System Architecture Design Method Balancing Reliability and Performance

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The existing methods for designing system architectures are costly and cumbersome, as they often require numerous iterations to satisfy multiple constraints such as functional and non-functional requirements, leading to suboptimal results due to the conflicting nature of these constraints.

Innovation Solution

A method that involves functional and non-functional analysis, modeling, and rule-based construction of system architecture models, allowing for immediate analysis of architectural choices and their impact on all constraints, facilitating a compromise between different design options.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the architecture is designed to satisfy one non-functional constraint (e.g., integrity and availability), then the system reliability is improved, but the system performance deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveintegrity and availabilityVSAvoidsystem performance
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by transforming non-functional constraints into quantifiable evaluation parameters with assigned weights. Each constraint (integrity, availability, performance, etc.) is converted into measurable parameters that can be evaluated and optimized simultaneously through mathematical modeling, allowing the system to find optimal parameter combinations that balance reliability and performance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements preliminary action by conducting functional and non-functional analysis at the earliest stages of architecture design, before detailed architectural decisions are made. The constraint modeling and evaluation framework is established upfront, enabling continuous assessment and adjustment of architectural choices against multiple constraints simultaneously, rather than reacting to constraint violations later in the design process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Adaptability or versatility

If the architecture is modified to take into account a second constraint, then the adaptability to multiple constraints is improved, but the design cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to constraintsVSAvoiddesign cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies universality by creating a unified constraint modeling framework that handles multiple types of constraints (functional, non-functional, performance, reliability, security, etc.) through a single integrated system. The evaluation model can simultaneously assess architecture against diverse constraints using consistent methods, eliminating the need for separate analysis processes for each constraint type and reducing overall design costs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements feedback through continuous evaluation of the architecture model against defined constraints during the design process. The system provides feedback on constraint satisfaction levels, allowing designers to adjust architectural choices iteratively. This feedback mechanism enables adaptive optimization without requiring costly repeated analyses, as the same evaluation framework is reused throughout the design iterations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If the architecture is modified to satisfy a second constraint, then the adaptability is improved, but the modification becomes complex and may degrade compatibility with the first constraint

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to constraintsVSAvoidarchitecture complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dimensionality change by introducing a mathematical evaluation dimension that simultaneously considers multiple constraints. Instead of modifying architecture sequentially for each constraint (one-dimensional approach), the system evaluates architectural choices across multiple constraint dimensions concurrently using weighted scoring and optimization algorithms. This allows complex multi-constraint satisfaction to be managed through mathematical relationships rather than complex architectural restructuring.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

4Measurement precision

If a detailed simulation model is used to evaluate non-functional constraints, then the measurement precision is improved, but the development cost and time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconstraint evaluation accuracyVSAvoidevaluation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies extraction by separating the constraint evaluation function from detailed system simulation. Instead of using comprehensive simulation models that require extensive development and execution time, the system extracts essential constraint characteristics into simplified evaluation rules and metrics. These extracted evaluation criteria can be applied quickly to architecture models without requiring full system simulation, maintaining adequate precision while dramatically reducing evaluation time and computational resources.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Data Source

PatentUS8103490B2Method to aid the design of a system architecture
Publication Date: 2012.01.24 THALES SA
  • US8103490B2 patent drawing
  • US8103490B2 patent drawing
  • US8103490B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The present invention relates to a method for aiding the design of a system architecture. The method for design of an architecture of a system according to an embodiment of the invention includes at least the following steps: functional and non-functional analysis of a technical requirement with which the system complies; formalization of points of view for analysis of the architecture of the system based on the functional and non-functional analysis; definition of one rule for analysis of the architecture of the system for each analysis point of view; construction of the architecture of the system; and analysis of the architecture according to the rules of analysis. The design of system architectures notably relates to the field of system engineering. The systems to which the present invention is applicable can be hardware systems, software systems, or systems combining both hardware and software. An embodiment of the present invention may be implemented in the framework of the development of an aircraft navigation system.