Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T02:24:16.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DESIGNING A MODEL-BASED, MULTI-PERSPECTIVE PROCESS DESIGN ENVIRONMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Avi Shaked  and
Yoram Reich
Avi Shaked
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Systems Engineering Research Initiative
Yoram Reich*
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Systems Engineering Research Initiative
*
Reich, Yoram, Tel Aviv University, School of Mechanical Engineering, Israel, yoramr@tauex.tau.ac.il

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The development of engineered systems is a complex process, involving many activities and development artifacts. The challenges introduced by this complexity calls for a model-based design environment. The PROVE methodology is an artifact-centric, model-based development process design methodology. In this paper, we present the first, fully model-based design environment of the PROVE. Furthermore, our environment incorporates additional process design perspectives that are applied in real-time and in a completely consistent manner, based on a formally defined information model. We discuss the details of our environment's design as well as highlight its potential benefits.

Keywords

Process modellingDesign processSystems Engineering (SE)
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1103 - 1112
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bendraou, R., Jezequel, J.M., Gervais, M.P. and Blanc, X., 2010. A comparison of six uml-based languages for software process modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(5), pp.662-675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernal, M., Haymaker, J.R. and Eastman, C., 2015. On the role of computational support for designers in action. Design Studies, 41, pp.163-182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, D., Buchmann, R. and Karagiannis, D., 2015, October. Preserving multi-view consistency in diagrammatic knowledge representation. In International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (pp. 177–182). Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, D., Karagiannis, D. and Pittl, B., 2020. A survey of modeling language specification techniques. Information Systems, 87, p.101425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, T.R., 2002. Process integration using the design structure matrix. Systems Engineering, 5(3), pp.180-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, T.R., 2015. Design structure matrix extensions and innovations: a survey and new opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(1), pp.27-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N., 2000. Engineering Design Methods, Strategies for Product Design (Wiley, New York, ed. 4), pp.78-80.Google Scholar
Daniel, P.A. and Daniel, C., 2018. Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: From a paradigm of regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management. International journal of project management, 36(1), pp.184-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M. and Ouyang, C., 2008. Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Information and Software technology, 50(12), pp.1281-1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J., 2010. Planning development processes for complex products. Research in Engineering Design, 21(3), pp.153-171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, U., 2014. Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Software & Systems Modeling, 13(3), pp.941-962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koudri, A. and Champeau, J., 2010, July. MODAL: a SPEM extension to improve co-design process models. In International Conference on Software Process (pp. 248–259). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Kuhrmann, M., Kalus, G., Wachtel, E. and Broy, M., 2010. Visual process model design using domain-specific languages. In Proceedings of SPLASH Workshop on Flexible Modeling Tools (Vol. 2010).Google Scholar
Kunchala, J., Yu, J., Yongchareon, S. and Liu, C., 2020. An approach to merge collaborating processes of an inter-organizational business process for artifact lifecycle synthesis. Computing, 102(4), pp.951-976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J.F., Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J., 2017. Model granularity in engineering design–concepts and framework. Design Science, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, T. A., Hutchison, N., Clifford, M., Van Aken, E., Salado, A., Henderson, K., 2020. Benchmarking the Benefits and Current Maturity of Model-Based Systems Engineering across the Enterprise, Technical Report SERC-2020-SR-001, Stevens Institute of Technology, Systems Engineering Research Center.Google Scholar
OMG (Object Management Group), 2017. UML 2.5.1 – Formal Specification.Google Scholar
OMG (Object Management Group), 2009. SysML 1.6 – Formal Specification.Google Scholar
OMG (Object Management Group), 2011. BPMN 2.0 – Formal Specification.Google Scholar
OMG (Object Management Group), 2002. SPEM 1.0 – Forma Specification.Google Scholar
OMG (Object Management Group), 2008. SPEM 2.0 – Formal Specification.Google Scholar
OMG (Object Management Group), 2019. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification 2.5.1.Google Scholar
Ramos, A.L., Ferreira, J.V. and Barceló, J., 2011. Model-based systems engineering: An emerging approach for modern systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 42(1), pp.101-111.Google Scholar
Recker, J.C., zur Muehlen, M., Siau, K., Erickson, J. and Indulska, M., 2009. Measuring method complexity: UML versus BPMN. Association for Information Systems.Google Scholar
Recker, J., 2010. Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal, 16(1), pp.181-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Rube, I., Dodero, J.M., Palomo-Duarte, M., Ruiz, M. and Gawn, D., 2012. Uses and applications of spem process models. a systematic mapping study. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 1(32), pp.999-1025.Google Scholar
Shaked, A. and Reich, Y., 2019a. Designing development processes related to system of systems using a modeling framework. Systems Engineering, 22(6), pp.561-575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaked, A. and Reich, Y., 2019b. Improving Coordination and Collaboration in Connected and Automated Vehicle Development Projects Using Model Based Process Design. SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-0103, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaked, A. and Reich, Y., 2021a. Requirements for Model-Based Development Process Design and Compliance of Standardized Models. Systems, 9(1), p.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaked, A. and Reich, Y., 2021b. Using Domain-Specific Models to Facilitate Model-Based Systems-Engineering: Development Process Design Modeling with OPM and PROVE. Applied Sciences, 11(4), p.1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaked, A. and Reich, Y., 2021c. Improving Process Descriptions in Research by Model-Based Analysis. IEEE Systems Journal, 15(1), pp. 435-444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaked, A. and Reich, Y., 2021d. Model-based Threat and Risk Assessment for Systems Design. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A. and Sukaviriya, P., 2011, August. Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In 2011 IEEE 15th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (pp. 151–160). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yongchareon, S., Yu, J. and Zhao, X., 2015. A view framework for modeling and change validation of artifact-centric inter-organizational business processes. Information systems, 47, pp.51-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar