Navigating the Golden Triangle: The Need to Jointly Consider Modularization and Interface Choices When Making Performance, Cost, and Schedule Tradeoffs for Complex System Development.
Saved in:
| Title: | Navigating the Golden Triangle: The Need to Jointly Consider Modularization and Interface Choices When Making Performance, Cost, and Schedule Tradeoffs for Complex System Development. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Topcu, Taylan G.1 (AUTHOR) ttopcu@vt.edu, Szajnfarber, Zoe2 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Systems Engineering. May2025, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p310-324. 15p. |
| Subjects: | Modular design, Systems development, Cost control, Cost benefit analysis, Dynamical systems, Mathematical decomposition, Scheduling, User interfaces |
| Abstract: | Decomposition is a critical enabler of complex system development, as it enables both task specialization and efficiency through parallel work. The process of decomposing involves partitioning system parameters into tightly coupled modules and managing any cross‐module coupling by designing passive interfaces or through active coordination. A rich literature has developed algorithms and tools to support this process. However, we contend that this view has placed too much emphasis on module selection, and not enough on the interaction with interface design. This perspective has significant implications for lifecycle costs and development time. To that end, this study explores how earlier consideration of interface design can create more valuable options to better navigate performance, cost, and schedule tradeoffs. Specifically, through an abstract simulation experiment, we demonstrate that (1) a sequential approach that first selects modules and then designs interfaces to support those modules, yields lower performance than an integrated approach that considers modules and supporting interfaces simultaneously; and (2) this result is even stronger when schedule and cost are considered as part of the evaluation. In other words, an integrated approach provides more options for project managers seeking to navigate the performance‐cost‐schedule tradeoff known as the golden triangle. These results emphasize the need for a decomposition aid that adopts a holistic view of the optimization problem, accounting for interface creation, intra‐organization collaboration, and valuing nonperformance measures of effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Systems Engineering is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: egs DbLabel: Engineering Source An: 184927218 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Navigating the Golden Triangle: The Need to Jointly Consider Modularization and Interface Choices When Making Performance, Cost, and Schedule Tradeoffs for Complex System Development. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Topcu%2C+Taylan+G%2E%22">Topcu, Taylan G.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> ttopcu@vt.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Szajnfarber%2C+Zoe%22">Szajnfarber, Zoe</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Systems+Engineering%22">Systems Engineering</searchLink>. May2025, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p310-324. 15p. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Modular+design%22">Modular design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Systems+development%22">Systems development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cost+control%22">Cost control</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cost+benefit+analysis%22">Cost benefit analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dynamical+systems%22">Dynamical systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematical+decomposition%22">Mathematical decomposition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scheduling%22">Scheduling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22User+interfaces%22">User interfaces</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Decomposition is a critical enabler of complex system development, as it enables both task specialization and efficiency through parallel work. The process of decomposing involves partitioning system parameters into tightly coupled modules and managing any cross‐module coupling by designing passive interfaces or through active coordination. A rich literature has developed algorithms and tools to support this process. However, we contend that this view has placed too much emphasis on module selection, and not enough on the interaction with interface design. This perspective has significant implications for lifecycle costs and development time. To that end, this study explores how earlier consideration of interface design can create more valuable options to better navigate performance, cost, and schedule tradeoffs. Specifically, through an abstract simulation experiment, we demonstrate that (1) a sequential approach that first selects modules and then designs interfaces to support those modules, yields lower performance than an integrated approach that considers modules and supporting interfaces simultaneously; and (2) this result is even stronger when schedule and cost are considered as part of the evaluation. In other words, an integrated approach provides more options for project managers seeking to navigate the performance‐cost‐schedule tradeoff known as the golden triangle. These results emphasize the need for a decomposition aid that adopts a holistic view of the optimization problem, accounting for interface creation, intra‐organization collaboration, and valuing nonperformance measures of effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Systems Engineering is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=184927218 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/sys.21796 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 15 StartPage: 310 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Modular design Type: general – SubjectFull: Systems development Type: general – SubjectFull: Cost control Type: general – SubjectFull: Cost benefit analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Dynamical systems Type: general – SubjectFull: Mathematical decomposition Type: general – SubjectFull: Scheduling Type: general – SubjectFull: User interfaces Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Navigating the Golden Triangle: The Need to Jointly Consider Modularization and Interface Choices When Making Performance, Cost, and Schedule Tradeoffs for Complex System Development. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Topcu, Taylan G. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Szajnfarber, Zoe IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 05 Text: May2025 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 10981241 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 28 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Systems Engineering Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
