Model-Based Requirements

Salado, Alejandro

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_19-1

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24,28,29 Modeling the actual requirements is generally accomplished with one of two approaches. 30 The first approach defines a specific type of model object that encapsulates the requirement, which is formulated using a textual statement. For example, SysML uses elements called requirement element and requirement diagram.…”

Section: Model-based Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the literature in model‐based requirements deals with aspects related to requirements management (e.g., requirements traceability and allocation 21–27 or requirements engineering and management processes) 24,28,29 . Modeling the actual requirements is generally accomplished with one of two approaches 30 . The first approach defines a specific type of model object that encapsulates the requirement, which is formulated using a textual statement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this second approach presents two weaknesses, which are discussed at length in refs. 5, 30. First, the separation between functional and non‐functional requirements is ambiguous, 37 since, from a systems‐theoretic standpoint, such a distinction does not really exist 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparative experiment between textual requirements and model‐based requirements on proxies for contractual safety

Salado,

Shadab

2023

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Requirements form the backbone of contracting in acquisition programs. Requirements define the problem boundaries within which contractors try to find acceptable solutions (design systems). At the same time, requirements are the criteria by which a customer measures the extent that their contract has been fulfilled by the supplier. In this context, the quality of a requirement set is determined by the level of contractual safety that it yields. Unfortunately, textual requirements do not provide acceptable levels of contractual safety, as they remain a major source of problems in acquisition programs. Model‐based requirements have been proposed as an alternative to textual requirements, although this promise has not been demonstrated yet. This paper addresses the main question of whether using model‐based requirements improves the contractual safety of acquisition programs compared to using textual requirements. The level of adequate applicability, bounding, necessity, and completeness achieved by model‐based requirements are empirically measured using an experimental study with aerospace engineering and industrial and systems engineering students on a space system application. The results show that model‐based requirements outperform textual requirements in these four variables.

show abstract