DOCSLIB.ORG

Requirements Engineering and Agile Methodology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Requirements Engineering and Agile Methodology Requirements – Architecture - Agility R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 1 R I T Software Engineering Requirements Engineering and Agile Processes (You may be thinking) Requirements engineering model as presented is not very agile Writing a SRS, etc. sounds like a classic heavy weight process It is! But, two points to consider as good software engineers: 1. Fit the software methodology and process to the problem 2. Agile processes do equivalent requirement engineering activities – still need requirements validated by stakeholders for success R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 2 R I T Software Engineering Requirements and Agile Traditional approach – the requirements document Agile argument against tradition Communication gaps between authors and readers Change cycle is too long Challenging to capture the complete problem and system context Brain’s capacity to retain information Agile answer: Continuous collaboration with stakeholders . Workshops, conversation Stories (index cards) record conversations Are they the requirements? R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 3 R I T Software Engineering Requirements Engineering in Agile Processes Where is the Knowledge? Requirements Eng. Agile Methodology 1. Elicitation 1. Stories 2. Iteration design, 2. Analysis customer collaboration 3. Specification 3. Stories, code, acceptance tests, unit 4. Validation tests 5. Management 4. Customer collaboration, acceptance tests 5. Planning cycle, frequent iterations R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 4 R I T Software Engineering A Picture Worth a 1000 Words Requirements Waterfall Incremental Evolutionary “Classic” or agile style Design Always maps Construction (coding & testing) Deployment The Requirements Engineering Model The General Software Engineering Framework R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 5 R I T Software Engineering R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 6 R I T Software Engineering Requirements Envisioning: An Agile Best Practice Perform some high-level requirements envisioning early in the project Gain a common understanding of the scope of the problem Business goals Identify initial requirements quickly – days not weeks Iteration 0 of an agile project (inception phase) Also do initial architectural envisioning Scott Ambler: http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/initialRequirementsModeling.htm R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 7 R I T Software Engineering Agile Requirements Envisioning Why do it? Answer basic business questions Reduce business risk – everyone agrees on the problem and solution scope up front Establishes a knowledge framework to move ahead on architecture and project planning What modeling techniques? Usage – use cases, scenarios . Use case diagram for context Business domain model – process flow, key data entities, business rules User experience – story boards, prototypes R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 8 R I T Software Engineering When is More Upfront Detail Recommended? The domain and problem space are unknown and/or complex A commercial product (market driven requirements) Serial project milestone governance framework System engineering involving new hardware Contractual obligations Organizational culture is traditionalist R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 9 R I T Software Engineering Is Agility in Conflict with Architecture Design? R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 10 R I T Software Engineering Software Architecture and Agility Agility is not in conflict with architecture. The question is not “Should I do Agile or architecture?” Rather …. “How much architecture is done up front versus how much is deferred until project requirements are more stable?” “How much of the architecture should I formally document, and when?” A good architecture enables agility! R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 11 R I T Software Engineering How Much Architecture? Two activities can add time to a project schedule: Up-front architecture design work and up-front risk identification, planning, and resolution work Rework due to fixing defects and addressing modification requests. Intuitively, these two trade off against each other. Boehm and Turner plotted these two values against each other for three hypothetical projects: One project of 10 KSLOC One project of 100 KSLOC One project of 10,000 KSLOC “Balancing Agility and Discipline for the Perplexed,” B. Boehm and R. Turner, Addison-Wesley, 2004 R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 12 R I T Software Engineering How Much Architecture? A project with a million+ lines of code is enormously complex. It is difficult to imagine how Agile principles alone can cope with this complexity if there is no architecture to guide and organize the effort. “Balancing Agility and Discipline for the Perplexed,” B. Boehm and R. Turner, Addison-Wesley, 2004 R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 13 R I T Software Engineering Agility and Architecture Evaluation and Documentation Documentation Write for the reader! If the reader doesn’t need it, don’t write it. But the reader may be a maintainer or other newcomer not yet on the project! Evaluation Meeting stakeholder important concerns is a fundamental agile objective Focus on meeting the most important QA scenarios Tailor a lightweight process R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 14 R I T Software Engineering “Abstract Architecture Specification Document” Updated to support each incremental release (i.e., a “sprint” Hadar, Irit, Sofia Sherman, Ethan Hadar, and John J. Harrison. "Less Is More: Architecture Documentation for Agile Development." 