RADAR:

Radio detect and ranging

RAM:

Reliability, availability, and maintainability

RARE:

Radar Advanced Receiver Exciter

RCM:

Reliability centered maintenance

RCS:

Radar cross section

RF:

Radio frequency

RPY:

Roll, pitch and yaw

S/W:

Software

SARS-COV-2:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

SCA:

Supply chain analysis

SCM:

Supply chain management

SCOR:

Supply chain operations reference

SDR:

Software-defined radio

SIGINT:

Signals intelligence

SNR:

Signal-to-noise ratio

SSTX:

Solid-state transmitter

TBD:

To be determined

TCO:

Total cost of ownership

TCP/IP:

Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

TOC:

Total ownership cost

ToF:

Time of flight

TV:

Television

UHF:

Ultra-high frequency

USB:

Universal Serial Bus

USTAR:

Unmanned Search/Track Air Radar

UWB:

Ultra-wideband

Vac:

Volts AC

W:

Watt

WHO:

World Health Organization

WIP:

Work in progress

WSARA:

Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act

References

  1. Shaw, M. (1990). Prospects for an engineering discipline of software. IEEE Software, 7(6), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stevens, R., Brook, P., Jackson, K., & Arnold, S. (1998). Systems engineering: Co** with complexity. Prentice Hall Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Courage, C., & Baxter, K. (2005). Understanding your users: A practical guide to user requirements methods, tools, and techniques. Elsevier Publishing. ISBN 978-1558609358.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huddlestone, J., Sears, R., & Harris, D. (2017). The use of operational event sequence diagrams and work domain analysis techniques for the specification of the crewing configuration of a single-pilot commercial aircraft. Cognition, Technology & Work, 19, 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Neighbors, J. (1980). Software construction using components. Technical report 160. Department of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Neighbors, J. (1984). The Draco approach to constructing software from reusable components. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering, SE-10, 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kotonya, G., & Sommervile, I. (2003). Requirements engineering processes and techniques. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-97208-8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. DeMarco, T., & Plauger, P. (1989). Structured analysis and system specification. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yourdon, E. (1989). Modern structured analysis. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. IBM. (2017). IDC, the thinking supply chain.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Geriant, J. (2015). The changing face of supply chain risk management (SCM World).

    Google Scholar 

  12. O’Marah, K. and Chen, X. (2016). Report: Future of supply chain (SCM World).

    Google Scholar 

  13. O’Marah, K. (2017). Your roadmap to a digital supply chain (SCM World).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dittmann, P. (2017). New supply chain technology best practices (white paper, University of Tennessee’s Haslam College of Business).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cecere, L. 2017. Driving digital supply chain transformation – A handbook for action.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (upper Saddle River). Prentice Hall.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Taylor, C. (2017). Artificial intelligence and logistics is transforming business. Big Data (blog).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly, J. (2015). Computing, cognition and the future of knowing (white paper). IBM Research: Cognitive Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Siegel, E. (2016). Predictive analytics: The power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  20. James, R., & Lindner, C. (2012). Business analytics: The next frontier for decision sciences. Decision Line.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Handfield, R. (2017). The evolution of the transparent and cognitive supply chain, white paper. IBM and North Carolina State University.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oliver, R., & Webber, M. (1982). Supply chain management: Logistics catches up with strategy. Outlook, 5(1), 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee, H., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (1997). The bullwhip effects in supply chains. MIT Sloan Management Review.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Trent, R. (2004). What everyone needs to know about SCM. Supply chain. Management Review.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Speier, C., Mollenkopf, D., & Stank, T. (2008). The role of information integration in facilitating 21st century supply chains: A theory-based perspective. Transportation Journal, 47(2), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dittmann, J. (2013). Supply chain transformation. McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Burnette, M. (2015). Platform life cycle management best practices, white paper. University of Tennessee’s Haslam College of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stank, T., Scott, S., & Hazen, B. (2018). A savvy guide to the digital supply chain, white paper. University of Tennessee’s Haslam College of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Scott, S. (2015). Supply chain talent—Our Most important resource, white paper. University of Tennessee’s Haslam College of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Burnette, M., & Dittmann, J. (2017). End-to-end supply chain collaboration best practices, white paper. University of Tennessee’s Haslam College of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Miyakawa, S. and Ohashi, T. (1986). “The Hitachi Assembly Evaluation Method (AEM),” Proc. International Conference on Product Design for Assembly, Newport, Rhode Island, April 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Boothroyd, G. (1980). Design for Assembly – A designer’s handbook. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Boothroyd, G. (1982). Design for assembly: The road to higher productivity. Assembly Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Henchy, L. (1988). American manufacturing fights Back. Business. Solutions, 1988, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Boothroyd, G., and Dekker, M. (1992). Assembly automation and product.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurts, P., and Knight, W, (1994). Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly. CRC Press, London, ISBN 978-1420089271.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Compton, W., (1988), Design and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems. National Academy Press, Washinton, DC..

