Categorization and Representation of Functional Decomposition by Experts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2008-09 Categorization and representation of functional decomposition by experts Melancon, Paul W. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/3950 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS CATEGORIZATION AND REPRESENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION BY EXPERTS by Paul W. Melançon September 2008 Thesis Advisor: Gary O. Langford Second Reader: John Osmundson Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2008 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Categorization and Representation of Functional 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Decomposition by Experts 6. AUTHOR(S) Paul W. Melançon 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport, Rhode Island AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) The objective of this thesis is to investigate different approaches to identifying system functions. The approaches that are described are standard functional decomposition process, Unified Modeling Language (UML), System Modeling Language (SySML), and Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0). A discussion is presented on advantages and limitations of describing and using functions by means of graphical formatting. Improving system functionality by effective decomposition is vital to robust system development. However, not one of these approaches presents the best method for complete functional identification. While each has its benefits and should be considered during functional analysis, a good decomposition has proper interrogation of the functions by means of coupling and cohesion of the functionality as well as identifying functional overlap and underlap. Standard functional decomposition works best as the first step in laying out system functionality. Rigor and completeness are improved when followed up by UML, SySML, or even IDEF0. Value and risk of each function can and should be identified as a way of posing a series of questions that measure and analyze the appropriateness of the functional decomposition. Combining these different approaches can help lead to a more complete functional decomposition and therefore reduce the risk to system development. 14. SUBJECT TERMS functional decomposition, Function, function coupling, function cohesion, 15. NUMBER OF function overlap, function underlap, value of function, risk of function, complete functional PAGES decomposition 89 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited CATEGORIZATION AND REPRESENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION BY EXPERTS Paul W. Melançon Civilian, Department of Defense B.S., University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, 2001 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL September 2008 Author: Paul W. Melançon Approved by: Lecturer, Gary O. Langford Thesis Advisor John Osmundson Second Reader David H. Olwell Chairman, Department of Systems Engineering iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT The objective of this thesis is to investigate different approaches to identifying system functions. The approaches that are described are standard functional decomposition process, Unified Modeling Language (UML), System Modeling Language (SySML), and Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0). A discussion is presented on advantages and limitations of describing and using functions by means of graphical formatting. Improving system functionality by effective decomposition is vital to robust system development. However, not one of these approaches presents the best method for complete functional identification. While each has its benefits and should be considered during functional analysis, a good decomposition has proper interrogation of the functions by means of coupling and cohesion of the functionality as well as identifying functional overlap and underlap. Standard functional decomposition works best as the first step in laying out system functionality. Rigor and completeness are improved when followed up by UML, SySML, or even IDEF0. Value and risk of each function can and should be identified as a way of posing a series of questions that measure and analyze the appropriateness of the functional decomposition. Combining these different approaches can help lead to a more complete functional decomposition and therefore reduce the risk to system development. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1 B. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE .............................................................................9 C. DEFINING COMPLEXITY, SYSTEM, AND FUNCTION......................10 1. Complexity..........................................................................................10 2. Definition of System...........................................................................11 3. The Term Function, Explained.........................................................14 D. A FRAMEWORK METHODOLOGY........................................................18 II. KEY FACTORS RELATED TO COMPLETE FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITIONS ................................................................................................23 A. COUPLING AND COHESION....................................................................23 B. DEALING WITH OVERLAPPING AND UNDER-LAPPING OF FUNCTIONS..................................................................................................27 C. FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS, AN INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE OF FUNCTIONS..................................................................29 III. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION ...........33 A. UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML)............................................34 1. Activity Diagram................................................................................36 2. Sequence Diagram .............................................................................37 3. Class Diagram ....................................................................................38 4. Collaboration Diagram......................................................................39 5. Statechart Diagram............................................................................40 6. Use Case Diagrams ............................................................................43 B. SYSTEM MODELING LANGUAGE (SYSML):.......................................45 1. The New Diagram; Requirement Diagram .....................................47 2. Differences between UML and SysML ............................................51 C. INTEGRATION DEFINITION FOR FUNCTION MODELING (IDEF0):..........................................................................................................54 IV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................61 A. FUTURE WORK...........................................................................................62 LIST OF REFERENCES......................................................................................................67 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .........................................................................................71 vii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Typical Functional Breakdown..........................................................................3 Figure 2 Typical Functional Decomposition (From Langford,