2013 6th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE) (2013) R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 15 R I T Software Engineering Agile Architecting Heuristics Architects and developers need to think and work … Top-down—design and analyze architectural structures to meet ASRs and stakeholder needs Bottom-up—design solutions to accommodate implementation and environment constraints Key design decisions first, then a flow of decisions as needed Conduct experiments to analyze architecture tradeoffs (“spikes” in agile terminology) E.g., SQL versus NoSQL database R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 16 R I T Software Engineering SAiP Authors Advice Large Systems Smaller Systems Complex but stable Unstable requirements – get requirements – upfront agreement on major patterns architecture that apply Unstable requirements – Limit upfront design, evaluation, candidate architecture that and documentation evolves R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 17 R I T Software Engineering References Cockburn, Alistair, Agile Software Development, Addison-Wesley, 2002 Paetsch, Eberlein, Maurer, Requirements Engineering and Agile Software Development Kroll and Lyons, Eclipse Process Framework Presentation, Open Unified Process Distilled, 2006 Scott Ambler, http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/initialRequirementsM odeling.htm R. Kuehl/J. Scott Hawker p. 18 R I T Software Engineering.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A System Model for Managing Requirement Traceability Matrices Via Statistical Artifact Change Analysis Benjamin J
    A System Model for Managing Requirement Traceability Matrices via Statistical Artifact Change Analysis Benjamin J. Deaver and LiGuo Huang, Southern Methodist University, Dallas Introduction and Motivation Requirement Traceability Matrix – Gantt Open Source Software Project The Value of the Requirements Traceability Matrix The system Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTM) is primarily used for ensuring Our initial dataset for evaluation is taken from the Gantt Open Source PROCEDURE Kannenberg et al identify the underlying necessity of the Requirements Traceability Matrix and the underlying effect on that all requirements are fulfilled by the system artifact deliverables and the Software Project (http://www.ganttproject.biz). The initial trace data 1. Identify the taxonomy of change for a given domain (Systems Engineering, project management, process visibility, verification and validation, as well as project maintainability. Over time, the management of change to deliverables with respect to impact on other systems. In has been provided to us by Dr. Alexander Egyed at the Institute for SoS Engineering, Software Engineering). the systems engineering and system of systems (SoS) engineering landscapes, the Systems Engineering and Automation at Johannes Kepler University. Requirements Traceability Matrix provides significant insight in to the internal workings of the relationships between RTM is a tool that is useful at time of creation, but requires constant maintenance in Additional traces of requirements to code for subsequent Gantt versions 2. Identify and classify changes between static versions of the product. requirements and deliverable artifacts. a frequently changing landscape to maintain the original level of validity. The are being created using similar methods to the original collections 3. Generate Requirements Trace Matrixes for each static version of the product dynamic nature of systems and SoS engineering landscapes requires that a RTM be performed by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovations in Natural Language Document Processing for Requirements Engineering
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Faculty and Researcher Publications Faculty and Researcher Publications 2008 Innovations in Natural Language Document Processing for Requirements Engineering Berzins, Valdis þÿB. Paech and C. Martell (Eds.): Monterey Workshop 2007, LNCS 5320, pp. 125 146, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/10945/46073 Innovations in Natural Language Document Processing for Requirements Engineering Valdis Berzins, Craig Martell, Luqi, and Paige Adams Naval Postgraduate School, 1411 Cunningham Road, Monterey, California 93943 {berzins,cmartell,luqi,phadams}@nps.edu Abstract. This paper evaluates the potential contributions of natural language processing to requirements engineering. We present a selective history of the relationship between requirements engineering (RE) and natural-language processing (NLP), and briefly summarize relevant re- cent trends in NLP. The paper outlines basic issues in RE and how they relate to interactions between a NLP front end and system-development processes. We suggest some improvements to NLP that may be possible in the context of RE and conclude with an assessment of what should be done to improve likelihood of practical impact in this direction. Keywords: Requirements, Natural Language, Ambiguity, Gaps, Domain- Specific Methods. 