Complexity of system maintainability analysis based on the interpretive structural modeling methodology: Transdisciplinary approach

Abstract

This paper outlines a diagnostic approach to quantify the maintainability of a Commercial off-the-Shelf (COTS)-based system by analyzing the complexity of the deployment of the system components. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is used to demonstrate how ISM supports in identifying and understanding interdependencies among COTS components and how they affect the complexity of the maintenance of the COTS Based System (CBS). Through ISM analysis we have determined which components in the CBS contribute most significantly to the complexity of the system. With the ISM, architects, system integrators, and system maintainers can isolate the COTS products that cause the most complexity, and therefore cause the most effort to maintain, and take precautions to only change those products when necessary or during major maintenance efforts. The analysis also clearly shows the components that can be easily replaced or upgraded with very little impact on the rest of the system.

Keywords

COTS Based System / maintainability / complexity / Interpretive Structural Modeling

References

[1] Abts C.. COTS-based systems (CBS) functional density–a heuristic for better CBS design. In: COTS-Based Software Systems, 2002 1-9.

[2] Cearlock D. B.. Common Properties and Limitations of Some Structural Modeling Techniques, 1977, Seattle: Dissertation. University of Washington

[3] Clark B., Clark B.. Added sources of costs in maintaining COTS-intensive systems. CrossTalk -The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 2007, 20(6): 4-8.

[4] Delbecq A. L., Van de Ven A. H.. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7(4): 466-492.

[5] Duperrin J. C., Godet M.. Methode de hierar chization des elements d’um system. In: Rapport Economique de CEA, 1973 45-51.

[6] Ertas A.. Transdisciplinary Product Development, 2015

[7] Harary F., Norman R. Z., Cartwright D.. Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs, 1965, New York: John Wiley&Sons, Inc..

[8] Hennessy E.. COTS Supportability Across the Program Lifecycle–A Vendor’s View of COTS’ Evolution in the DoD Market, 2000

[9] Kiss J., Kosztyan Z. T.. The importance of logic planning in case of IT and innovation projects. APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 2009, 3: 15-20.

[10] Lendaris G. G.. Structural modeling a tutorial guide. Paper presented at the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1980, 10(12): 807-840.

[11] Loukides M.. Revisiting ‘What is DevOps’. OReilly Radar, 2014, 2014

[12] Mandal A., Deshmukh S. G.. Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 1994, 14(6): 52-59.

[13] Mitchell C.. Quality in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary postgraduate research and its supervision: ideas for good practice, 2009

[14] Mitchell M.. Complexity: A Guided Tour, 2009.

[15] Raj T., Shankar R., Suhaib M.. An ISM approach for modelling the enablers of flexible manufacturing system: the case for India. International Journal of Production Research, 2008, 46(24): 6883-6912.

[16] Sahraoui A. E. K., Buede D. M., Sage A. P.. Systems engineering research. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2008, 17(3): 319-333.

[17] Warfield J. N.. Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1974, 4(1): 81-87.

[18] Warfield J. N.. Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1974, 4(1): 74-80.

[19] Warfield J. N.. Structuring Complex Systems, 1978

[20] Wang Z.. Systems intuition: oriental systems thinking style. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2003, 12(2): 129-137.