Service-oriented weapon systems of system portfolio selection method

doi:10.23919/JSEE.2020.000034

Abstract

Abstract:

Weapon system portfolio selection is an important combinatorial problem that arises in various applications, such as weapons development planning and equipment procurement, which are of concern to military decision makers. However, the existing weapon system-of-systems (SoS) is tightly coupled. Because of the diversity and connectivity of mission requirements, it is difficult to describe the direct mapping relationship from the mission to the weapon system. In the latest service-oriented research, the introduction of service modules to build a service-oriented, flexible, and combinable structure is an important trend. This paper proposes a service-oriented weapon system portfolio selection method, by introducing service to serve as an intermediary to connect missions and system selection, and transferring the weapon system selection into the service portfolio selection. Specifically, the relation between the service and the task is described through the service-task mapping matrix; and the relation between the service and the weapon system is constructed through the service-system mapping matrix. The service collaboration network to calculate the flexibility and connectivity of each service portfolio is then established. Through multi-objective programming, the optimal service portfolios are generated, which are further decoded into weapon system portfolios.

Key words: weapon system portfolio selection, service-oriented, multi-objective programming

Ziyi CHEN, Yajie DOU, Xiangqian XU, Yuejin TAN. Service-oriented weapon systems of system portfolio selection method[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(3): 551-566.

Figures/Tables 23

Fig 1

Table 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Table 2

Fig 4

Table 3

Fig 5

Fig 6

Fig 7

Fig 8

Table 4

Fig 9

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Fig 10

Fig 11

Fig 12

Table 9

Fig 13

Fig 14

References 22

1	MARKOWITZ H. Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 2012, 7 (1): 77- 91.
2	A C X, LI Z F, WANG F. Optimal investment strategy under time-inconsistent preferences and high-water mark contract. Operations Research Letters, 2016, 44 (2): 212- 218. doi: 10.1016/j.orl.2015.12.013
3	MÜLLER S, HAASE K. On the product portfolio planning problem with customer-engineering interaction. Operations Research Letters, 2016, 44 (3): 390- 393. doi: 10.1016/j.orl.2016.03.013
4	NATH P, RAMANATHAN R. Environmental management practices, environmental technology portfolio, and environmental commitment: a content analytic approach for UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 2015, 171 (1/3): 427- 437.
5	KANGASPUNTA J. Cost-efficiency analysis of weapon system portfolios. European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 223 (1): 264- 275. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.05.042
6	LEE J, KANG S H, ROSENBERGER J, et al. A hybrid approach of goal programming for weapon systems selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2010, 58 (3): 521- 527.
7	ZHOU D Y, HUANG H L, TENG C Y, et al. Project selection of robust portfolio models with incomplete information. Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, 2012, 1 (2): 157- 199.
8	KARVETSKI C W, LAMBERT J H, LINKOV I. Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 2011, 7 (2): 228- 236.
9	MANE M, DAVENDRALINGAM N, DELAURENTIS D. Capability and development risk management in system-of-systems architectures: a portfolio approach to decision-making. Proc. of the 9th Annual Acquisition Research Symposium, 2012, 1, 62- 73.
10	GOROD A, SAUSER B, BOARDMAN J. System-of-systems engineering management: a review of modern history and a path forward. IEEE Systems Journal, 2008, 2 (4): 484- 499. doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2008.2007163
11	LEE S K, MOGI G, HUI K S. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for efficiently allocating energy R & D resources: in the case of energy technologies against high oil prices. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 21, 347- 355.
12	CHENG B, JIANG J, TAN Y J, et al. A novel approach for WSoS capability requirement satisfactory degree evaluation using evidential reasoning. Systems EngineeringjjTheory & Practice, 2011, 31 (11): 2210- 2216.
13	GUAN Q B, YU X H. Research on evaluation of equipment's contribution to system warfighting. Journal of Equipment Academy, 2015, 26 (3): 1- 5.
14	DoD Architecture Framework Working Group. DoD architecture framework version 1.5. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2007.
15	DoD Architecture Framework Working Group. DoD architecture framework version 2.0. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2009.
16	MoD Partners. MOD architecture framework version 1.2. London: Ministry of Defence, 2005.
17	NATO Consultation, Command and Control Board. NATO architecture framework version 3.0. Brussels: NATO Consultation, Command and Control Board, 2007.
18	WU J, TAN S Y, TAN Y J, et al. Invulnerability analysis of complex networks based on natural connectivity. Complex Systems and Complexity Science, 2014, 11 (1): 77- 86.
19	WU J, BARAHONA M, TAN Y J, et al. Natural connectivity of complex networks. Chinese Physics Letters, 2010, 27 (7): 078902. doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/27/7/078902
20	WU J, BARAHONA M, TAN Y J, et al. Spectral measure of structural robustness in complex networks. IEEE Trans. on Systems Man and CyberneticsjjPart A: Systems and Humans, 2011, 41 (6): 1244- 1252. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2116117
21	MKAOUER W, KESSENTINI M, SHAOUT A, et al. Many-objective software remodularization using NSGA-Ⅲ. ACM Trans. on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2015, 24 (3): 1- 45.
22	DEB K, JAIN H. An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part Ⅰ: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation, 2014, 18 (4): 577- 601. doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281535

Weapon system portfolio	Relation	Service portfolio
Weapons (equipped, developed, or to be developed)	Construct	Elements of the bottom level in the service portfolio
Weapon portfolio (all, feasible or optimal)	Provide	Service
Multi-task combat	Correspond	Multi-scenario
Objective	Correspond	Objective
Selection	Determine	Availability of the elements
Collaboration between weapons	Correspond	Interconnection between elements
Scale of weapons	Determine	Number of elements

System	Service
System	Service 1	Service 2	Service 3
System 1	$\underline{{\rm{Symbol}}}$	–	–
System 2	–	$\underline{{\rm{Symbol}}}$	–
System 3	–	–	$\underline{{\rm{Symbol}}}$

System	Service
System	Ser1	Ser2	Ser3	Ser4	Ser5
A	1	0	0	1	0
B	1	1	0	0	1
C	0	1	1	1	0
D	0	0	1	0	0
E	1	0	1	0	0
F	0	1	0	1	1
G	1	0	0	0	1

Service	Task1	Task2	Task3	Task4	Task5
Ser1	1	0	0	0	0
Ser2	1	0	0	0	0
Ser3	0	0	1	1	0
Ser4	1	0	0	0	0
Ser5	0	0	1	1	1
Ser6	0	0	1	1	1
Ser7	0	0	0	0	1
Ser8	0	0	0	0	1
Ser9	1	1	0	1	1
Ser10	0	0	1	0	0
Ser11	0	1	0	0	0
Ser12	0	1	0	0	0

No.	Service portfolio	Number of portfolios	Connectivity	Flexibility
1	{Ser1, Ser2, Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser10, Ser11, Ser12}	1	1.761 4	0.000 0
2	{Ser10, Ser11, Ser12}	12	1.619 9	0.379 4
	{Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser12}
	{Ser5, Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser10, Ser11, Ser12}
	{Ser4, Ser5, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser11}
	{Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser10, Ser11, Ser12}
	{Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser10, Ser11, Ser12}
	{Ser2, Ser3, Ser5, Ser6, Ser9, Ser11}
	{Ser2, Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser8, Ser9, Ser10, }
	{Ser2, Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser11, Ser12}
	{Ser1, Ser2, Ser3, Ser5, Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser11, Ser12}
	{Ser1, Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser9, Ser10}
	{Ser1, Ser2, Ser3, Ser5, Ser6, Ser8, Ser9, Ser10}
3	/	12	1.313 0	0.676 3
4	$ $/$ $	12	1.592 7	0.542 4
5	/	12	1.611 3	0.493 2
6	/	12	1.451 3	0.602 7
7	/	12	1.564 4	0.549 1
8	/	12	1.362 3	0.664 4
9	/	12	1.213 1	0.719 9
10	/	12	1.525 6	0.586 4
11	/	12	1.396 5	0.634 3
12	/	12	1.479 7	0.599 5
13	/	12	1.218 1	0.704 3
14	/	12	1.614 8	0.464 3
15	/	12	1.613 5	0.491 1
16	/	12	1.523 0	0.596 0
17	/	12	1.262 7	0.688 7
18	/	12	1.269 8	0.678 9
19	/	12	1.465 1	0.601 9
20	/	12	1.446 0	0.631 8
21	/	12	1.104 4	0.727 3
22	/	12	1.253 0	0.694 4
23	/	12	1.365 7	0.641 2
24	/	12	1.538 9	0.553 6
25	{Ser10, Ser11, Ser12}	12	1.393 5	0.636 0
	{Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9}
	{Ser5, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser11, Ser12}
	{Ser5, Ser6, Ser9}
	{Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser8, Ser9, Ser12}
	{Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser9, Ser10, Ser11}
	{Ser2, Ser5, Ser6, Ser9}
	{Ser2, Ser4, Ser6, Ser9}
	{Ser2, Ser3, Ser4, Ser5, Ser6, Ser7, Ser8, Ser9, Ser10, Ser12}
	{Ser1, Ser6, Ser9}
	{Ser1, Ser5, Ser6, Ser9}
	{Ser1, Ser2, Ser3, Ser6, Ser9}