1 Introduction A major challenge in requirements engineering is dealing with changes, especially in the context of systems of systems with correspondingly complex stakeholder communities and critical systems with stringent dependability requirements. Documentation driven development (DDD) is a recently developed approach for addressing these issues that seeks to simultaneously improve agility and de- pendability via computer assistance centered on a variety of documents [1,2]. The approach is based on a new view of documents as computationally active knowledge bases that support computer aid for many software engineering tasks from requirements engineering to system evolution, which is quite different from the traditional view of documents as passive pieces of paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Requirements Engineering Risks: an Analysis and Synthesis of the Literature
    Lars Mathiassen – Timo Saarinen – Tuure Tuunanen – Matti Rossi MANAGING REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING RISKS: AN ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF THE LITERATURE W-379 HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS ISSN 1795-1828 WORKING PAPERS ISBN 951-791-895-X (Electronic working paper) W-379 2004 Lars Mathiassen* – Timo Saarinen** – Tuure Tuunanen** – Matti Rossi** MANAGING REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING RISKS: AN ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF THE LITERATURE *Center for Process Innovation, Georgia State University **Helsinki School Economics, Department of Management, Information Systems Science November 2004 HELSINGIN KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS WORKING PAPERS W-379 HELSINGIN KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS PL 1210 FIN-00101 HELSINKI FINLAND © Lars Mathiassen, Timo Saarinen, Tuure Tuunanen, Matti Rossi and Helsinki School of Economics ISSN 1795-1828 ISBN 951-791-895-X (Electronic working paper) Helsinki School of Economics - HeSE print 2004 Managing Requirements Engineering Risks: An Analysis and Synthesis of the Literature Lars Mathiassen ([email protected]) Center for Process Innovation, Georgia State University P. O. Box 4015, Atlanta, GA 30303-4015, USA Phone: +1-404-651-0933, Fax: +1-404-463-9292 Timo Saarinen ([email protected]) Helsinki School Economics, Department of Management, Information Systems Science P. O. Box 1210, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland Phone: +358-9-431-38272, Fax: Fax: +358-9-431-38700 Tuure Tuunanen ([email protected]) Helsinki School Economics, Department of Management, Information Systems Science P. O. Box 1210, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland Phone: +358-40-544-5591, Fax: +358-9-431-38700 http://www.tuunanen.fi Matti Rossi ([email protected]) Helsinki School Economics, Department of Management, Information Systems Science P.
    [Show full text]
  • Requirements Traceability Practices Guide
    CDC UNIFIED PROCESS PRACTICE GUIDE REQUIREMENTS TRACEABILITY Document Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the project management practice of Requirements Traceability and to describe the practice overview, requirements, best practices, activities, and key terms related to these requirements. In addition, templates relevant to this practice are provided at the end of this guide. Practice Overview Requirements traceability is an activity that is one part of an overarching requirements management practice and extends from requirements definition through to implementation. Requirements tracing is used to ensure that each step of the product’s development process is correct, conforms to the needs of prior and next steps, and conforms to the defined requirements. Requirements tracing is a technique that helps to ensure that the project delivers what stakeholders expect. If applied correctly requirements tracing is a practice that can greatly increase the quality and reliability of a project’s final product while minimizing costly rework resulting from requirements errors. Requirements tracing defines the ability to describe and follow the life of a requirement, in both a forward and backward direction, ideally through each step of the entire product’s life cycle. This is done by documenting and tracking traceability relationships between requirements. A traceability relationship is a dependency relationship between project and/or product elements. Similar to the way a dynamic project schedule may react to a change in one task, a change to a requirement element may also have a rippling effect on other elements. A well documented traceability relationship clearly defines requirement dependencies and allows for analysis of how changes in requirements affect other requirements and the project as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Requirements Management Applied in an Agile Project Management Environment
    Requirements Management applied in an agile Project Management environment Franco (Frank) Curtolo CEng, Principal Consultant, Program Planning Professionals Ltd, [email protected] Categorisation • Accessibility: PRACTITIONER • Application: GOOD PRACTICE • Topics: Agile Systems Engineering; Project Management Abstract This paper looks at how the Requirements Management process of Systems Engineering may benefit from some of the aspects derived from developing systems within an agile Project Management environment, using as example, the Scaled Agile Framework® of © Scaled Agile, Inc. The aim is to see if some of these agile techniques can enhance the Systems Engineering approach. Systems Engineering (SE) is well suited to develop large, complex products in a project environment where the requirements can be defined and fixed upfront. In fact, SE relies on an initial, well-defined End User’s need specified in for example, a User Requirements Specification (URS), to establish an initial requirements baseline which is used to drive the rest of the development process. However not all development projects happen that way. Sometimes the End User’s need is not clear, or cannot be well defined upfront, thus not allowing it to be captured in a fixed requirements baseline. Furthermore, the project environment may need to accommodate rapid change, both in the End Users’ need and in the technologies available to satisfy this need. In such a project environment, an agile development approach, as described in the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®), may be more suitable since it allows for incremental delivery of the product and change to requirements. This can accommodate undefined End User needs, rapid change in requirements and allow for the introduction of innovation during the development and implementation stages.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Functional Requirements
    ® IBM Software Group Non-Functional Requirements Peter Eeles [email protected] IBM Software Group | Rational software Agenda Definitions Types of requirement Classifying requirements Capturing NFRs Summary IBM Software Group | Rational software Definitions Functional Requirement Functional requirements describe the behaviors (functions or services) of the system that support user goals, tasks or activities. [Malan] Non-Functional Requirement Non-functional requirements include constraints and qualities. [Malan] [System] qualities are properties or characteristics of the system that its stakeholders care about and hence will affect their degree of satisfaction with the system. [Malan] A constraint is a restriction on the degree of freedom we have in providing a solution. [Leffingwell] [Leffingwell] Managing Software Requirements – a Unified Approach, Dean Leffingwell and Don Widrig. [Malan] Defining Non-Functional Requirements, Ruth Malan and Dana Bredemeyer. IBM Software Group | Rational software Agenda Definitions Types of requirement Classifying requirements Capturing NFRs Summary IBM Software Group | Rational software Types of Requirement Use Cases Defines the behavior of the system from an external perspective System-Wide Requirements Legal and regulatory requirements, application standards, qualities that the system exhibits (such as usability, reliability, scalability, performance), operating system and environment requirements, compatibility requirements, and other design and implementation constraints Change
    [Show full text]
  • Requirements Engineering Objectives
    Requirements Engineering Chapter 2 Requirements Engineering Processes Learning Objective ...to give a general introduction to the requirements engineering process. Different approaches to modeling requirements engineering processes are suggested and why human, social and organizational factors are important influences on those processes. Other concepts that are evaluated include process maturity, tools and process improvement. Frederick T Sheldon Assistant Professor of Computer Science University of Colorado at Colorado Springs CS 531 Software Requirements Analysis and Specification Chapter 2 From Requirements Engineering Processes and Techniques by G. Kotonya and I. Sommerville 1998 Slide 1 Objectives ⊗ To introduce the notion of processes and process models for requirements engineering ⊗ To explain the critical role of people in requirements engineering processes ⊗ To explain why process improvements is important and to suggest a process improvement model for requirements engineering CS 531 Software Requirements Analysis and Specification Chapter 2 From Requirements Engineering Processes and Techniques by G. Kotonya and I. Sommerville 1998 Slide 2 Processes ⊗ A process is an organized set of activities which transforms inputs to outputs ⊗ Process descriptions encapsulate knowledge and allow it to be reused ⊗ Examples of process descriptions • Instruction manual for a dishwasher • Cookery book • Procedures manual for a bank • Quality manual for software development CS 531 Software Requirements Analysis and Specification Chapter 2 From Requirements Engineering Processes and Techniques by G. Kotonya and I. Sommerville 1998 Slide 3 Design processes ⊗ Processes which involve creativity, interactions between a wide range of different people, engineering judgement and background knowledge and experience ⊗ Examples of design processes • Writing a book • Organizing a conference • Designing a processor chip • Requirements engineering CS 531 Software Requirements Analysis and Specification Chapter 2 From Requirements Engineering Processes and Techniques by G.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study on Agile Software Development Methodologies
    Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology Software & Data Engineering Volume 13 Issue 7 Version 1.0 Year 2013 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA) Online ISSN: 0975-4172 & Print ISSN: 0975-4350 Comparative Study on Agile Software Development Method- ologies By A B M Moniruzzaman & Dr. Syed Akhter Hossain Daffodil International University, Bangladesh Abstract - Today‘s business environment is very much dynamic, and organizations are constantly changing their software requirements to adjust with new environment. They also demand for fast delivery of software products as well as for accepting changing requirements. In this aspect, traditional plan-driven developments fail to meet up these requirements. Though traditional software development methodologies, such as life cycle-based structured and object oriented approaches, continue to dominate the systems development few decades and much research has done in traditional methodologies, Agile software development brings its own set of novel challenges that must be addressed to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of the valuable software. It‘s a set of software development methods based on iterative and incremental development process, where requirements and development evolve through collaboration between self-organizing, cross-functional teams that allows rapid delivery of high quality software to meet customer needs and also accommodate changes in the requirements. In this paper, we significantly indentify and describe the major factors, that Agile development approach improves software development process to meet the rapid changing business environments. We also provide a brief comparison of agile development methodologies with traditional systems development methodologies, and discuss current state of adopting agile methodologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Elicitation of Quality Agile User Stories Using QFD
    Elicitation of Quality Agile User Stories Using QFD NDIA 20th Annual Systems Engineering Conference “Agile in Systems Engineering“ 10:15 – 10:40 AM October 25, 2017 Sabrina J. Ussery, Shahryar Sarkani, Thomas Holzer Dissertation Topic Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Science The George Washington University 1176 G Street NW Washington, DC 20052 1 Agile Requirements Engineering (RE) The lack of standard Requirements Engineering (RE) practices in Agile negatively impacts system quality, contributing to 24% of the causes for challenged or failed projects. • The 2015 CHAOS Standish Group report indicates Agile projects are 3x more likely to succeed than Waterfall projects due to increased customer collaboration and customer satisfaction. [2] • The Agile community claims that they do not really tackle requirements in a structured way, which may bring problems to the software organization responsible for software built following an Agile method. [1] • Though more successful in some respects, the Image source: [2] lack of stand RE practices in Agile contributes to 24% of the reasons for challenged or failed projects due to poor requirements quality (i.e., unclear or volatile). [2] 2 What is Agile? 3 Agile RE: As Is Requirements Requirements engineering (RE) refers to the process of defining, documenting and maintainingEngineering requirements. [5] Requirements Requirements Development Management Elicitation Priorities Specification Traceability Analysis Specifications Validation Configuration
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Requirements Engineering: a Tutorial
    focusrequirements engineering1 Integrated Requirements Engineering: A Tutorial Ian Sommerville, Lancaster University efore developing any system, you must understand what the sys- tem is supposed to do and how its use can support the goals of the individuals or business that will pay for that system. This in- B volves understanding the application domain (telecommunica- tions, railways, retail banking, games, and so on); the system’s operational constraints; the specific functionality required by the stakeholders (the peo- ple who directly or indirectly use the system or the information it provides); and essential system characteristics such as The fundamental process performance, security, and dependability. Re- The RE process varies immensely depend- quirements engineering is the name given to a ing on the type of application being devel- structured set of activities that help develop oped, the size and culture of the companies in- this understanding and that document the sys- volved, and the software acquisition processes tem specification for the stakeholders and en- used. For large military and aerospace sys- gineers involved in the system development. tems, there is normally a formal RE stage in This short tutorial introduces the funda- the systems engineering processes and an ex- mental activities of RE and discusses how it tensively documented set of system and soft- has evolved as part of the software engineering ware requirements. For small companies de- process. However, rather than focus on estab- veloping innovative software products, the RE lished RE techniques, I discuss how the chang- process might consist of brainstorming ses- ing nature of software engineering has led to sions, and the product “requirements” might new challenges for RE.
