DOCSLIB.ORG

INCOSE: the FAR Approach “Functional Analysis/Allocation and Requirements Flowdown Using Use Case Realizations”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INCOSE: the FAR Approach “Functional Analysis/Allocation and Requirements Flowdown Using Use Case Realizations” in Proceedings of the 16th Intern. Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE'06), Orlando, FL, USA, Jul 2006. The FAR Approach – Functional Analysis/Allocation and Requirements Flowdown Using Use Case Realizations Magnus Eriksson1,2, Kjell Borg1, Jürgen Börstler2 1BAE Systems Hägglunds AB 2Umeå University SE-891 82 Örnsköldsvik SE-901 87 Umeå Sweden Sweden {magnus.eriksson, kjell.borg}@baesystems.se {magnuse, jubo}@cs.umu.se Copyright © 2006 by Magnus Eriksson, Kjell Borg and Jürgen Börstler. Published and used by INCOSE with permission. Abstract. This paper describes a use case driven approach for functional analysis/allocation and requirements flowdown. The approach utilizes use cases and use case realizations for functional architecture modeling, which in turn form the basis for design synthesis and requirements flowdown. We refer to this approach as the FAR (Functional Architecture by use case Realizations) approach. The FAR approach is currently applied in several large-scale defense projects within BAE Systems Hägglunds AB and the experience so far is quite positive. The approach is illustrated throughout the paper using the well known Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) example. INTRODUCTION Organizations developing software intensive defense systems, for example vehicles, are today faced with a number of challenges. These challenges are related to the characteristics of both the market place and the system domain. • Systems are growing ever more complex, consisting of tightly integrated mechanical, electrical/electronic and software components. • Systems have very long life spans, typically 30 years or longer. • Due to reduced acquisition budgets, these systems are often developed in relatively short series; ranging from only a few to several hundred units. Furthermore, they are often part of a product line of related systems; however, they are always customized for specific customer needs. For an organization to be competitive in a market like this, it is important to achieve effective development as well as effective maintenance. This makes it necessary to avoid multiple implementations of the same functionality and to achieve high levels of reuse. It is furthermore very important that the different engineering disciplines involved in development can communicate effectively. Development processes should be tightly integrated to ensure that all disciplines are working towards a common goal. Shortcomings of Traditional Systems Engineering. We believe that systems engineering is a key function in any organization trying to address such complexity. Unfortunately, according to our experience, traditional systems engineering methods and tools suffer from two major shortcomings regarding these challenges: 1. Traditional systems engineering typically utilizes classical structured analysis techniques (Lykins, 2000). In our opinion, these techniques provide little support for achieving high levels of reuse. 2. Traditional systems engineering utilizes modeling techniques, that are not commonly known to non-technical stakeholders or even other engineering disciplines, like for example IDEFØ diagrams (NIST, 1993). This is a problem, since systems engineering is the means by which stakeholder needs are translated and communicated to other engineering disciplines. An interesting approach to address the first shortcoming could be to adopt an object oriented approach, like for example the Object Oriented Systems Engineering Method - OOSEM (Lykins, 2000). Although object orientation provides stronger means than structured analysis for achieving high levels of reuse it does not resolve the second shortcoming. Since most approaches are based on the UML (OMG, 2005), they are as unsuitable for our needs as structured analysis. Adopting an UML based approach would certainly ease communications with the software engineering team, but hardly with other stakeholders, like customers, end users, marketing, mechanical and electrical engineering, etc. Our experience has however shown that one object oriented technique, namely use case modeling (Adolph, 2003), produces outputs that can be easily communicated to both non- technical stakeholders and other engineering disciplines. We therefore propose a use case driven systems engineering method to address the shortcomings of traditional systems engineering mentioned above. Use Case Modeling. Use case modeling is a functional decomposition technique that provides a semi-formal framework for structuring the system functionality into user goals. These user goals are further specified by a number of scenarios describing the interaction between a system and its actors (users and environment) with the purpose of achieving these goals. The concept of use cases has today become a widely accepted and used requirements