6.2.3 Coping with System Evolution ‐ Experiences in Reverse Architecting as a Means to Ease the Evolution of Complex Systems*

Borches, P. Daniel; Bonnema, G. Maarten

doi:10.1002/j.2334-5837.2009.tb00994.x

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Основная проблема методологии снизу-вверх -возможное несоответствие разрабатываемого продукта требованиям. Но при этом, как показано в [1,[7][8][9], требования к продукту неизбежно меняются, причём начинается этот процесс ещё во время разработки. С другой стороны, использование методологии снизу-вверх позволяет быстро получать прототипы системы, которые могут использоваться для постепенной верификации системы на соответствие требованиям, и, что более важно, для уточнения и обновления самих требований.…”

Section: Top-down Vs Bottom-up Methodologies For Adas System Designunclassified

“…Масштабирование и расширение системы в рамках подхода сверху-вниз выражается в формировании обновлённых требований к системе и полной переработке системы по полному циклу проектирования, что подразумевает глобальные изменения в системе, так как подсистемы в концепции методологии сверху-вниз не являются независимыми и тесно связаны с другими компонентами. Изменение характеристик отдельных подсистем, не контролируемое целеполаганием ко всей системе в целом, может оказать непредсказуемое влияние на внутрисистемные взаимодействия и функционирование системы [8,21].…”

Section: композиционный морфизмunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Top-Down vs Bottom-Up Methodologies for Adas System Design

Chickrin¹,

Egorchev²

2021

IZVESTIYA SFedU. ENGINEERING SCIENCES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Top-down Vs Bottom-up Methodologies For Adas System Designunclassified

Section: композиционный морфизмunclassified

Top-Down vs Bottom-Up Methodologies for Adas System Design

Chickrin¹,

Egorchev²

2021

IZVESTIYA SFedU. ENGINEERING SCIENCES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A paradigm shift can be observed as the product is not designed in a conventional manner-instead, a family of products is "programmed". Earlier research has found a certain reluctance of the main stakeholder-the designers-to describe products based on UML or SysML [18][19][20]. The designers in this project were younger engineers trained in the engineering framework and were open to this kind of change.…”

Section: Exemplary Application Of the Combined Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These models and processes include the System Modeling Language (SysML), the Object-Process Methodology (OPM, [11]), Function Analysis Diagrams [12], Computational Functional Basis [13][14][15][16], and the Integrated Function Modeling (IFM) Framework [17]. The application of such models was investigated by several research teams [18][19][20]. In general, these models and processes still remain at an abstract level for the description of the resulting technical system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Function Modeling in Graph-Based Design Languages

Elwert

Ramsaier²,

Eisenbart

et al. 2022

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main focus of this paper is the integration of an integrated function modeling (IFM) framework in an engineering framework based on graph-based design languages (GBDLs). Over the last decade, GBDLs have received increasing attention as they offer a promising approach for addressing several important challenges in engineering, such as the frequent and time-consuming transfer of data between different computer aided engineering (CAE) tools. This absorbs significant amounts of manual labor in engineering design projects. GBDLs create digital system models at a meta level, encompassing all relevant information concerning a certain product design and feeding this into the relevant simulation tools needed for evaluating the impact of possible design variations on the performance of the resulting products/parts. It is possible to automate this process using digital compilers. Because of this, it is also possible to realize systematic design variations for a very large number of parameters and topological variants. Therefore, these kinds of graph-based languages are a powerful means for creating a large number of viable design alternatives and for permitting fast evaluation processes against the given specifications. While, thus far, such analyses tend to be based on a more or less fully defined system, this paper proposes an expansion of the applicability of GBDLs into the domain of product functions to cohesively link conceptual with embodiment design stages. This will also help with early systematic, automated generation and the validation of design alternatives through relevant simulation tools during embodiment design. Further, it will permit the automated exploration of function paths and enable extended analysis possibilities, such as the detection of functional bottlenecks, while enhancing the traceability of the design over the development process. For these extended analysis possibilities, a function analysis tool was developed that adopts core ideas of the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). In this, the functional distinction between function carriers and function-related processes allows the goal-directed assessment of component reliabilities and the detectability and importance of processes in a technical system. In the paper, the graph-based modeling of functions and the function analysis tools are demonstrated on the example of a multicopter.

show abstract

“…Borches PD, Bonnema GM (2009) The approach has been adopted not just for the SDS, but also for capturing knowledge of system aspects that cross system and organizational boundaries.…”

Section: Benefits and Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Views on Evolvability of Embedded Systems

Laar¹,

Punter²

2011

Embedded Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Cover design: SPi Publisher ServicesPrinted on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) ForewordBack in 2004 new markets in China, India and South America were beginning to open up and it was important for Philips Healthcare to maintain its strong position in MRI medical scanners. Forward thinking people at Philips Healthcare MRI started to worry about this and how to remain competitive in an increasingly changing world. One of the problems was to effectively deal with a constant flow of changes to the system. These changes were coming in from all kinds of sources: key technology suppliers, customer expectations, emerging new diagnostic techniques and market pressures to reduce cost. For an organization designing and building highly complex medical imaging systems this was indeed a challenge.For any business, staying ahead requires offering great products on time and at competitive prices. To Philips Healthcare MRI evolvability means that the impact of change should be minimal and predictable. For our development organization this is a key enabler to deliver on our commitments. However, even seemingly simple high level changes can have a rippling effect across functional boundaries. We have experienced in the past how unexpected change propagation can hamper predictability of our developments.Designing and building complex products like MRI scanners requires experts from multiple technical disciplines to work together. As each discipline has its own way of working and its own vocabulary, communication does not always come naturally, raising the need for efficient means of communicating requirements and designs.While applying changes to the system, erosion of the qualities of the architecture has proven to be a real danger. Our architects wanted systematic ways to maintain the integrity of the system architecture while being able to incorporate change more easily. Therefore they needed a system architecture and development processes that allow for expected and unexpected change.One of our strategies to address these kinds of problems was to participate in the Darwin project. As the name suggests Darwin focused on evolvability. Researchers from ESI, Philips Research, the Technical Universities of Delft, Twente and Eindhoven, the VU University of Amsterdam and University of Groningen came together in Best to work with our senior architects to explore ways of making change easier and more predictable. The scope of the project was wide and covered different stages of the product creation process. It addressed very different levels, from exposing the v vi Foreword structu...

show abstract

6.2.3 Coping with System Evolution ‐ Experiences in Reverse Architecting as a Means to Ease the Evolution of Complex Systems*

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Top-Down vs Bottom-Up Methodologies for Adas System Design

Top-Down vs Bottom-Up Methodologies for Adas System Design

Digital Function Modeling in Graph-Based Design Languages

Views on Evolvability of Embedded Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About