    [Show full text]
  • Disciplined Agile
    Disciplined Agile Jas Madhur and Scott Ambler Presentation for PMI Luxembourg November 22nd, 2016 - Chambre des Metiers, Kirchberg #pmiluxagile Agenda • Part 1 – Jas Madhur (Luxembourg) • Part 2 – Plan A - Scott Ambler (Toronto) • Part 2 – Plan B – Slides. No refunds. Free event. Even food! Sponsors. • agilepartner • Since 2004 architecting agile information systems • Don’t worry be AP! • Lux – Advisory • Since 2009 consulting company specialising in organisation and strategy Questions and comments use #pmiluxagile Part 1 - Jas Madhur – Who am I? • PMI Luxembourg – Director of Finance … 2017 + Sponsorship • Agile Practitioner / Methodologist • 1993 Iterative/Object Oriented Development (Canadian Air Traffic System) • 1997 Rational Unified Process (RUP) Development Team (IBM Rational Software) • 2004 Agile Vancouver – Dr.Philippe Kruchten • 2008 Agile Toronto – Scott Ambler • 2011 Luxembourg • AZUR ERP for Health Insurance Companies • SMEs • Agile RUP (Matisse) • PM / PMO • Write proposals and submit tenders EU institutions at infeurope • jasmadhur.blogspot.com - @jmadhur Who are you? Why are we here? • Audience • IT Project Managers • HR • Curious about what is all this ‘AGILE’ noise is about? • Know • Agile. Like teenage romance. Rampant and variable. Great experts. Let’s hope it’s safe. • Patterns and anti-patterns of agile and agility. • Do • How could the agile approach be useful throughout your organization? • Think • Being agile stimulates evolution and innovation. • Feel • Being agile and adaptive is engrained in our DNA. • It’s natural. The Context • Software/Systems Engineering • 1 Dimensional .. Waterfall .. DoD Mil-Spec 2167a • 2 Dimensional .. Iterative .. IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP) (1996) • Market Pressures of the “Internet Economy” • Small Teams • The Agile Movement • Rapid Delivery and Innovation • A Balanced Reliable Approach • Disciplined Agile DoD Mil-Spec 2167a (1989) Hardware (HW) Computer Software (CS) Unit (U) Component (C) Configuration Item (CI) Baselines WATERFALL 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Requirements Modeling Language for the Component Behavior of Cyber Physical Robotics Systems
    A Requirements Modeling Language for the Component Behavior of Cyber Physical Robotics Systems Jan Oliver Ringert, Bernhard Rumpe, and Andreas Wortmann RWTH Aachen University, Software Engineering, Aachen, Germany {ringert,rumpe,wortmann}@se-rwth.de Abstract. Software development for robotics applications is a sophisticated en- deavor as robots are inherently complex. Explicit modeling of the architecture and behavior of robotics application yields many advantages to cope with this complexity by identifying and separating logically and physically independent components and by hierarchically structuring the system under development. On top of component and connector models we propose modeling the requirements on the behavior of robotics software components using I/O! automata [29]. This approach facilitates early simulation of requirements model, allows to subject these to formal analysis and to generate the software from them. In this paper, we introduce an extension of the architecture description language MontiArc to model the requirements on components with I/O! automata, which are defined in the spirit of Martin Glinz’ Statecharts for requirements modeling [10]. We fur- thermore present a case study based on a robotics application generated for the Lego NXT robotic platform. “In der Robotik dachte man vor 30 Jahren, dass man heute alles perfekt beherrschen würde”, Martin Glinz [38] 1 Introduction Robotics is a field of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) which yields complex challenges due to the variety of robots, their forms of use and the overwhelming complexity of the possible environments they have to operate in. Software development for robotics ap- plications is still at least as complex as it was 30 years ago: even a simple robot requires the integration of multiple distributed software components.
    [Show full text]