Space mission architecture trade off based on stakeholder value

被引:1
|
作者
Alves Branco, Marcio Silva [1 ]
Loureiro, Geilson [2 ]
Trabasso, Luis Gonzaga [3 ]
机构
[1] INPE, Natl Inst Space Res, Av dos Astronautas 1758, BR-12227010 Sao Paulo, Brazil
[2] INPA, Lab Integrat & Testing, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil
[3] ITA, Aeronaut Inst Technol, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil
关键词
space mission architecture; trade off; value; stakeholders; decision;
D O I
10.1007/978-1-84628-976-7_11
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
One the most difficult aspects of system conceptualization process is to recognize, understand and manage the trade-offs in a way that maximizes the success of the product. This is particularly important for space projects. In this way, a major part of the system engineer's role is to provide information that the system manager can use to make the right decisions. This includes identification of alternative architectures and characterization of those elements in a way that helps managers to find out, among the alternatives, a design that provides a better combination of the various technical areas involved in the design. Space mission architecture consists of a broad system concept which is the most fundamental statement of how the mission will be carried out and satisfy the stakeholders. The architecture development process starts with the stakeholder analysis which enables the identification of the decision drivers, then, the requirements are analysed for elaborationg the system concept. Effectiveness parameters such as performance, cost, risk and schedule are the outcomes of the stakeholder analysis which are labelled as decision drivers to be used in a trade off process to improve the managerial mission decisions. Thus, the proposal presented herein provides a means for innovating the mission design process by identifying drivers through stakeholder analysis and use them in a trade off process to obtain the stakeholder satisfaction with effectiveness parameters.
引用
收藏
页码:91 / +
页数:2
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Framework for Process Design using Stakeholder Value and Architecture Principles
    Kummamuru, Supriya
    Zope, Nikhil R.
    [J]. 2008 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY, VOLS 1-3, 2008, : 1286 - 1291
  • [22] TIME-SPACE TRADE-OFF
    PIPPENGER, N
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ACM, 1978, 25 (03) : 509 - 515
  • [23] A Framework for Space Systems Architecture under Stakeholder Objectives Ambiguity
    Golkar, Alessandro
    Crawley, Edward F.
    [J]. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 2014, 17 (04) : 479 - 502
  • [24] Architecture Preliminary Design and Trade-Off Optimization of Stratospheric Airship Based on MBSE
    Lyu, Weihao
    Yang, Yanchu
    Miao, Jinggang
    Cao, Shenghong
    Kong, Lingsen
    [J]. AEROSPACE, 2024, 11 (07)
  • [25] Value Uncertainty Analysis in Architecture and Trade Studies
    Maier, Mark W.
    Wendoloski, Eric B.
    [J]. IEEE SYSTEMS JOURNAL, 2020, 14 (04): : 5417 - 5428
  • [26] Scalable Services: Understanding Architecture Trade-off
    Klems, Markus
    Tai, Stefan
    [J]. SERVICE-ORIENTED COMPUTING - ICSOC 2010, PROCEEDINGS, 2010, 6470 : 732 - 732
  • [27] A Stakeholder Based Approach to Public Value
    Castelnovo, Walter
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 13TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EGOVERNMENT, 2013, : 94 - 101
  • [28] The Relationship between the Disappearing Use Value of Urban Space and Gentrification: "Is Gentrification a Profitable Trade-off?"
    Koseoglu, Fatma Gozde
    Sonmez, Nihan Ozdemir
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2018, 7 (03): : 175 - 182
  • [29] Sealing Technologies Trade-off for a Phobos Sample Return Mission
    Mihalache, Radu
    Mihai, Dragos
    Megherelu, Gheroghe
    Popa, Ionut Florian
    Olaru, Daniel
    Ifrim, Dan
    [J]. AEROSPACE EUROPE CEAS 2017 CONFERENCE, 2018, 29 : 244 - 254
  • [30] Conceptual design of a crewed reusable space transportation system aimed at parabolic flights: stakeholder analysis, mission concept selection, and spacecraft architecture definition
    Fusaro R.
    Viola N.
    Fenoglio F.
    Santoro F.
    [J]. CEAS Space Journal, 2017, 9 (1) : 5 - 34