Study on Framework and Integrated Optimization of Standard View for
Dynamic Management of Complex System
Yang Ping 1,2
1
2
Institute of Standard and Specification Research, Naval Academy of Armament, Shanghai, China
Institute of Finance and Economics Research, Shanghai University of Finance & Economics, Shanghai, China
(ocean.py@163.com)
Abstract - The core and essence of the architecture
framework is based on a multi-view approach. View
approach emphasizes simplify complex issues, from the
perspective of different areas to look at a complex problem,
a complex problem into a number of relatively independent
and simple, the results of each of simple questions to form a
view, the view of all the simple questions synthesis, and
comprehensive understanding of approximation to the
complex problems. With the help of the concept of the
standard view, the management of complex systems
engineering model to expand the system analysis, modeling
based on the standard view of the multi-attribute decisionmaking in the conditions of the object-oriented theory, based
on incomplete information, and on this basis, the integrated
optimization for the building standards system.
Keywords - complex system, dynamic management,
incomplete information, integrated optimization, multiple
attribute decision making, object-oriented, standard view
I. INTRODUCTION
Along with the high technology especially the
information technology make a spurt of progress, a
variety of complex systems have been more vast
development in aspects of aviation equipment
development, large ship design and construction. A
complex system is a structure in which variables from
different scale levels, or a dynamic system in which a
large number of elements different from each other. In
general, within the complex system there are many
subsystems, between which have many synergy, can coevolution and interdependent. Subsystem will be divided
into many levels in engineering practice, and their size
varies. Meanwhile, we noted that a variety of subsystems
interactive integration, which makes a variety of
derivative technology with interface also produce new
functional performance and materials technology
requirements. These elements are the dynamic
development with incomplete information and uncertain
environment. So that project management is becoming
increasingly difficult.
The standard is a summary of the scientific, technical
and practical experience, is the best order in a certain
range, is a rule of common and repeated use developed by
the actual or potential problems. Technical sense of the
standard is a published document form as the unity
agreement. Its purpose is to ensure that materials,
products, processes and services could meet your needs.
In engineering management through the timely formation
of the standard, the rational use of standards, effective
implementation of the standard, you can optimize
resource allocation, active technology element, accelerate
the accumulation of technology, ensure product quality,
and improve management efficiency. Interaction and
integration of various subsystems in the complex system,
you need to completely change the situation between
systems separated from each other. This requires that we
work through the standardization, use systems
engineering approach to expand the top-level design, and
to form a relatively complete technical system. Thus
ensure the completeness of the various elements within
the system, the orderly management of the design and the
consistency of interface criterion, provide effective
support for dynamic management of the whole life cycle
of complex systems [1]. This paper expands the system
analysis to the management of complex systems
engineering model with the help of the concept of the
standard view, proposes standard view modeling based on
object-oriented theory and multiple attribute decision
making with incomplete information. On this basis, build
a standard system through integrated optimization.
II. CONCEPTS AND DIMENSION OF STANDARD
VIEW
Zachman (1987) first proposed the description of an
information system architecture in “A framework for
information systems architecture”, that is the “Zachman
framework”. Since then, various areas of development
architecture framework, the core and essence are based on
a multi-view method. View approach emphasizes to
simplify complex questions, to look at a complex problem
from the perspective of different areas, make a complex
problem into a number of relatively independent and
simple questions. The results of each the simple question
form a view. All the simple view synthesis, we will get
the approximation and comprehensive understanding to
the complex problems [2].
The standard view is essentially a standard system
composed of a variety of standard elements for different
objects at different stages, in the process of dynamic
management of the entire complex system. It has the basic
attributes of targeted, aggregative, layered, dynamic open
and phased [3]. If we have the standard views of the
different objects to be integrated, then we can get the
standard system of a stage of complex systems at the
same time or in the same phase. If for the same object,
such as the planning side, the argument side, the designer,
developer or contract supplier, etc., we have the standard
view of the different stages to be integrated, then we can
form standardized requirement or standardized constraint
for different objects again, and this is a standard system
too. If the final we bring all of the standard view to be
integrated, merging overlap, coordinating contradiction,
optimizing the redundant part, then we can form a
standard system of the entire project management of
complex systems.
Based on the concept of system, we know that the
standard view has a unique advantage. It could provide a
description of the main line between the various elements
throughout the various complex systems, facilitate a
comprehensive grasp of the influencing factors on system
performance. And it could provide macro guidance for
demonstration, development, production and application
of all aspects of project management. At the same time,
support quantitative analysis and provide a basis for
system modeling, simulation and evaluation, and have
direct applications to the specific equipment system. With
the other architectural views, standard view also needs to
define its core elements. These core elements constitute
the basic content described by the standard view. It
reflects as a definition of a certain view products, which
view product extracted from the practical application, to
be verified in the application. View product build is based
on the core elements in the architecture, is a description of
the different angles of these core elements and their
relationships, and is the performance combined the core
elements with the external form [4]. These core elements
include provisions of objective, scope, component,
functional requirements, performance indicators and test
identification in standard, as well as the internal structure
of the standard and the standard life cycle.
Based on the above analysis, standard view could be
divided into different dimensions according to needs. We
will first object the main setting for the first dimension for
project management of complex systems, which may
include planning, owners, designers, implementers,
contractors, etc. Then the project management phase is
objected for the second dimension, which may include
demonstration, design, development, construction and
testing etc. Finally, the elements of the standard within the
system would be as a third dimension. The elements
within standard system is core-based outreach, and is
closely related to its purpose, scope and specific
requirements, then it necessarily in close contact with
each subsystem and the main components of complex
systems. Therefore, this standard view make the main
objects of complex systems, the different stages of the
engineering and the various subsystems of organic
connection within a unified framework and system
through a dynamic three-dimensional space.
III. DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION AND
INTEGRATED OPTIMIZATION METHOD OF
STANDARD VIEW
The standard system is a three-dimensional or a highdimensional space system, the standard view has
dimensionality reduction to a relatively simple
framework. For the standard view and even the
framework of the standard system the most effective
method is to minimize the dimensions. So, if the different
dimensions have different properties, we can use the
multi-attribute decision theory to carry out the model
work. At present, the multi-attribute decision making
problems under complete information is almost complete.
However, in complex systems engineering management
practice, most of the information has the property of
inaccurate, incomplete and vague, coupled with the
limitations of managers understanding of the problem or
their own lack of knowledge of other reasons, program
attribute values and attribute weighting coefficient
information which managers are given or acquired is
incomplete. Especially a lot of technical and management
elements are uncertain, even subject to change at any
time. Therefore, based on previous research results, multiattribute decision-making method is applied to the project
management of complex systems with incomplete
information [5].
According to the multi-attribute decision making, we
can get a particular project phase, a series of standards for
different objects of the main view sort. As mentioned
earlier, if we view these standards are integrated into
together, then due to the different objects at different
stages of the assignment of different standard view
properties, resulting in the presence of various standard
view overlapping, conflicting uncoordinated. Therefore,
we can, consistent iterative model, making and group
decision-making matrix between acceptable similarity of
individual decision-making matrix is constantly being
adjusted until acceptable similarity between the group
decision-making matrix, in order to amend the Multiple
Attribute Decision Making matrix [6]. Then, the
application of factor analysis based on multi-attribute
decision-making information, various standard view
regroup, to identify common factors affecting the
variable, the simplification of data, abandoning the special
factor, extract the factor of common standards, which
define the standard division, clear standard classification,
build standards system [7].
Make the main body of the ship impact design object
as a reference, for ship impact design project
management, assuming that there are six standard views,
including that: common basis requirements, test and
evaluation requirements, calculation and validation
requirements, design criteria requirements, buffer
isolation
requirements,
documents
management
requirements. Also have 12 kinds of attributes,
respectively as ship universal standard impact test
standards, test and environmental standards, analysis of
standard, the standard of design criteria, structural design
criteria, equipment design standards, piping design
criteria, standards of fastening devices, materials, design
standards, vibration isolation design standards, data
management standard. Suppose there are six grades of
evaluation, based on the previous theoretical analysis, and
multi-attribute decision-making, in various stages of
design, project management needs to select a different
property assignment, the formation of a number of sort of
the standard view.
Use principal component analysis method to
calculate the correlation coefficient of the ship impact
indicators matrix eigenvalues. We can find that the
cumulative contribution rate has reached 91.33% by
analyzing the first three common factors, take the first
three eigenvalues to establish the matrix of factor loadings
for factor rotation. The extracted data is a subset of data
that contains only numbers and rotated factor score, and
sort according to the three common factors. So integrate
multiple standard views, to get the ship impact standard
system (see Fig. 1).
