Computer Aided Systems Engineering Tools Research Articles

BOARD-AI: A goal-aware modeling interface for systems engineering, combining machine learning and plan recognition

Paper and pens remain the most commonly used tools by systems engineers to capture system models. They improve productivity and foster collaboration and creativity as the users do not need to conform to formal notations commonly present in Computer-Aided Systems Engineering (CASE) tools for system modeling. However, digitizing models sketched on a whiteboard into CASE tools remains a difficult and error-prone activity that requires the knowledge of tool experts. Over the past decade, switching from symbolic reasoning to machine learning has been the natural choice in many domains to improve the performance of software applications. The field of natural sketching and online recognition is no exception to the rule and most of the existing sketch recognizers rely on pre-trained sets of symbols to increase the confidence in the outcome of the recognizers. However, that performance improvement comes at the cost of trust. The lack of trust directly stems from the lack of explainability of the outcomes of the neural networks, which hinders its acceptance by systems engineering teams. A solution shall not only combine the performance and robustness but shall also earn unreserved support and trust from human users. While most of the works in the literature tip the scale in favor of performance, there is a need to better include studies on human perception into the equation to restore balance. This study presents an approach and a Human-machine interface for natural sketching that allows engineers to capture system models using interactive whiteboards. The approach combines techniques from symbolic AI and machine learning to improve performance while not compromising explainability. The key concept of the approach is to use a trained neural network to separate, upstream from the global recognition process, handwritten text from geometrical symbols, and to use the suitable technique (OCR or automated planning) to recognize text and symbols individually. Key advantages of the approach are that it does not resort to any other interaction modalities (e.g., virtual keyboards) to annotate model elements with textual properties and that the explainability of the outcomes of the modeling assistant is preserved. A user experiment validates the usability of the interface.

6.1.2 Better use of Design Descriptions to embrace complexity and creativity in Systems Engineering

AbstractMost Systems Engineering practitioners now have access to Computer Aided Systems Engineering (CASE) tools that greatly assist with the engineering of complex problems. However, the productivity of these tools is often offset by the inability to effectively manage the large amounts of data associated with the system models offered by these engineering tools. As well as better CASE tools to improve productivity and success, we must not forget the role of innovation and creativity as a means of progressing solutions to engineering problems. This paper examines the use of the long standing practice of using ‘design descriptions’ and advocates that we formalize this approach by using Systems Engineering Design Descriptions to manage the engineering complexity and to embrace engineering creativity.

Model transfer among CASE tools in systems engineering

Systems engineering as a core discipline of technical product development uses a variety of different Computer-Aided Systems Engineering (CASE) tools. Very often the need arises for data transfer between such tools. Currently, due to insufficient interface formats, a labor-intensive manual transfer of data is necessary. A step towards improving data exchange between systems engineering tools along the process life cycle is the definition of standard interface formats such as the application protocol (AP) framework of ISO Standards for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP). The aim of this paper is to analyze and evaluate the implementations of the Systems Engineering Data Representation and Exchange Standard (SEDRES/AP233) information model with regard to supporting data exchange, to propose improvements for the emerging modular AP233 ISO standard and to provide solutions for the observed problems. The solutions proposed in this paper were developed while designing, developing, and using a STEP ISO 10303–SEDRES conformant import and export interface for the tools Teamwork, Statemate, and the requirement management tool DOORS. The developed interfaces demonstrate that the SEDRES information model is an efficient medium for tool and vendor independent transfer of systems engineering information. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 8: 41–50, 2005

Using UML to facilitate the teaching of object-oriented systems analysis and design

This paper discusses how UML, with the aid of a CASE (Computer Aided Systems Engineering) tool, can help teach an Object-Oriented Systems Analysis and Design (OOSAD) course. Today's students need to be actively involved in the learning process and must be able to apply a concept while it is being taught. Most OOSAD real-world problems are to complex to deal with in the classroom, so we have chosen a simpler problem - consisting of a university setting - that all students are familiar with. By using a CASE tool to draw UML diagrams students can visualize the object-oriented concepts and see the relevance of what is being taught. UML can help simplify OOSAD problems and at the same time actively engage students in the learning process thus increasing the general interest level of the student. The author's basic approach to teaching OOSAD material is to have the students emulate the instructor when working through a problem. With enough concrete practice like this, students soon build a strong foundation in UML diagrammatics and in the process gradually abstract out the underlying OOSAD concepts. The aim is to reach a point where students can make their own interpretation, apply OOSAD concepts independently, and ultimately devise their own extensions to UML to solve a problem.

