Systems engineering of computer-based systems

White, S.; Alford, Mack; Holtzman, J. C.; Kuehl, S.; McCay, Brian M.; Oliver, Douglas L.; Owens, David; Tully, Colin; Willey, Allan

doi:10.1109/ecbs.1994.331687

Cited by 32 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently more authors have realized the importance of integrating diverse methods to represent various systems/subsystems/dimensions in the ISD process (Colter, 1984;Curtis et al, 1988;Basili and Musa, 1991;Poo and Layzell, 1992;Warren et al, 1992;Rowley, 1993;White et al, 1993). However, in the literature, it was not made clear whether the type and characteristics of the subsystem/dimension to be represented influence the types of inquiring systems and tools selected to achieve a solution, as well as the paradigm that they implicitly support.…”

Section: Missing User and Evolutionary Dimensions In Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Furthermore, a variety of interactions of different types/characteristics not only occur within a system or subsystem but also between a system and a subsystem. System designers must not only be aware of the existence of such subsystems and interactions but also identify the types and characteristics of subsystems and interactions in order to define the level of abstraction at which an analysis can be carded out (Devanbu et al, 1991;White et al, 1993). For example, in software development, conflicts among system requirements are not unusual (Curtis et al, 1988;Rowley, 1993).…”

Section: Subsystems and Their Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systems thinking for information systems development

1995

Systems Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many information systems development methods (ISDMs) are available. past experience indicates that none of them completely supports the design process. One of the major problems is that the traditional ISDMs represents a poor match for some subsystems or dimensions involved in the information systems design (ISDL This paper presents an integration and interpretation of recent research on the mismatch of the ISDMs with the 1SD process and suggests that systems ideas can be used to learn about and clarify our perceptions of the ISD processes. First, some important systems concepts such as systems, subsystem, dimensionality, system types. and characteristics are introduced. Second, some lessons of mismatch learned in the past that are related to those systems concepts are discussed. The discussion includes experiences learned through the ISD process such as communication problems, inadequate analysis of systems maintenance, lack of understanding of the relationship between the nature of the subsystem/dimension to be represented and the selection of tools, difficulties in integrating subsystems and dimensions, as well as Brooks" Law along with others. Third, some recommendations are given concerning how to avoid mismatch with a systems concept phase. Fourth, some guidelines are provided for implementing the tasks of the systems concept phase. Finally, a number of areas where research appears needed are mentioned.KEY WORDS: systems thinking; information systems analysis; information systems design; information systems development methods; software engineering.

show abstract

Section: Missing User and Evolutionary Dimensions In Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Subsystems and Their Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Systems thinking for information systems development

1995

Systems Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The notion of a computer systems engineer is presently being addressed by the IEEE (White et al 1993).…”

Section: Proposed Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

6.1.3 Requirements Management: Contrasting Traditional Systems and Software Engineering Methods

LaBudde¹

1995

INCOSE International Symp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Traditional system engineering has been the source of most of the requirements' decomposition and management techniques. Requirements' decom-position and flow down concentrate on a top-down mission oriented view. The emphasis is on functional flow (input/output), black box performance allocation, and system interaction. However, it is weak in areas like operating logic, behavior, and timeline requirements.We contrast and compare the requirements' process and management techniques for the traditional system engineering and modern software approaches. We can indicate at least one gap in the area of operating logic and timeline analysis as well as numerous important under laps.Consequently, the design of many computer-based systems suffers from a substantial risk at the interface between system and software design engineering. The gap, created by a failure to address operational logic, sequencing, performance and timeline requirements in both disciplines, can have a major impact on program cost, schedule, and performance. Potentially, major safety related risks may result from the gap in logic and timeline requirements' tracking and allocation. In addition, significant under laps occur in operational analysis, interface control, performance, human factors, risk analysis, trade-off studies, reviews, and planning. Therefore, these can create a risk if the software engineering effort is weak in traditional system engineering discipline. Suggestions for reducing the gap and under lap are offered.

show abstract

“…The importance of appropriate design methods for distributed real-time systems is however still not completely understood and has to be improved [Whi93,Oli93,Lav91]. The software used in automation applications represents a mixture of data acquisition, control, data storage and man-machine functions for visualization and user interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of distributed real time systems in process control applications

Hammerschmidt

Vogelsang

1998

Computers in Industry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to handle the complexity of software for automation systems of larger scale in manufacturing nowadays procedural-oriented (e.g. SCR, RTSA) and object-oriented methods (OOD, OOA, OMT) are used. Within the latter alternative we developed an object-and service-oriented approach to cope with problems of complexity and to ease and accelerate the software design process. In this paper we present our service-based concept, give a possible definition of basic services and discuss experiences made in an application example of a production cell.

show abstract

Systems engineering of computer-based systems

Cited by 32 publications

References 9 publications

Systems thinking for information systems development

Systems thinking for information systems development

6.1.3 Requirements Management: Contrasting Traditional Systems and Software Engineering Methods

Design of distributed real time systems in process control applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About