INSIGHT This Issue’s Feature: AFIS Doctoral Symposium: New Challenges and Advances in Systems Engineering at French Universities

marginsdemonstration adapted used offer processModel nuclear subject taking part context systemchecking testingapproach way TwoPhD purpose indeed particular best coherence result methods will facilitate addressed recycled series action three must model held new year orderset-up Best aim Analysis two design work Engineeringlast use method need ease based valuable winner reused real link life view prize low occurs first clear main scale presented points research years currently activities following alsonecessary deliver awarded thesis results Alts agreement entire improve Alain steps topic future realization solution edition set studied cycle mass plan facilities deeply French questions framework may aimsthesiseveryassess Risk goal workshop various proved methodological along Poster concern Open-source issue like assets share account reviewers organizecontractor projects impressive faces aspects

enterprise producedoverview human analysis ’ monitor event s prise groups SystemsPSS since events feasibility reuse 13th focuses Models viewpointsystemsassistance AFIS papersprogress whole aiming Award control integrated efforts help energy proposesIssue engineers New 20thdoctoralformalization engineeringD&D activities technological processes strategyestimate drones consists vehicle entitled

DECEMBER 2O19 VOLUME 22 / ISSUE 4

A PUBLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ® Register today to the Annual INCOSE International Workshop January 25 - 28, 2020 Torrance, CA, USA

www.incose.org/iw2020/registration

2019 KEY NUMBERS 147 Meetings 576h of Productive Workshop 10h of Social Events

Visit www.incose.org/iw2020 and contact us TODAY - The IW2020 Organizing Team WHAT’S INSIDE DECEMBER 2O19 3 THIS ISSUE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 7 7 6 9 11 17 31 14 37 23 28 20 43 34 40 ®

Master Italy s.r.l Case Study s.r.l Italy Master 4

VOLUME 22 / ISSUE

SIGHT

2O19

Process Bidding Engineer-To-Order Environment in an Open-Source Facilities Nuclear of Decommissioning Adoption Engineering Systems Model-Based to Facilitate Performance Limitations Performance Analysis Models and Risk Architecture System and with the System the Future of in Factories Universities French Engineering at in Systems Advances and Challenges New AFIS! of Anniversary the 20th The Celebration of On the Mastering of Modelling Activities Development in Engineering Activities Development Modelling the Mastering of On Valorization Assets Engineering the Systems for Assessment Scale a Maturity Towards During an to Offer a Solution to Deliver Ability Contractor’s Systems of Evaluation RobAFIS Student Competition Actuality: Safety & Security Interactions Between Operators Interactions Between & Security Actuality: Safety Competition Student RobAFIS Engineering Perspective Within a Systems PSS for Extended Enterprise Model Selection Allocation and Project Human Resource the Design Process: of Management 4.0: Industry for Monitoring Strategy A Functional of Validation Engineering: Safety (AVs) Vehicles Autonomous for Challenges between Synchronization Model of Engineering and Dependability: Methodology System Methodology an Integrated Object-Oriented Towards Drones: Multi-Underwater of Coordination Review of the AFIS 2018 Academy-Industry Meetings in Nancy – Meetings in Nancy Academy-Industry AFIS 2018 the of Review Dismantling and and Monitor to Design, Organize, Approach Model-Based A AFIS Doctoral Symposium: AFIS Doctoral SPECIAL FEATURE SPECIAL

FROM THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Inside this issue ON SYSTEMSON ENGINEERING DECEMBER

A PUBLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL THE OF PUBLICATION A IN Gretchen Peacock, Lockheed Peacock, Gretchen Systems Engineering Engineering Systems Endler, David Please contact your local reproduction rights rights local reproduction your Please contact Don York, Engility York, Don Andy Pickard, Rolls Pickard, RoyceAndy Corporation René Oosthuizen, Monze Consultants Oosthuizen, René Kayla Marshall, Lockheed Marshall, MartinKayla Corporation [email protected] [email protected] do and advertisers and authors the of those are INSIGHT staff of the editorial reflect the positions necessarily not Engineering. Systems on Council International the or 2156-4868 (online) ISSN 2156-485X; (print) ISSN 44 (0) 1243 770620 (201) 748-6008 Consultant Martin Corporation Corporation

systems engineering to a model-based to discipline. engineering systems model-based systems, resilient include be covered to Topics transformational engineering, commercial-driven systems systems agile security, systems, engineering, natural systems disciplines across systems cyber-physical and systems, of in the groups constituent the to interest of domains and government, industry, community: engineering systems lateral from come often practice in Advances academia. and disciplines across dissemination information of connections the of state in the will advances INSIGHT track domains. and rapidly more articles to written practically art with follow-up, the throughout practice stimulate to knowledge disseminate community. Secretary: Treasurer: Director: Technical Director: Technical Deputy Services Polytechnic Inst. Director: Gelosh, Worcester Don Advisory BoardCorporate Chair: Vitech Zane Scott, CAB Co-chair: Staff: Chief of Other Territories: and www.wiley.com visit please further information For organisation. select Rights & Permissions. article, a specific of uses permitted the about questions any have you If us. contact please Permissions Department – UK Ltd. & Sons Wiley John Atrium, The Gate, Southern Chichester PO19 8SQ Sussex, West UK Email: Fax: or Permissions Department – US Inc. & Sons Wiley John MS 4-02 Street 111 River NJ 07030-5774 Hoboken, USA Email: Fax: Bill Chown, BBM Group Chown, Bill Lisa Hoverman, HSMC Lisa Hoverman,

Serge Landry, Thales Solutions Landry, Serge Asia George Mason University Mason George Ariela Sofer, Antony Williams, Jacobs Williams, Antony Kerry Lunney, ThalesAustralia Kerry Lunney, Paul Schreinemakers, How2SE Schreinemakers, Paul Garry Roedler, ESEP, Lockheed Martin ESEP, Garry Roedler, Idaho National Laboratory National Idaho Kerman, Mitchell

© 2019 Copyright Notice. are contents entire the otherwise noted, Unless in be reproduced not may and INCOSE by copyrighted INCOSE. by permission written in part without or whole as paragraphs three to up of use for is given Permission in expressed opinions The provided. is credit full as long Corporation University 2019 INCOSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BOARD INCOSE 2019 OVERVIEW is the magazine of the International Council on on Council International the of magazine the is INSIGHT and per times year four published is Engineering. It Systems state the advancing to articles dedicated informative features with gap the close to and engineering in systems practice of information practical delivers art. INSIGHT the of state the practices, best and implementations, topics, hot current on on an emphasis is style. There in applications-driven written that case studies guides, and tutorials, applications, practical opinion identified Explicitly outcomes. in successful result - comple technology roadmapping and book reviews, pieces, practice. of state the advancing stimulate articles to ment objectives INCOSE the advancing to dedicated is INSIGHT of transformation the accelerating and impactful products of EMEA Sector: Sector:Asia-Oceania Americas Sector: : Officer (CIO) Chief Information President-Elect: Outreach: Officers President: Directors At-Large Mason George Fellow, Art Pyster, Integration: Strategic Matters: Academic & Communications: Marketing – If you wish to reuse your own article (or an amended amended an article (or own your reuse to wish you – If AUTHORS editor author, the are which you of publication in a new it) of version - acknowl (with usual the required not is permission prior co-editor, or be free can downloaded license of grant a formal However, edgements). RightsLink if required. from charge of Photocopying journal the to subscription paid with a current institutions Teaching - pro charge, without purposes teaching for copies multiple make may cases, permission all other In copied. or resold not are vided copies such (see below) organisation rights a reproduction from be obtained should RightsLink®. from directly or Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) digital and/or based photocopying UK with a valid in the Institutions from excerpts copy may Agency Licensing Copyright with the license further For license. their of terms the under journals books and Wiley CLA. to go information Copyright Clearance (CCC) Center digital and/or based photocopying US with a valid in the Institutions from excerpts copy may Center Clearance Copyright with the license go please license, their of terms the under journals books and Wiley CCC. to