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lewis, G., and Connelly, H. (2000). Product design for assembly: the methodology applied.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Stoll, H., (1988) Design for Manufacture. Manufacture Engineering, pp. 67–73).

    Google Scholar 

  40. “IBM Proprinter Case Study”. Engineering Systems Research Center. University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hitchens Carl. 2014. Guide to engineering metrology.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Franciosa, P. and Ceglarek, D. (2015), Hierarchical synthesis of multi-level design parameters in assembly system. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 149–152, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Anderson, D. (2004). Design for manufacturability and concurrent engineering: How to design for low cost, design in high quality, design for lean manufacture, and design quickly for fast production. Cambria, CA CIM Press p. 28 ISBN 978–1978072238.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stolt, R., Elgh, F., & Andersson, P. (2017). Design for inspection—Evaluating the inspectability of aerospace components in early states of design. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 1193–1199. Elsevier Science Direct.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Crowder, J., Carbone, J., & Demijohn, R. (2016). Multidisciplinary systems engineering: Architecting the design process. Springer publishing. ISBN 978-3319223971.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Crowder, J., & Friess, S. (2013). Systems engineering agile design methodologies. Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-1461466628.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Medvidovic, N., Grunbacher, P., Egyed, A., & Boehm, B. (2003). Bridging models across the software lifecycle. Journal on Systems and Software, 68, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Abadi, M., & Lamport, L. (1991). The existence of refinement map**s. Theoretical Computer Science, 82(2), 253–284.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Alpern, B., & Schneider, F. (1987). Recognizing safety and liveness. Distributed Computing, 2(3), 117–126.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Bahrami, A. (1999). Object-oriented systems development: Using the unified modeling language. McGraw Hill. ISBN 0-07-234966-2.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bailey, I. and Partridge, C. (2009). Working with extensional ontology for defense applications. Ontology in Intelligence Conference, GMU, Fairfax, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Banks, J., Carson, J., Nelson, B., & Nicol, D. (2001). Discrete event system simulation. Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0-13-088702-1.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (2003). Software architecture in practice (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Beck, K. (1999). XP explained (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0201616416.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Beck, K. (2002). Test driven development. Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Beck, K. (2003). Test-driven development by example. Addison Wesley – Vaseem.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Beck, K., et al. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Agile Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bendat, J. (2000). Non-linear system analysis and identification. Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bettencourt da Cruz, D., & Penzenstadler, B. (2008). Designing, documenting, and evaluating software architecture technical report TUM-I0818. Technische Universität München.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Boardman, J., DiMario, M., Sauser, B., & Verma, D. (2006). System of systems characteristics and interoperability in joint command and control. Defense Acquisition University.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Boehm, B. (1984). Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Software, 1(1), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., & Jacobson, I. (1998). The unified modeling language users guide. Addison Wesley Publishing. ISBN: 0-201-57168-4.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Books, F. (1975). The mythical man month. Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Broy, M., & Stølen, K. (2001). Specification and development of interactive systems: Focus on streams, interfaces and refinement. Springer Publishing.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Burgin, M. (1982). Generalized Kolmogorov complexity and duality in theory of computations. Notices of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 25(3), 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Camarinha-Matos, L., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008). Collaborative networks: Reference modeling. Springer Publishing.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Carlock, P., & Fenton, R. (2001). System-of-systems (SoS) enterprise systems for information-intensive organizations. Systems Engineering, 4(4), 242–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mellon, C. (2013). Architecture Tradeoff analysis method. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Checkland, P. (2001). Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Cheng, B. and Atlee, J. (2009). Current and future research directions in requirements engineering. In Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective Workshop, Cleveland, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cheng, J., Scharenbroich, L., Baldi, P., & Mjolsness, E. (2005). Sigmoid: A software infrastructure for pathway bioinformatics and systems biology. IEEE Intelligent Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Chonoles, M., & Schardt, J. (2003). UML for dummies. Wiley Publishing. ISBN 0-7645-2614-6.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., & Mylopoulos, J. (2000). Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. Clausing, D. (2001). Concurrent engineering. Design and Productivity International Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Clements, P. (1996). A survey of architecture description languages. Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on software specification and design. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Cockburn, A. (2000). Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Conway, W. (1995). The quality secret: The right way to manage. Conway Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Copeland, L. (2001). Extreme programming. Computerworld.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Crawford, B., Leon de la Barra, C., Soto, R., and Monfroy, E. (2012). Agile software engineering as creative work. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Co-operative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, ICSE, Zurick, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approached. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Crowder, J. (1993). Making change an integral component of advanced design methodologies. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Crowder, J. (2002). Flexible object architecture for the evolving, life-like yielding, symbiotic environment (ELYSE). NSA Technical Paper- CON-SP-0014-2002-09.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Crowder, J. (2003a). Using a large linguistic ontology for network-based retrieval of object-oriented components. NSA Technical Paper – CON-SP-0014-2003-03.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Crowder, J. (2003b). Ontology-Based Knowledge Management. NSA Technical Paper – CON-SP-0014-2003-05.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Crowder, J. (2003c). Agile business rule processing. NSA Technical Paper – CON-SP-0014-2003-06.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Crowder, J., & Friess, S. (2014). The agile manager: Managing for success. Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-09017-7.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Curcin, V., Ghanem, M., Guo, Y., and Rowe, A. (2004). IT service infrastructure for integrative systems biology. In IEEE International Conference on Services Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Curry, E. (2012). System of systems information interoperability using a linked dataspace. In IEEE 7th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering (SOSE 2012), 101–106.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Davis, A. (1993). Software requirements: Objects, functions, and states. Prentice-Hall.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  90. DeLaurentis, D. (2005). Understanding transportation as a system of systems design problem. 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, AIAA-2005-0123.

    Google Scholar 

  91. DeLaurentis, D. (2007). System of systems definition and vocabulary. School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University.

    Google Scholar 

  92. DeLaurentis, D. A., & Callaway, R. (2004). A system of systems perspective for future public policy. Review of Policy Research, 21(6), 829–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Dierolf, D. and Richter, K. (2000). Concurrent engineering teams. Technical Report, Institute for Defense Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kjokic, S. (2003). The moving optical center in lighting calculations. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 32.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Doerr, J., Kerlow, D., Koenig, T., Olson, T., and Suzuki, T. (2005). Non-functional requirements in industry—Three case studies adopting the ASPIRE NFR Method Technical Report 025.05/E, Fraunhofer IESE.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Dwyer, M., Avrunin, G., and Corbett, J. (1999). Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CAES Advanced Technology and Engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

    James A. Crowder

  2. Larkspur, CO, USA

    Curtis W. Hoff

Authors
  1. James A. Crowder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Curtis W. Hoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Crowder, J.A., Hoff, C.W. (2022). MDRE System Supportability Analysis. In: Requirements Engineering: Laying a Firm Foundation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91077-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91077-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91076-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91077-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation