Managing obsolescence of embedded hardware and software in secure and trusted systems

doi:10.1007/s42524-019-0032-5

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章
多维度评价

全文: PDF(161 KB) HTML
导出: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract：

Obsolescence of integrated systems which contain hardware and software is a problem that affects multiple industries and can occur for many reasons, including technological, economic, organizational, and social factors. It is especially acute in products and systems that have long life cycles, where a high rate of technological innovation of the subcomponents result in a mismatch in life cycles between the components and the systems. While several approaches for obsolescence forecasting exist, they often require data that may not be available. This paper describes an approach using non-probabilistic scenarios coupled with decision analysis to investigate how particular scenarios influence priority setting for products and systems. Scenarios are generated from a list of emergent and future conditions related to obsolescence. The key result is an identification of the most and least disruptive scenarios to the decision maker’s priorities. An example is presented related to the selection of technologies for energy islanding, which demonstrates the methodology using six obsolescence scenarios. The paper should be of broad interest to scholars and practitioners engaged with enterprise risk management and similar challenges of large-scale systems.

Keywords enterprise risk management diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages scenario-based preferences systems engineering deep uncertainty product life cycle

最新录用日期: 在线预览日期: 发布日期: 2020-05-27

	服务

	推荐给朋友
	免费邮件订阅
	RSS订阅
	作者相关文章

	Zachary A. COLLIER
	James H. LAMBERT

引用本文:

Zachary A. COLLIER,James H. LAMBERT. Managing obsolescence of embedded hardware and software in secure and trusted systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 172-181.

网址:

https://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-019-0032-5 OR https://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2020/V7/I2/172

Tab.1 Criteria for energy technology selection

Tab.2 Responses to whether each of 7 criteria is addressed by 6 alternatives. Qualitative responses were converted into numerical value scores

Emergent and future conditions	Source
EC01. Drop in customer demand	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC02. Industries with high rates of tech innovation	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC03. Industries with frequent shifts in consumer taste	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC04. Import competition	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC05. Safety hazards	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC06. Current level of technology	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC07. Strength of competing products	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC08. Relatively sudden shift in competitor’s market penetration	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC09. Competitor is trying to develop a better product	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC10. Competitor announces positive research results	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC11. Competitor distributes test samples	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC12. Introduction of several competing products at once	^{Song and Zipkin, 1996}
EC13. Demand has dropped to low levels	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC14. Production materials and technology no longer available	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC15. Longer life span of systems	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC16. Public’s demand for longer warranties	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC17. Long periods of manufacturing	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC18. High cost system qualification and certification	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC19. Introduction of a superior competing part	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC20. Improvement of a competing part	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC21. Identification of a problem associated with the part	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC22. Failure to reach the critical mass that allows economies of scale	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC23. Lack of a unique and compelling application for the part	^{Solomon et al., 2000}
EC24. High cost/lead times for technology insertion and design refresh	^{Singh and Sandborn, 2006}
EC25. Low or no control over the part supply chain	^{Singh and Sandborn, 2006}
EC26. The system the software executes changes	^{Singh and Sandborn, 2006}
EC27. The vendor terminates support	^{Singh and Sandborn, 2006}
EC28. System hardware changes make software obsolete	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC29. System requirements changes make software obsolete	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC30. System software changes make software obsolete	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC31. Original supplier no longer sells the software as new (end-of-sale)	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC32. Inability to expand or renew licensing agreements (legally unprocurable)	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC33. Original supplier and/or third parties no longer support the software (end-of-support)	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC34. Digital media obsolescence, formatting, or degradation	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC35. Software upgrades that will not execute correctly on the hardware	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC36. More technologically advanced hardware is available	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC37. Owner/operators can no longer procure a part	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC38. Security patches for software terminate	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC39. Inability to obtain the necessary software licenses	^{Sandborn, 2007}
EC40. New environmental regulations render materials obsolete	Romero Rojo et al., 2010
EC41. Cannot obtain small quantities due to high minimum order quantities (MOQ)	Romero Rojo et al., 2010
EC42. Obsolescence of a manufacturing process prevents manufacture of a material	Romero Rojo et al., 2010
EC43. Incompatibility between new and old systems	Romero Rojo et al., 2010
EC44. Losing skilled and knowledgeable workers	Romero Rojo et al., 2010
EC45. Obsolescence of tooling and testing equipment	Romero Rojo et al., 2010
EC46. Physical deterioration based on age and/or wear and tear	^{Reilly, 2013}
EC47. No longer performs the function as well as it did when new	^{Reilly, 2013}
EC48. Intended function has become obsolete over time	^{Reilly, 2013}
EC49. Locational obsolescence—changes in neighborhood conditions near the property	^{Reilly, 2013}
EC50. Operations no longer earn a profitable rate of return	^{Reilly, 2013}
EC51. High volatility and quick evolution of requirements	^{Wnuk et al., 2013}
EC52. Scope creep, requirements creep and requirements leakage	^{Wnuk et al., 2013}