Ship impact
standard system
Common basic
standards
Ship General
Specification
Design criteria
standards
Buffer isolation
standards
Structural
design standards
Equipment
design standards
Impact test
standards
Fastening
device standards
Test
environmental
standards
Pipeline design
standards
Calculation and
analysis
standards
Material design
standards
Data
management
standards
Fig. 1. Ship impact standard system
IV CONCLUSION
In the management of complex systems engineering,
between the specification of various standards are often
interrelated and support each other, while a standard is
usually covered by a number of technical indicators,
according to the systems and related technologies
involved in a technology-by-entry decomposed to
establish the standard system, then the bound cannot
resolve the correlation between the various subsystems
and the technical standards as reflected in the technical
requirements which makes the overlap phenomenon in
which no line is not only difficult to clearly define the
standard system of internal the level of division, an
increase of the design and evaluation of the workload, but
also seriously affect the standard system of internal
coherence, and reduce the practical utility of the standard,
and even lead to confusion and errors of the technical
design and evaluation. The multi-view approach is to
understand, a common way to describe complex things,
reflecting the divide and conquer concept.
Standardization issues in the management of
complex systems engineering is attributed to incomplete
information on multi-attribute decision making problems
with interval trust structure, and be optimized by factor
analysis to construct the standard system. Form of the
model is simple and easy to understand, compared with
the simple use of cluster analysis and principal component
analysis combining model closer to the real, making it
easier and more flexible for different objects. Established
model in the standardization of large, complex systems
research and feasibility studies, to co-ordinate,
constraints, and integration of various subsystems, subequipment standards, integrity, order and correlation three
specific view of the standard requirements standardization
of systems and management of real integration, and
reduce the technical risks that may result from lack of
experience in developing.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Yang, “Research on standardization demonstration
methods of multisystem interface adapter based on multiple
attribute decision making” ,unpublished. (in chinese)
[2] Zachman, “A framework for information systems
architecture”, in press.
[3] L.Chun-tian, “Introduction of Standardization,” in press. (in
chinese)
[4] L. Zhi—meng, T. Qun, D. Dong, “Study on Capability
View Concepts of Armament Architectur,” Fire
Control&Command Contro, vol. 36, 2011, pp. 151–155. (in
chinese)
[5] B. Sa-ru, J. Ha, “A Model for Multiple Attribute Decision
Making with Incomplete Information and Its Sensitivity
Analysis,” MATHEM ATICS IN PRACTICE AND
THEORY, vol. 40, 2010, pp. 134–143.
[6] X. Ying-jun, L. Dong, “Approach to reaching consensus in
multiple attribute group decision making,” Control and
Decision, vol. 25, pp. 1810–1815. (in chinese)
[7] P. Yang, “The Establishment of Shock-Resistance Standard
System for Warships based on factor analysis,”
Shipbuilding technology, 2011, pp. 21-25. (in chinese)
[8] David P A, Foray D. Accessing and Expanding the Science
and Technology Knowledge Base. STI Review, nr. 16,
1995.
[9] Argote, Linch., McEvily. Bill., Reagans, Ray., Managing
Knowledge in Organizations：An Integrative Framework
and Review of Emerging Themes[J]. Management Science,
2003, 49(4): 571-582.
[10] Max. H. Boesot. Information Space[M]. London:
Routledge, 1995.
[11]L. De-Yi, L. Chang-Yu, D. Yi, H. Xu. Artificial Intelligence
with Uncertainty[J]. Journal of Software, 2004, 15(11):
1583-1594. (in chinese)
[12]L. De-Yi, M. Haijun, S. Xuemei. Membership Clouds and
Membership Cloud Generators[J]. Computer R&D, 1995,
32(6): 15-20. (in chinese)
[13] F. Bin, L. Daoguo, W. Mukuai. Review and prospect on
research of cloud model[J]. Application Research of
Computers, 2011, 28(6): 420-426.
[14] L. De-Yi, L. Changyu. Study on the Universality of the
Normal Cloud Model[J]. Engineering Science, 2004, 6(8):
28-34. (in chinese)
[15] L. De-Yi. Uncertainty in Knowledge Representation [J].
Engineering Science, 2000, 2(10): 28-34. (in chinese)