About This About Publication Chuck Eng Chuck William Miller ARTICLE ARTICLE Lisa Hoverman +1 858 541-1725 +1 +1 908-759-7110 +1 Roland Espinosa Roland

[email protected] [email protected] 1 July 1 October INCOSE Administrative Administrative INCOSE Office – – 2 January 2 April – – is published four times per times year. four published is INSIGHT www.incose.org

If the links highlighted here do not take you to the links to highlighted you If take do not here

› menu on the abstract page (also available from Table of of Table from (also available page abstract the on › menu December 2020 issue 2020 issue September 2020 issue June 2020 issue March     Locate the article you wish to reproduce on Wiley Online Library Online Wiley on reproduce to wish article the you Locate ) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com ‹ the link, under Permissions’ ‘Request the on Click TOOLS Results) Search or Contents from requirements select and your instructions online the Follow a quote get to price’ ‘quick on click and options down drop the (and transaction your complete to a RightsLink® account Create applicable) where pay, your download and & Conditions Terms our accept Read and license contact technical please queries any For [email protected] visit view please demo to a Rightslink® and further information For select and Rights & Permissions. www.wiley.com • • • • • • • ARTICLE SUBMISSION ARTICLE PERMISSIONS EDITORIAL BOARD AND STAFF AND BOARD EDITORIAL INFORMATION ABOUT INCOSE INFORMATION For further information on submissions and issue themes, visit the the visit themes, issue and submissions on further information For website: INCOSE [email protected] [email protected] Services Member [email protected] Schedule.Publication follows: as are deadlines article submission and Issue 201-748-6919 [email protected] and Design Layout those web sites, please copy and paste address in your browser. in your address and paste please copy sites, those web journal Content: Wiley reproduce to Permission publications & Sons Wiley John from material reproduce to Requests permissions RightsLink® the automated through handled being are service. via the Right permission obtain - to below the steps follow Simply slink® system: PLEASE * PLEASE NOTE: Senior Advertising Account Account Manager Advertising Senior Panetto Hervé Editor-In-Chief Assistant Editor [email protected] Theme Editors David Gouyon [email protected] INCOSE’s membership extends to over 17, 000 individual 17, 000 individual over to extends membership INCOSE’s entities, government 100 corporations, almost and members promote, share, to is mission Its institutions. academic and the across from engineering systems of best the advance and INCOSE planet. the and humanity of benefit the globe for advisory a corporate includes worldwide, chapters charters and directors. elected led is officers by and board, here: click information, more For Engineering on Systems Council The International ) (www.incose.org

ABOUT THIS DECEMBER 2O19 PUBLICATION VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 4 ABOUT THIS DECEMBER 2O19 5 PUBLICATION VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 26 27 back cover back volume 22-4 volume back inside cover inside back inside front cover front inside

December [email protected]