Tab.3 The emergent and future conditions that are related to obsolescence

Tab.4 Obsolescence scenarios consisting of emergent and future conditions

Tab.5 Assessment of the effects of scenarios on preferences

Tab.6 Criteria weights updated across all scenarios

Fig.1 Ranking of energy alternatives, where the triangles represent the rank in the baseline scenario, and the bars represent the highest and lowest rank across scenarios. A01: no action; A02: bury power line; A03: microturbine with trigeneration for critical load; A04: microturbine with trigeneration for base load; A05: microgrid of backup; A06: solar PV generators.

Tab.7 Value scores of each energy alternative across obsolescence scenarios

Tab.8 Scenario disruptiveness

Tab.9 Summary insights

1	H Abdi (2007). The Kendall rank correlation coefficient. In: Salkind N, ed. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks: Sage
2	V Belton, T J Stewart (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
3	J Bromberger, R Kelly (2017). Additive manufacturing: a long-term game changer for manufacturers. New York: McKinsey & Company
4	Z A Collier, D Hendrickson, T L Polmateer, J H Lambert (2018). Scenario analysis and PERT/CPM applied to strategic investment at an automated container port. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 4(3): 04018026 https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000976
5	Z A Collier, J H Lambert (2018). Time management of infrastructure recovery schedules by anticipation and valuation of disruptions. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 4(2): 04018012 https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000961
6	Z A Collier, J H Lambert (2019). Evaluating management actions to mitigate disruptive scenario impacts in an e-commerce system integration project. IEEE Systems Journal, 13(1): 593–602 https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2812864
7	Z A Collier, S Walters, D DiMase, J M Keisler, I Linkov (2014). A semi-quantitative risk assessment standard for counterfeit electronics detection. SAE International Journal of Aerospace, 7(1): 171–181 https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-9002
8	E B Connelly, L M Colosi, A F Clarens, J H Lambert (2015). Risk analysis of biofuels industry for aviation with scenario-based expert elicitation. Systems Engineering, 18(2): 178–191 https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21298
9	J Davis, J Sullivan (2017). Supply chain risk—what is it? Defense AT&L, 46(2): 15–18
10	A de Grip (2006). Evaluating human capital obsolesce. In: Proceedings of the Joint EC-OECD Seminar on Human Capital and Labour Market Performance, Brussels, Belgium
11	S de Siqueira Santos, D Y Takahashi, A Nakata, A Fujita (2014). A comparative study of statistical methods used to identify dependencies between gene expression signals. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 15(6): 906–918 https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbt051
12	D DiMase, Z A Collier, J Carlson, R B Gray Jr, I Linkov (2016). Traceability and risk analysis strategies for addressing counterfeit electronics in supply chains for complex systems. Risk Analysis, 36(10): 1834–1843 https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12536
13	DoD (2015a). Defense Acquisition University Glossary. 16th ed. Fort Belvoir: Defense Acquisition University Press
14	DoD (2015b). Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages: Cost Metrics. Fort Belvoir: Defense Standardization Program Office
15	DoD (2016). SD-22—Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS): a Guidebook of Best Practices for Implementing a Robust DMSMS Management Program. Fort Belvoir: Defense Standardization Program Office
16	M C Hamilton, J H Lambert, E B Connelly, K Barker (2016). Resilience analytics with disruption of preferences and lifecycle cost analysis for energy microgrids. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 150: 11–21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.01.005
17	M C Hamilton, J H Lambert, L J Valverde (2015). Climate and related uncertainties influencing research and development priorities. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 1(2): 04015005 https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000814
18	A Hirsch, Y Parag, J Guerrero (2018). Microgrids: a review of technologies, key drivers, and outstanding issues. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90: 402–411 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.040