modeling technique in the software engineering community. Use case modeling has also started to gain some acceptance within the systems engineering community. At the 2005 INCOSE symposium, for example, Daniels et al. discuss how system level requirements can be derived from use case scenarios (Daniels, 2005). We have however not yet been able to find a systems engineering approach in the literature where use cases are an integral part of the systems engineering process, rather than a simple tool for requirements capture. We have therefore developed a method for functional analysis/allocation and requirements flowdown that utilizes use cases and use case realizations (Kruchten, 2000). We refer to this method as the FAR (Functional Architecture by use case Realizations) approach. Functional Analysis and Allocation. The purpose of the functional analysis and allocation activity is to clearly describe the system functionality, divide functions into sub-functions and to allocate them appropriately to subsystems (INCOSE, 2004). As shown in Figure 1, functional analysis and allocation is based on input provided by requirements analysis, which also receives feedback via the requirements loop from functional analysis and allocation. Furthermore, functional analysis and allocation also provides input to design synthesis and receives feedback through the design loop. Requirements Flowdown. After specifying a system’s functional and physical architecture and allocating system level requirements to subsystems, the next step of the systems engineering process is commonly referred to as Requirements flowdown. The flowdown activity consists of deriving requirements specifications for each element of the systems architecture based on the allocated system requirements (Dorfman, 1997). Contributions. The main contributions of this paper is a description of how use cases and use case realizations can be utilized for functional architectural modeling and thereby form the basis for system design synthesis and requirements flowdown. The FAR approach is illustrated throughout the paper using the well known Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) example. System Requirements Analysis Analysis and Control Requirements Loop Process Process Input Functional Output Analysis & Allocation Design Loop Design Verification Synthesis Figure 1. Overview of the systems engineering process (DoD, 2001). THE FAR APPROACH Being a use case driven method, FAR closes the requirements loop by producing a use case model as output of the functional analysis and allocation function. As shown in Figure 2, this use case model consists of a survey of all use cases included in the system and detailed specifications of each use case within that survey. Furthermore, in addition to a traditional use case model, the FAR approach also produces a Functional Breakdown Structure (FBS). The purpose of this FBS is to provide a good overview of the system functionality, which we feel is missing in traditional use case models. The produced use case model also serves as input to the Design Synthesis, as shown in Figure 2, and is thereby also part of the design loop shown in Figure 1. The feedback loop from Design Synthesis to Functional Analysis and Allocation includes a description of the physical architecture of the system. This Physical Architecture Description (PAD) includes, for example, brief descriptions of all defined subsystems. However, details regarding development of this PAD is not within the scope of this paper and will therefore not be further discussed. As shown in Figure 2, the physical architecture enters the functional analysis and allocation function as a control. This control triggers allocations which in turn will result in what we refer to as the Functional Architecture Description (FAD) and a Requirements Allocation Sheet (RAS). A FAD is a collection of all use case realizations for a system, where a use case realization is a description of how different subsystems collaborate to solve a specific use case (Kruchten, 2000). As shown in Figure 2, the FAD and the RAS are input to the requirements flowdown activity, which produce requirements specifications for different subsystems as output. Organizational Procedures, System Concept, Legacy System Design, System Context Diagram GFE, Constraints, Etc. Subsystem Concept Functional Breakdown Structure (FBS) Use Case Model Survey Output of Req. Perform Analysis Functional Use Case Specifications Analysis and Allocation Perform Physical Architecture Description (PAD) Design Synthesis Functional Architecture Description (FAD) Requirements Allocation Sheet (RAS) Subsystem Requirements Perform Requirements Subsystem Context Diagrams Flowdown Systems Engineering SW / Electrical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Writing and Reviewing Use-Case Descriptions
    Bittner/Spence_06.fm Page 145 Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:04 PM PART II WRITING AND REVIEWING USE-CASE DESCRIPTIONS Part I, Getting Started with Use-Case Modeling, introduced the basic con- cepts of use-case modeling, including defining the basic concepts and understanding how to use these concepts to define the vision, find actors and use cases, and to define the basic concepts the system will use. If we go no further, we have an overview of what the system will do, an under- standing of the stakeholders of the system, and an understanding of the ways the system provides value to those stakeholders. What we do not have, if we stop at this point, is an understanding of exactly what the system does. In short, we lack the details needed to actually develop and test the system. Some people, having only come this far, wonder what use-case model- ing is all about and question its value. If one only comes this far with use- case modeling, we are forced to agree; the real value of use-case modeling comes from the descriptions of the interactions of the actors and the system, and from the descriptions of what the system does in response to the actions of the actors. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, many teams stop after developing little more than simple outlines for their use cases and consider themselves done. These same teams encounter problems because their use cases are vague and lack detail, so they blame the use-case approach for having let them down. The failing in these cases is not with the approach, but with its application.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Title Requirements on Debugging in AUTOSAR
    Requirements on Debugging in AUTOSAR AUTOSAR Release 4.2.2 Document Title Requirements on Debugging in AUTOSAR Document Owner AUTOSAR Document Responsibility AUTOSAR Document Identification No 332 Document Classification Auxiliary Document Status Final Part of AUTOSAR Release 4.2.2 Document Change History Release Changed by Change Description 4.2.2 AUTOSAR Marked the document as obsolete Release Management 4.2.1 AUTOSAR Editorial changes Release Management 4.1.2 AUTOSAR Updated reference to RS feature document Release Editorial changes Management 4.1.1 AUTOSAR Updated the format of requirements according Administration to TPS_StandardizationTemplate Updated the chapters 2 and 5 Replaced Complex Device Driver by Complex Driver 3.1.5 AUTOSAR Initial release Administration 1 of 19 Document ID 332: AUTOSAR_SRS_Debugging - AUTOSAR confidential - Requirements on Debugging in AUTOSAR AUTOSAR Release 4.2.2 Disclaimer This specification and the material contained in it, as released by AUTOSAR, is for the purpose of information only. AUTOSAR and the companies that have contributed to it shall not be liable for any use of the specification. The material contained in this specification is protected by copyright and other types of Intellectual Property Rights. The commercial exploitation of the material contained in this specification requires a license to such Intellectual Property Rights. This specification may be utilized or reproduced without any modification, in any form or by any means, for informational purposes only. For any other purpose, no part of the specification may be utilized or reproduced, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. The AUTOSAR specifications have been developed for automotive applications only.
    [Show full text]
  • The Guide to Succeeding with Use Cases
    USE-CASE 2.0 The Guide to Succeeding with Use Cases Ivar Jacobson Ian Spence Kurt Bittner December 2011 USE-CASE 2.0 The Definitive Guide About this Guide 3 How to read this Guide 3 What is Use-Case 2.0? 4 First Principles 5 Principle 1: Keep it simple by telling stories 5 Principle 2: Understand the big picture 5 Principle 3: Focus on value 7 Principle 4: Build the system in slices 8 Principle 5: Deliver the system in increments 10 Principle 6: Adapt to meet the team’s needs 11 Use-Case 2.0 Content 13 Things to Work With 13 Work Products 18 Things to do 23 Using Use-Case 2.0 30 Use-Case 2.0: Applicable for all types of system 30 Use-Case 2.0: Handling all types of requirement 31 Use-Case 2.0: Applicable for all development approaches 31 Use-Case 2.0: Scaling to meet your needs – scaling in, scaling out and scaling up 39 Conclusion 40 Appendix 1: Work Products 41 Supporting Information 42 Test Case 44 Use-Case Model 46 Use-Case Narrative 47 Use-Case Realization 49 Glossary of Terms 51 Acknowledgements 52 General 52 People 52 Bibliography 53 About the Authors 54 USE-CASE 2.0 The Definitive Guide Page 2 © 2005-2011 IvAr JacobSon InternationAl SA. All rights reserved. About this Guide This guide describes how to apply use cases in an agile and scalable fashion. It builds on the current state of the art to present an evolution of the use-case technique that we call Use-Case 2.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Plantuml Language Reference Guide (Version 1.2021.2)
    Drawing UML with PlantUML PlantUML Language Reference Guide (Version 1.2021.2) PlantUML is a component that allows to quickly write : • Sequence diagram • Usecase diagram • Class diagram • Object diagram • Activity diagram • Component diagram • Deployment diagram • State diagram • Timing diagram The following non-UML diagrams are also supported: • JSON Data • YAML Data • Network diagram (nwdiag) • Wireframe graphical interface • Archimate diagram • Specification and Description Language (SDL) • Ditaa diagram • Gantt diagram • MindMap diagram • Work Breakdown Structure diagram • Mathematic with AsciiMath or JLaTeXMath notation • Entity Relationship diagram Diagrams are defined using a simple and intuitive language. 1 SEQUENCE DIAGRAM 1 Sequence Diagram 1.1 Basic examples The sequence -> is used to draw a message between two participants. Participants do not have to be explicitly declared. To have a dotted arrow, you use --> It is also possible to use <- and <--. That does not change the drawing, but may improve readability. Note that this is only true for sequence diagrams, rules are different for the other diagrams. @startuml Alice -> Bob: Authentication Request Bob --> Alice: Authentication Response Alice -> Bob: Another authentication Request Alice <-- Bob: Another authentication Response @enduml 1.2 Declaring participant If the keyword participant is used to declare a participant, more control on that participant is possible. The order of declaration will be the (default) order of display. Using these other keywords to declare participants
    [Show full text]
  • The Roots of Software Engineering*
    THE ROOTS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING* Michael S. Mahoney Princeton University (CWI Quarterly 3,4(1990), 325-334) At the International Conference on the History of Computing held in Los Alamos in 1976, R.W. Hamming placed his proposed agenda in the title of his paper: "We Would Know What They Thought When They Did It."1 He pleaded for a history of computing that pursued the contextual development of ideas, rather than merely listing names, dates, and places of "firsts". Moreover, he exhorted historians to go beyond the documents to "informed speculation" about the results of undocumented practice. What people actually did and what they thought they were doing may well not be accurately reflected in what they wrote and what they said they were thinking. His own experience had taught him that. Historians of science recognize in Hamming's point what they learned from Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions some time ago, namely that the practice of science and the literature of science do not necessarily coincide. Paradigms (or, if you prefer with Kuhn, disciplinary matrices) direct not so much what scientists say as what they do. Hence, to determine the paradigms of past science historians must watch scientists at work practicing their science. We have to reconstruct what they thought from the evidence of what they did, and that work of reconstruction in the history of science has often involved a certain amount of speculation informed by historians' own experience of science. That is all the more the case in the history of technology, where up to the present century the inventor and engineer have \*-as Derek Price once put it\*- "thought with their fingertips", leaving the record of their thinking in the artefacts they have designed rather than in texts they have written.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Case Tutorial Version X.X ● April 18, 2016
    Use Case Tutorial Version X.x ● April 18, 2016 Company Name Limited Street City, State ZIP Country phone: +1 000 123 4567 Company Name Limited Street City, State ZIP Country phone: +1 000 123 4567 Company Name Limited Street City, State ZIP Country phone: +1 000 123 4567 www.website.com [Company Name] [Document Name] [Project Name] [Version Number] Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................3 1. Use cases and activity diagrams .......................................................4 1.1. Use case modelling ....................................................................4 1.2. Use cases and activity diagrams ..................................................7 1.3. Actors .......................................................................................7 1.4. Describing use cases.................................................................. 8 1.5. Scenarios ................................................................................10 1.6. More about actors ....................................................................13 1.7. Modelling the relationships between use cases ...........................15 1.8. Stereotypes .............................................................................15 1.9. Sharing behaviour between use cases........................................ 16 1.10. Alternatives to the main success scenario ..................................17 1.11. To extend or include? ...............................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • User-Stories-Applied-Mike-Cohn.Pdf
    ptg User Stories Applied ptg From the Library of www.wowebook.com The Addison-Wesley Signature Series The Addison-Wesley Signature Series provides readers with practical and authoritative information on the latest trends in modern technology for computer professionals. The series is based on one simple premise: great books come from great authors. Books in the series are personally chosen by expert advi- sors, world-class authors in their own right. These experts are proud to put their signatures on the cov- ers, and their signatures ensure that these thought leaders have worked closely with authors to define topic coverage, book scope, critical content, and overall uniqueness. The expert signatures also symbol- ize a promise to our readers: you are reading a future classic. The Addison-Wesley Signature Series Signers: Kent Beck and Martin Fowler Kent Beck has pioneered people-oriented technologies like JUnit, Extreme Programming, and patterns for software development. Kent is interested in helping teams do well by doing good — finding a style of software development that simultaneously satisfies economic, aesthetic, emotional, and practical con- straints. His books focus on touching the lives of the creators and users of software. Martin Fowler has been a pioneer of object technology in enterprise applications. His central concern is how to design software well. He focuses on getting to the heart of how to build enterprise software that will last well into the future. He is interested in looking behind the specifics of technologies to the patterns, ptg practices, and principles that last for many years; these books should be usable a decade from now.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIT 1 UML DIAGRAMS Introduction to OOAD – Unified Process
    VEL TECH HIGH TECH Dr. RANGARAJAN Dr. SAKUNTHALA ENGINEERING COLLEGE UNIT 1 UML DIAGRAMS Introduction to OOAD – Unified Process - UML diagrams – Use Case – Class Diagrams– Interaction Diagrams – State Diagrams – Activity Diagrams – Package, component and Deployment Diagrams. INTRODUCTION TO OOAD ANALYSIS Analysis is a creative activity or an investigation of the problem and requirements. Eg. To develop a Banking system Analysis: How the system will be used? Who are the users? What are its functionalities? DESIGN Design is to provide a conceptual solution that satisfies the requirements of a given problem. Eg. For a Book Bank System Design: Bank(Bank name, No of Members, Address) Student(Membership No,Name,Book Name, Amount Paid) OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS (OOA) Object Oriented Analysis is a process of identifying classes that plays an important role in achieving system goals and requirements. Eg. For a Book Bank System, Classes or Objects identified are Book-details, Student-details, Membership-Details. OBJECT ORIENTED DESIGN (OOD) Object Oriented Design is to design the classes identified during analysis phase and to provide the relationship that exists between them that satisfies the requirements. Eg. Book Bank System Class name Book-Bank (Book-Name, No-of-Members, Address) Student (Name, Membership No, Amount-Paid) OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (OOAD) • OOAD is a Software Engineering approach that models an application by a set of Software Development Activities. YEAR/SEM: III/V CS6502-OOAD Page 1 VEL TECH HIGH TECH Dr. RANGARAJAN Dr. SAKUNTHALA ENGINEERING COLLEGE • OOAD emphasis on identifying, describing and defining the software objects and shows how they collaborate with one another to fulfill the requirements by applying the object oriented paradigm and visual modeling throughout the development life cycles.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Structured and Object-Oriented Programming Methods
    JASEM ISSN 1119-8362 Full-text Available Online at J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage. December, 2008 All rights reserved www.bioline.org.br/ja Vol. 12(4) 41 - 46 A Comparative Analysis of Structured and Object-Oriented Programming Methods ASAGBA, PRINCE OGHENEKARO; OGHENEOVO, EDWARD E. CPN, MNCS. Department of Computer Science, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. [email protected], [email protected]. 08056023566 ABSTRACT: The concepts of structured and object-oriented programming methods are not relatively new but these approaches are still very much useful and relevant in today’s programming paradigm. In this paper, we distinguish the features of structured programs from that of object oriented programs. Structured programming is a method of organizing and coding programs that can provide easy understanding and modification, whereas object- oriented programming (OOP) consists of a set of objects, which can vary dynamically, and which can execute by acting and reacting to each other, in much the same way that a real-world process proceeds (the interaction of real- world objects). An object-oriented approach makes programs more intuitive to design, faster to develop, more amenable to modifications, and easier to understand. With the traditional, procedural-oriented/structured programming, a program describes a series of steps to be performed (an algorithm). In the object-oriented view of programming, instead of programs consisting of sets of data loosely coupled to many different procedures, object- oriented programs
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Software Development Approaches in Systems Engineering
    Raytheon Leveraging Software Development Approaches in Systems Engineering Rick Steiner Engineering Fellow Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems [email protected] 6 May 2004 Naval Postgraduate School SI4000 Project Seminar Copyright © 2003 Raytheon Company UNPUBLISHED WORK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 We’re going to talk about: Raytheon • Why Software Tools exist, why Systems Engineers should care • Software vs. SE as a discipline – key differences • The importance of requirements – Different requirement/system development approaches – Pros & cons of each, and how they relate to software approaches • How Use Cases relate to Requirements – Hints on how to manage use case development • How Object Oriented Design relates to Functional Analysis – or not! • What graphical languages can help (UML, SysML) • The promise of Model Driven Architecture (MDA) Copyright © 2003 Raytheon Company UNPUBLISHED WORK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2 Software Development Crisis Raytheon • In the 1980’s, software development underwent a crisis: – Software was RAPIDLY proliferating – Software was becoming very complex • Software on top of Software (OS, Application) • Software talking to Software (interfaces) – Software development delays were holding up system delivery – Software was becoming very expensive to develop and maintain – Software development effort was becoming very hard to estimate – Software reliability was becoming problematic – Existing techniques were proving inadequate to manage the problem • Reasons: – Economics • Processing hardware (silicon) got cheap –
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Introduction
    Just Enough Structured Analysis Chapter 1: Introduction “The beginnings and endings of all human undertakings are untidy, the building of a house, the writing of a novel, the demolition of a bridge, and, eminently, the finish of a voyage.” — John Galsworthy Over the River, 1933 www.yourdon.com ©2006 Ed Yourdon - rev. 051406 In this chapter, you will learn: 1. Why systems analysis is interesting; 2. Why systems analysis is more difficult than programming; and 3. Why it is important to be familiar with systems analysis. Chances are that you groaned when you first picked up this book, seeing how heavy and thick it was. The prospect of reading such a long, technical book is enough to make anyone gloomy; fortunately, just as long journeys take place one day at a time, and ultimately one step at a time, so long books get read one chapter at a time, and ultimately one sentence at a time. 1.1 Why is systems analysis interesting? Long books are often dull; fortunately, the subject matter of this book — systems analysis — is interesting. In fact, systems analysis is more interesting than anything I know, with the possible exception of sex and some rare vintages of Australian wine. Without a doubt, it is more interesting than computer programming (not that programming is dull) because it involves studying the interactions of people, and disparate groups of people, and computers and organizations. As Tom DeMarco said in his delightful book, Structured Analysis and Systems Specification (DeMarco, 1978), [systems] analysis is frustrating, full of complex interpersonal relationships, indefinite, and difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • CDA Logical Data Design
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop N2-14-26 Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850 Central Data Administration ________________________ Logical Data Design ________________________ September 1, 2013 Prepared by: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of Information Services (OIS) Enterprise Data Group (EDG) Division of Data Enterprise Services (DDES) 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850 Logical Data Design Revision\Change Description History Log Revision Date Revision\Change Description Pages Affected Version 1.0 12/13/2005 Initial Draft All Version 2.0 11/13/2009 Added role descriptions and All differentiated between local DA and central DA responsibilities. Version 3.0 3/23/2010 Added new reference to Section 1.7.1 pp 25 Version 4.0 9/27/2010 Add an additional Logical Model review pp 7 - 30 after the Design Phase Version 5.0 10/30/2012 Update seeding Logical Model with pp 13, 24, 26-27 ELDM. Changed EDM to ELDM. Added 1.8.2 Update ELDM from PLDM. Replace a reference to DM OP-023 (obsolete) to the New Model Design Review document. Version 6.0 9/01/2013 Updated references to the DM OP&G All document. Replaced all guidelines with operating procedures. Moved sections 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 to 1.3.3 and 1.3.4. 09/01/2013 Logical Data Design Page 2 Logical Data Design Table of Contents 1. LOGICAL DATA DESIGN .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. INITIATE DATA DESIGN SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. ASSESS DATA DESIGN NEED ............................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. START THE PROJECT LOGICAL DATA MODEL FROM THE ELDM ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]