Editor-in-Chief Miller, William [email protected] : 201-748-6819 Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering Systems for Defense of Secretary CONTACT ADVERTISER INDEX ADVERTISER Questions or comments concerning: comments or Questions Management Publication or Policy, Editorial Submissions, Please contact: [email protected] — please contact: Advertising Manager Senior Account Espinosa, Roland Advertising & E Media Print phone e-mail: ServicesMember – please contact: IW2020 International Project Performance International Training Certification IS2020 Magic/Dassault No Systems Safran Electronics and Defence Safran Electronics SAIC Laboratories Sandia National Shell Siemens Corporation Sierra Nevada Technology Institute of Singapore Skoltech Innovations SPEC Solutions Stellar Technology Institute of Stevens Services Technical Strategic Administration Materiel Defence Swedish Engineering Directorate Systems Analysis Planning and Systems AB Solutions Packaging Pak Tetra Thales Paso at El Texas of The University TNO Trane University Tsinghua TUS Solution LLC MoD UK Corporation United Technologies Arkansas of University Connecticut of University Maryland of University County Maryland, Baltimore of University The, Canberra Wales, South New of University Southern California of University at Dallas Texas of University Assistant Deputy Defense, US Department of Inc Veoneer, Tech Virginia Vitech Corporation Equipment Construction Volvo Inc Woodward WPI Institute- Polytechnic Worcester Inc Zuken, [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] : 201-748-6819 Europe, Middle East & Africa East Middle (EMEA) Europe, [email protected] Japan Korea Advertising Healthcare Science Advertising & Australia Asia Reprints Projects Custom Books and Sponsorship, Supplements, [email protected] • • • • • • • • USA (also Canada, and South/Central America): Click on the option below to email your enquiry to your enquiry your email your to to below the option Click on office: nearest Or please contact: Manager Senior Account Espinosa, Roland Advertising & E Media Print phone e-mail: Administration Heavy Induftries Group) Heavy National Security Agency - Enterprise Agency Security National School Postgraduate Naval Co, Ltd Nissan Motor Systems No Magic/Dassault Noblis Grumman Corporation Northrop Laboratory National Northwest Pacific University State Penn Vencore) Perspecta(formerly Inc. Prime Solutions Group, International Performance Project Raytheon Corporation Diagnostics Roche Rolls-Royce Saab AB National Aeronautics and Space and Space Aeronautics National Idaho National Laboratory Idaho National ISAE SUPAERO ISDEFE ISID Engineering, LTD Ltd iTiD Consulting, Engineering Jacobs Laboratory Jet Propulsion & Company John Deere Johns Hopkins University KBRwyle University KEIO L3 Technologies Leidos Martin Corporation Lockheed Laboratory Alamos National Los Corporation International ManTech Maplesoft Technology Massachusetts Institute of Ltd. (UK) MBDA Inc. Medtronic, Technology & Science of Missouri University MITRE Corporation, The Corporation (Mitsubishi Aircraft Mitsubishi CORPORATE ADVISORY CORPORATE — MEMBER BOARD COMPANIES 100% Paid Print advertising for non-US journals non-US for advertising Print Sponsorship Contents of Table Email Reprints opportunities sponsorship and Supplement Books Projects Custom advertising Online Circulation Issuance 22, 4 Issues 2019, Vol Engineering Institute • • • • • • • ADVERTISE Readership - employ uncounted and members 10, 000 individual over reaches INSIGHT Readership worldwide. 100 CAB organizations almost of students ees and & research scientists, manufacturers/purchasers, engineers, includes other and students CEOs, and presidents processionals, development engineering. in systems professionals Contact us for Advertising and Corporate Sales Services and Corporate Advertising Contact us for ­ profes solutions publishing and advertising of range a complete have We print-based traditional global From within team. our managed sionally corporate technology Wiley-Blackwell the online cutting-edge to solutions overview of an For matter. that minds to sales service connection your is Resources the under located which is site our servicesall our browse please of range the discuss to today sales team corporate our section. Contact services available: 321 Gang, Inc. Aerospace The Corporation, Airbus and Space Airbus Defense LLC AM General Inc. Analog Devices, Services Analytic Defence Australian Department of China, LTD of Corporation Industry Aviation BAE Systems Bechtel The Boeing Company, Transportation Bombardier Inc. Allen Hamilton Booz Inc. Laboratory, C.S. Draper International, Inc. CACI Software Carnegie Mellon University Vision, Change Inc University Colorado State University Cornell Cranfield University Cubic Corporation Cummins, Inc. Co., Ltd. Systems Cybernet Acquisition Defense University DeloitteConsulting Inc. DENSO Create, University Drexel Technology of University Eindhoven S.A. Embraer Administration Aviation (U.S.) Federal Company Motor Ford Ezute Fundacao Dynamics General Electric General Motors General Mason University George Technology Institute of Georgia International Honeywell IBM ¡ Coordination of Multi-Underwater Multi-Underwater of Coordination Integrated an Towards Drones: Methodology in an Object-Oriented Open-Source Environment. 13. be would of INSIGHT The editors Lisa Hoverman editor assistant I thank critical is to readers from Feedback pleased to accept proposals from other other from proposals pleased accept to and groups, working chapters, INCOSE centered issues for themed bodies affiliated beginning practices engineering systems on and themes 2020 INSIGHT in 2021. The 1) Artificial committed: already are articles from Engineering in Systems Intelligence Research Engineering the US Systems 2) Critical Infrastructure (SERC), Center to Recovery and II follow-on Protection the working from the December 2016 issue 3) Loss-Driven name, the same of group the Resilient from Engineering Systems 4) Security and in Group, Working Systems the Systems from Line Engineering Product Security Group. Engineering and layout for Eng Chuck team, her and in 2019, associate editors theme design, our Ken publications INCOSE for director in the publications Witte Holly Zemrowski, Wiley. at andthe staff office, encourage . We INSIGHT of the quality . [email protected] at the editor to letters in the the editor” to “letter Please include find to continue you hope We line. subject magazine , the practitioners’ INSIGHT and informative engineers, systems for relevant. RobAFIS Student Competition Competition Student RobAFIS Security & Actuality: Safety and Between Operators Interactions the System with for Model Enterprise Extended Engineering a Systems PSS within Perspective the Design of Process: Management and Allocation Resource Human the of Selection in Factories Project Future Industry for Strategy A Monitoring Case Study s.r.l Italy 4.0: Master Autonomous for Challenges Safety Engineering (AVs) Vehicles Performance Functional of Validation Limitations and Engineering System Dependability: Methodology of between Synchronization Model Risk and Models Architecture System Analysis Design, to Approach A Model-Based Dismantling Monitor and Organize, Nuclear of Decommissioning and Facilities Modelling of On the Mastering in Development Activities Engineering Scale Assessment a Maturity Towards Assets Engineering the Systems for Model- Facilitate to Valorization Adoption Engineering Based Systems Contractor’s Systems of Evaluation to Solution a Deliver to Ability an Engineer-to-Order During Offer Process Bidding 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 3. EDITOR- e are pleased to publish pleased publish to e are the December 2019 issue the December 2019 issue publishedof INSIGHT in cooperation with John John with in cooperation

Theme Editorial Theme Review AFIS 2018 Academy- of – The in Nancy Meetings Industry the 20th Anniversary of Celebration AFIS! of

is the French Chapter Chapter the French is INSIGHT The focus of the December issue focusof the December issue The 1. 2. William Miller, [email protected] William Miller, of Française Association INCOSE, of (AFIS) Doctoral Système d’Ingénierie and challenges New Symposium: at Engineering in Systems Advances our sixthissue is This Universities. French The in France. doctoral research to devoted 2008 (Volume July were issues previous 14, 3), December 2011 (Volume 11, Issue 16, Issue 4), December 2013 (Volume Issue 4), 18, Issue 4), December 2015 (Volume 4). 20, Issue December 2017 (Volume and selectedreviewspeer after Articles were doctoral presentations set of a larger from universities French with in collaboration editors theme Articles from industry. and and Panetto, Hervé and Gouyon David topics: the following address authors Wiley & Sons as a magazine for systems systems for a magazine as & Sons Wiley INSIGHT The practitioners. engineering articles informative provide to is mission the practice of the state advancing for to is intent The engineering. systems of knowledge of the dissemination accelerate of between the state close the gap to captured the art as of the state and practice of , the Journal Engineering in Systems Wiley. by also published INCOSE, W

IN-CHIEF INSIGHT

ABOUT THIS DECEMBER 2O19 PUBLICATION VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 6 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 7 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4

- - - ­ “Manage entitled paper, the second In also in the subject are factories Future aspects. safety consider papers Various this virtual organization. The proposed proposed The this virtual organization. for a background is framework modeling collabora of management the design and tions along the PSS life cycle. the PSS life along tions Human the Design of Process: ment Selection Project and Allocation Resource the authors, the Future,” of in Factories and Séverine Sperandio, Jin, Guangying resource a human propose Girard, Philippe selec methodologyallocation project and managers project methodologytion help to in process designthe manage effectively the collab especially factories, for future in problem communication and oration design groups. candidate 4.0: Industry for Strategy Monitoring “A by the paper Case Study,” s.r.l Italy Master Mario Panetto, Hervé Semeraro, Concetta Stefano and Dassisti, Lezoche, Michele and present goalto is This paper’s Cafagna. adopted strategy the monitoring analyse to company’s SME Italian a real in a design for monitoring . The digital transformation between the approach a hybrid is strategy analysis the exergetic and cycle analysis life and evaluation balance based the mass on the energy balance. Koné, Florence Tchoya by one, first The Eric Levrat, Frédérique Eric Bonjour, focuses on Géronimi, Stéphane and Mayer, - - - - - The other special issue articles concern specialarticlesother concern The issue Mourad by paper, research first The presenting the 13th edition of RobAFIS, RobAFIS, of the 13th edition presenting is this edition of originality An results. and the consideration: footprint the solution’s material focus on must platform system ecological footprint, a low with product or be recyclable must and recycled, or reused this edition, of novelties other Among itself. for initiated was prize Faisandier the Alain quality document the best development imple processes engineering systems and acterize the collaborative processes behind processes acterize the collaborative resentation of organizational capabilities as as capabilities organizational of resentation (PSS) the Product-Servicepart of Systems diagrams UML Two systems. enabling char to clarify to and the structure propose mentation. in anoth presented contributions the main doc the meetings’ event, forum er major overview an of providing workshop, toral engineering in the systems research French doctoral issue, this INSIGHT For domain. an their supervisors submitted and students to their presentations of version extended aspects systems of the research emphasize selectedeleven This engineering. edition on research promote to papers research approaches. engineering systems Belkadi, Farouk Elaheh Maleki, Harrat, “Extended entitled Bernard, Alain and a Systems PSS Within for Model Enterprise the rep addresses Perspective” Engineering ------Special Feature special section INSIGHT his issue of edition focuses the eighth on Engineering Systems the French meetings, Academia-Industry

debate on systems engineering practic engineering systems on debate tems engineering. tems es, education, and competences devel competences and es, education, situations professional for opment in sys research promote and develop

One event, a major one for AFIS, is the AFIS, is for one a major event, One These meetings, which consist of Thesemeetings, consist which The first article of this of this specialarticle by first The section, ■ ■ Editorial of INSIGHTEditorial RobAFIS Challenge which occurs Challenge RobAFIS each Jean-Claude by article 2006. The since year at aims Gouyon David and Tucoulou ences, workshops, a doctoral workshop, the a doctoral workshop, workshops, ences, the of the celebration and prize, AFIS thesis AFIS. 20th of anniversary ents the events that occurred during the occurred during that the events ents confer a forum, a pre-forum, meetings: ter of INCOSE, and supported by French French by supported and INCOSE, of ter series, every usually a regular as universities Nancy in transpired This edition years. two in December 2018. provide plenary lectures, and workshops both academics and for the opportunity to: industrials organized by AFIS (Association Française Française AFIS (Association by organized chap the French Système), d’Ingénierie Eric Levrat, Eric Bonjour, David Gouyon, Gouyon, David Eric Levrat, Eric Bonjour, Hervé Mayer, Frédérique Marangé, Pascale pres Tucoulou, Jean-Claude and Panetto,

[email protected] Panetto, ; and Hervé [email protected] Gouyon, David T

Universities Engineering at French Advances in Systems New Challenges and AFISDoctoral Symposium: is a Professor of of Professor a is Hervé Panetto Dr. in production PhD his received He He is within the Nancy Research Centre Centre Research the Nancy within is He (CRAN), and Control Automatic for and Systems are interests research his with mainly Engineering, Automation the of a member is He (MBSE). models Council the International of chapter French Associated an Engineering, Systems of (ASEP). Professional Engineering Systems the at Systems Information Enterprise Nancy. TELECOM Lorraine, of University modelling Systems Information teaches He research conducts and development, and Automatic for Centre CRAN (Research at CNRS with Unit Research Joint Control), project a research managing is he where models formalising use for ontology on production of the interoperability to related information enterprise many and systems, the elected of member an is He systems. in 2018. Europaea Academia strong has He in 1991. engineering systems experience in information and modelling modelling, semantics development. database and discovery, is on information based field research His enterprise for modelling systems interoperability, processes and applications modelling, in enterprise applications with modelling, and processes manufacturing working is modelling. He data furniture a from MES integration in ERP and perspective. manufacturing to Business National (French AFNOR expert is at He body), and CEN TC310 standardisation participated SC5. He and ISO TC184/SC4 including projects European in many (awarded Smart-fm project IMS FP5-IST NoE the FP6 INTEROP IMS) and by Networked for Research (Interoperability Software). and Applications Enterprises books and of editor guest or editor is He journals. international special of issues than more of co-author or author is He Automation of in the field 150 papers and Modelling Enterprise Engineering, and Integration Systems Enterprise of a member is He Interoperability. Chapter the AFIS French and INCOSE of Chair is He Engineering. Systems on 5 on Committee Coordinating the IFAC Logistics Systems” and “Manufacturing the IFAC received 2014. He since 2015 2013, the INCOSE Award France the IFAC and ServiceOutstanding Award a is He Service2017 Outstanding Award. OTM/IFAC/IFIP the yearly of co-organiser Integration, “Enterprise on EI2N workshop and Networking” and Interoperability Federated the OTM General of Co-chair conferences. ------