19	S Kaplan, B J Garrick (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1): 11–27 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x
20	C W Karvetski, J H Lambert (2012). Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority-setting with an application to facility energy investments. Systems Engineering, 15(4): 483–493 https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21215
21	C W Karvetski, J H Lambert, J M Keisler, I Linkov (2011a). Integration of decision analysis and scenario planning for coastal engineering and climate change. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 41(1): 63–73 https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2055154
22	C W Karvetski, J H Lambert, I Linkov (2009). Emergent conditions and multiple criteria analysis in infrastructure prioritization for developing countries. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 16(5‒6): 125–137 https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.444
23	C W Karvetski, J H Lambert, I Linkov (2011b). Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(2): 228–236 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.137
24	M Kendall (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1‒2): 81–93 https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81
25	J H Lambert, C W Karvetski, D K Spencer, B J Sotirin, D M Liberi, H H Zaghloul, J B Koogler, S L Hunter, W D Goran, R D Ditmer, I Linkov (2012). Prioritizing infrastructure investments in Afghanistan with multiagency stakeholders and deep uncertainty of emergent conditions. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 18(2): 155–166 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000078
26	J H Lambert, Y J Wu, H You, A Clarens, B Smith (2013). Climate change influence on priority setting for transportation infrastructure assets. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19(1): 36–46 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000094
27	M G Morgan (2014). Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(20): 7176–7184 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319946111
28	G Z Porter (1998). An Economic Method for Evaluating Electronic Component Obsolescence Solutions. Boeing Company White Paper
29	R F Reilly (2013). Consideration of functional and economic obsolescence in the assessment of industrial or commercial property. Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration, 10(1): 45–58
30	F J Romero Rojo, R Roy, S Kelly (2012). Obsolescence risk assessment process best practice. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 364: 012095 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012095
31	F J Romero R Rojo, E Roy, Shehab (2010). Obsolescence management for long-life contracts: state of the art and future trends. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 49(9‒12): 1235–1250 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2471-3
32	P Sandborn (2007). Software obsolescence—complicating the part and technology obsolescence management problem. IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, 30(4): 886–888 https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAPT.2007.910918
33	P Sandborn (2013). Design for obsolescence risk management. Procedia CIRP, 11: 15–22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.07.073
34	P Sandborn, V Prabhakar, O Ahmad (2011). Forecasting electronic part procurement lifetimes to enable the management of DMSMS obsolescence. Microelectronics and Reliability, 51(2): 392–399 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2010.08.005
35	P Singh, P Sandborn (2006). Obsolescence driven design refresh planning for sustainment-dominated systems. Engineering Economist, 51(2): 115–139 https://doi.org/10.1080/00137910600695643
36	R Solomon, P A Sandborn, M G Pecht (2000). Electronic part life cycle concepts and obsolescence forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, 23(4): 707–717 https://doi.org/10.1109/6144.888857
37	J S Song, P H Zipkin (1996). Managing inventory with the prospect of obsolescence. Operations Research, 44(1): 215–222 https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.44.1.215
38	K Wnuk, T Gorschek, S Zahda (2013). Obsolete software requirements. Information and Software Technology, 55(6): 921–940 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2012.12.001

No related articles found!

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed