The System Complexity Metric (SCM) Explains Systems Design and is Correlated with Cost and Failure Rate

The human short term memory span and working capacity is limited to three to five items, especially if they are organized complex “chunks” of information. The impression of complexity occurs when a system is simply difficult to understand, where there is no apparent pattern to predict its behavior. Hierarchical systems design can reduce perceived complexity and increase the amount of information that can be managed. The SCM was developed to measure complexity and help compare proposed overall system architectures before detailed design information is available. The SCM is defined as the sum of the number of major nodes, N, in the system block diagram plus the number of one-way interactions, I, between the nodes. SCM = N + I. SCM’s are easily determined by direct inspection of high-level block diagrams of life support systems. Axiomatic design develops a hierarchy of subsystem requirements and designs together in a top-down, back-and-forth process. A coupling matrix is used to control the relationships between the subsystem functions and design concepts. Axiomatic design can improve system design by decoupling requirements and designs. Axiomatic design was applied to the planning of a closed life support system, similar to that used on the International Space Station. A materially open as opposed to a closed system design was created by removing the interconnections required to close the system. The open system had the same number of designed subsystems as the closed system, but it had many fewer interconnections and its SCM was lower by about half. The costs were estimated and the MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) tabulated for open and closed space life support systems. The estimated costs were linearly proportional to SCM for the wide variations of SCM in life support, but small differences may not be significant. The flight and preflight MTBF’s both declined exponentially with increasing MTBF, faster than MTBF-2, even though the preflight estimated MTBF’s were about ten times higher than the flight MTBF’s.