A two-level process model for integrated system development

Rossak, Wilhelm; Zemel, Tamar; Kirova, Vassilka; Jololian, Leon

doi:10.1109/ecbs.1994.331681

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research effort is one of many process innovation initiatives which is extremely relevant to DoD process initiatives, including the development of the proposed DoD PLCs. One of the focal points of NJIT's on-going research is the development of a domain architecture specification language and a supporting editor [6]. NJITs systems using a tailorable process that integrates technical and management activities, proactive risk management, and product line engineering through the GSEP.…”

Section: Dod Relevant Process Initiativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying engineering of computer-based systems (ECBS) and product line center (PLC) approaches to the development of mission critical systems for the Department of Defense (DoD)

Shanahan¹

Proceedings. IEEE High-Assurance Systems Engineering Workshop (Cat. No.96TB100076)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

develop individual CBSs and CBS product lines.This paper addresses opportunities to apply the ECBS discipline and reuse technology in the DoD information systems development environment and identifies relevant on-going initiatives. The application of ECBS principles, in concert with the reuse of processes, architectures, information, methods, and tools within DoD application domains or product lines, has the potential to significantly reduce DoD systems development costs. The Need for ChangeAs in the commercial environment and the rest of the government, system development in the DoD is becoming increasingly sensitive to cost, schedule, and performance pressures. Internal competition for scarce resources within DoD has increased as the budget continues to decline in real terms. In addition, evolving mission needs have 0-8186-7629-9/97 $10.00 0 1997 IEEE 8. CAPT S. Boycan, CAPT J. Mattingly, and LTCOL M. Lewis, "Air Force Software Process Improvement,"

show abstract

Section: Dod Relevant Process Initiativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying engineering of computer-based systems (ECBS) and product line center (PLC) approaches to the development of mission critical systems for the Department of Defense (DoD)

Shanahan¹

Proceedings. IEEE High-Assurance Systems Engineering Workshop (Cat. No.96TB100076)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…System-of-systems security engineering (Bodeau, 1994) Two-level process model for integrated system development (Rossak et al, 1994) Architecting principles for systems-of-systems (Maier, 1998) Inferred Designs (Perrochon and Mann, 1999) benefits that they offer. First, SLRs are able to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art (or state of the practice) on the investigated research topic as well as identify research challenges and opportunities in this context.…”

Section: Title Citationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though the drawn conclusions may have been influenced by the researchers' B.3. SLR: List of Selected Studies Two-level process model for integrated system development (Rossak et al, 1994) Quantifiable software architecture for dependable systems of systems (Liang and Luqi, 2003) A System-of-Systems Engineering GEOSS: Architectural approach (Butterfield et al, 2008) A process for systems-of-systems architecting (Griendling and Mavris, 2010) A design methodology for real-time distributed software architecture based on the behavioral properties and its application to advanced automotive software (Aoyama and Tanabe, 2011) A method for the generation and evaluation of architecture alternatives on the cloud (Iacobucci and Mavris, 2011) Architecting ultra-large-scale green information systems (Chen and Kazman, 2012) The process of architecting for software/system engineering (Chigani and Balci, 2012) Scaling up software architecture analysis Towards integrated rule-driven software development for IT ecosystems (Mensing et al, 2012) A data-centric capability-focused approach for system-of-systems architecture modeling and analysis (Ge et al, 2013) Supporting architectural decision making for systems-of-systems design under uncertainty (Lytra and Zdun, 2013) Goncalves2015 A meta-process to construct software architectures for system of systems (Gonçalves et al, 2015) tails of activities while managers can be more interest in general aspects and results of ongoing work. It is also possible to structure different levels of abstraction in the same process, allowing project managers to choose how complete is the process that they need.…”

Section: B2 Threats To Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting architectural design of acknowledged SoS

Gonçalves¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

System-of-Systems (SoS) refer to complex, large-scale, and sometimes critical software-intensive systems that has raised as a promising class of systems in several application domains. In parallel, software architectures play a significant role in the development of software-intensive systems, dealing with both functional and non-functional requirements. In particular, systematic processes to design SoS software architectures can tackle challenges from SoS development, including to handle collaboration of independent constituent systems with different owners, missions, and interests. Despite the relevance and necessity of software-intensive SoS for diverse application domains, most of their software architectures have been still developed in an ad hoc manner. In general, there is a lack of structured processes for architecting SoS, hindering the secure adoption of SoS, reducing possibilities of sharing common architectural solutions, and negatively impacting in the success rate for these systems. This thesis presents SOAR ("General Process for Acknowledged SoS Software Architectures") that supports the establishment of architectural design processes for acknowledged SoS. Conceived to provide different levels of support according to each SoS development context, it comprises a high level kernel that describes what must be done when architecting SoS and also three practices with specific activities and work products to guide how to perform architectural analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. To evaluate SOAR, three surveys, a viability study, and an experiment were conducted. Results achieved in these evaluation studies indicate that SOAR can positively support the instantiation of architecting processes for acknowledged SoS and, as a consequence, contribute to the development and evolution of these complex, software-intensive systems.

show abstract