Transforming information systems development through computer-aided systems engineering (CASE): lessons from practice

In dealing with the challenges posed by the ongoing problem of developing and integrating an evermore complex and diverse range of information systems in a timely manner, practitioners continue to grapple with important issues such as increasing developer productivity and bringing quality improvements to the process and product of systems development. Many organizations have adopted computer-aided systems engineering (CASE) tools with such outcomes in mind. With few exceptions, previous research into the phenomenon of CASE adoption and use has been survey based in the main, and has resulted in some confusion over the benefits to be derived from the use of CASE tools within the systems development process. This paper extends previous work as part of an interpretive, case-based research strategy to examine the adoption and use of integrated CASE (I-CASE) in a single organization. Such an approach facilitates a deeper understanding of the impact that CASE exerts on the process and product of systems development. Based on the experience of practitioners in the organization studied, a set of recommendations is presented. The findings of this study also lend support to the view that an I-CASE development platform does indeed have the potential to exert a positive impact on the development process and its product.

Behavioural effects of attitudes toward constraint in CASE: the impact of development task and project phase

AbstractThis paper examines the effects of systems development task and phase upon individuals’ attitudes and behaviour while using computer‐aided systems engineering (CASE) tools. A previous empirical study of developers in several countries is revisited. Findings indicate that the mediating effects of task and phase upon the relationship among constraints, attitudes and behaviour are weak. They thereby support earlier research, which claims significance between attitudes and behaviour, by eliminating the potentially mediating effects of task and phase. Findings also indicate that CASE tool users associate implementation, integration and maintenance in terms of tasks and constraints, suggesting a reassessment of traditional life cycle models.

A Guide to CASE Tools in Support of System Architecting

ABSTRACTThe rapid pace recently established by the Computer Aided Systems Engineering (CASE) tools industry provides opportunities to constantly look ahead and challenge tools to do more in support of complex systems development. This situation also forces CASE tools users to cry out for guidance in defining tool capabilities and selecting from among the growing list of candidates. The INCOSE Systems Architecture Working Group (SAWG) has produced version 1.0 of “A Guide To CASE Tools in Support of System Architecting” (dated May 1997) to address such a need for guidance. The guide is written to give the CASE tool novice a starting point and to give the more experienced CASE tool user some considerations for advanced capabilities.

Automated Integration of Enterprise Accounting Models Throughout the Systems Development Life Cycle

This paper summarizes and projects research in the field of automated software engineering as that work has been applied to the domain of accounting-centered enterprise models. In particular, we review the basic concepts and goals of the REA (Resource–Event–Agent) accounting model and speculate on its past, present, and future use as an embedded domain theory of enterprise economic activity within computer-aided systems engineering (CASE) tools. The REA CASE tools reviewed here include ones like REAVIEWS, CREASY, and REAtool that have already been built plus others like REACH, FREACC, and REAVERSE that have been specified only in theory. The entire systems development life cycle is used as a discussion vehicle to treat these tools and projected future work in an integrated way. © 1996 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

CURRENT TRENDS IN REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATION MANAGEMENT

ABSTRACTOver the last 5 years, Marconi Systems Technology has been involved in developing a state‐of‐the‐art software product for requirements elicitation, traceability and management, able to interface with other best‐of‐breed CASE (Computer Aided Systems Engineering) tools. The product, known as “RTM” (Requirements & Traceability Management) (MST 1996), has achieved critical worldwide acclaim and is currently in use on some of the most advanced systems under development.Through direct contact with many projects, it became clear that the different interest groups present in a company or project (from marketing to project management and systems engineers) had radically different expectations both on how they wanted to use such requirements management support and also what capabilities they as specific interest groups wanted from a requirements management tool.Two common themes appeared to be shared by these interest groups. The first was the need to move away from the realm of primitive ASCII based requirement representations into the much more powerful and comfortable review and editing environments provided by many of today's leading desktop publishing tools. The second was to have the powerful information modeling, traceability, audit trail and impact analysis capabilities of RTM “fused” into their preferred editing environments.This paper describes some of these current trends in requirements & specification management and their implementation in RTM V3.

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING: A DATA MODEL VIEW

ABSTRACTDuring the late 70's the U.S. Air Force sponsored a program called Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing or ICAM. The term ICAM Definition arose and was abbreviated to IDEF. Three IDEF modeling techniques were developed: IDEFO (process modeling), IDEF1 (data modeling) and IDEF2 (dynamics modeling). IDEF1X is an outgrowth of IDEF1. See Reference 1.This paper presents an IDEF1X data model view of systems engineering. It shows some of the fundamental data elements of Systems Engineering and their logical relationships. The data model is applicable to any product development, from toys to space ships.The model uses two particular data constructs (FUNCTION RELATION, and BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTIC) that provide the flexibility needed to use the highly structured world of databases to provide a tool for the highly unstructured and creative world of Systems Engineering. The model evolved over the past two years as a result of the author's participation in Martin Marietta's efforts to develop an integrated data base.The lack of a widely accepted view of Systems Engineering data may partly account for the shortage of good Computer Aided Systems Engineering (CASE) tools and/or the lack of user acceptance of some of the CASE tools. The author hopes this paper will help stimulate dialog that will result in one or more widely accepted views upon which CASE tools can proliferate. The paper is organized into 6 topics: Data modeling tutorial A data model view of systems engineering Anatomy of a performance requirement Relation between data models and CASE tool functionality Conclusions Recommendation