¡ David Gouyon, Université de Lorraine, de Lorraine, Université Gouyon, David de Lorraine, Université Panetto, Hervé We are grateful for the authors’ impres the authors’ for grateful are We The last paper, entitled “Coordination “Coordination entitled paper, last The Abdourahim Sylla, Elise Vareilles, Thierry Elise Sylla, Vareilles, Abdourahim is a Systems a Systems David is Gouyon Dr. “Towards a Maturity Assessment Scale for Assessment a Maturity “Towards Valori Assets Engineering the Systems CNRS, CRAN, France ; david.gouyon@ [email protected] incose.org CNRS, CRAN, France ; herve.panetto@ [email protected] incose.org EDITORSTHE water drones, specifically the formation specificallyformation the drones, water ob real-time depends on that control, open-source in an paradigms ject-oriented the to capture is objective The environment. from cycle, life development whole system’s the testing to specification the requirements models. realization and simulation the reviewer’s for and contribution sive issue’s this INSIGHT to assistance valuable relevance. scientific ding Process,” by using two confidence in confidence two using by Process,” ding method. These their evaluation and dicators a company’s evaluating at aim indicators offer to a solution deliver to ability future Also presented process. a bidding during indicators use these to confidence a way is Sylla Abdourahim a design process. during thesis. PhD his for awards also received an Towards Drones: Multi-Underwater of Methodology Object Oriented Integrated proposed Environment,” Open-source in an and Thierry Anh Pham, Soriano, Hoang by for a framework presents Ngo, Van Hien multi-under of the coordination studying ing assets and their valorization through through their valorization assets and ing a propose scale to articleaims The reuse. assets’ engineering the systems evaluate to will it be this way, In maturity. valorization progress for the margins assess to possible the necessary estimate to therefore and a through maturity their to improve efforts won work This plan. action corresponding the meetings’ during Award Best Poster doctoral workshop. Laurent and Aldanondo, Coudert, Michel processes. agreement focus on Geneste Systems of “Evaluation an propose They to a Solution Deliver to Ability Contractor’s Bid an Engineer-To-Order During Offer zation to Facilitate Model-Based Systems Systems Model-Based Facilitate to zation main The paper’s Adoption.” Engineering adoption, MBSE facilitate to is, hypothesis engineer of the capture is a prerequisite Engineering associate professor at the professor associate Engineering oversees he There Lorraine. of University work-linked a master’s within training Engineering. Systems Complex on degree ------Model-Based Systems Engineering Engineering Systems Model-Based As these modelling activies must result result these activies modelling must As Model-based systems engineering is cur is engineering systems Model-based In particular, the systems engineering engineering the systems particular, In DEF) and its supporting framework with with framework supporting its and DEF) practical and theoretical principles, its modelling, understanding, for arguments modelling ease of and monitoring, analysis, operation and activities (MA) development system. a project-product as considered the prize received Simo Kamdem Freddy in systems work the thesis best PhD for 2017-2018. engineering Gouyon, David Wu, Quentin is adoption focus in Éric Levrat’s and Boudau, Sophie gineering.” The contribution of the authors authors of the contribution The gineering.” a MODEL-based of the introduction is (MO Modelling of Systems of Federation tions improvement, system understanding, understanding, system improvement, tions Freddy reuse, and sharing knowledge and and Ernadote, Dominique Simo, Kamdem the Mastering Lenne focus “On Dominique in En Development Activities Modelling of in clear and traceable models to benefit benefit to models traceable and in clear communica like model advantages from clear Facilities.” The method involves three three method The involves Facilities.” clear specification and formalization first, steps: second, requirements; set of the entire of of demonstration and checking, structure, from feasibility and coherence the project’s organizational both and the technological the of re-evaluation third, view points; (D&D) decommissioning and dismantling management, the product’s and strategy possible the D&D projects’ on depending evolution. cent Chapurlat, Jean-François Milot, and and Milot, Jean-François Chapurlat, cent Based Ap Model “A propose Cyril Moitrier Monitor and Design, to Organize, proach Nu of Decommissioning and Dismantling rently a main research topic, as proved by by proved as topic, research a main rently Vin Lafon, Maxence papers. the following gineering and Dependability:gineering and Methodology Between System Synchronization Model of It Analysis.” Risk and Models Architecture set-up to approach a collaborative proposes methodological and modelling adapted taking into in thepractices enterprise, applied context, system the studied account viewpoint methods, and applied processes, engineers. by produced and dependability link is the subject of link of the subject is dependability and Agnès Legendre, Anthony by the paper En Rauzy: “System Anthoine and Lanusse, sical safety validation issue, which ensures which ensures issue, validation sical safety a new faces It functional safety. the vehicle’s in the functional challenge validation safety these new of vehicle guarantee performance validation some presents types. This paper with some concludes and reflections issue questions. important the “Challenges for Autonomous Vehicles Vehicles Autonomous for the “Challenges of Validation Safety Engineering: (AVs) AVs Limitations.” Performance Functional the clas to itself limit cannot engineering

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 8 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 9 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 -

president of the French Chapter Chapter the French of president ( Five conferences and eight workshops workshops eight and conferences Five We thank Paul Schreinmakers, Director Director Schreinmakers, Paul thank We led by 20 facilitators (half industrialists (half industrialists 20 facilitators led by discussed academics), the participants and unifying Participation theme. the forum’s bal a good academy industry and found ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ance, contributing to the Forum’s mission: mission: the Forum’s to contributing ance, systems exchange and share to beinga place in practices and knowledge engineering research. and education, business, of INCOSE’s EMEA Sector, for his warm warm his for EMEA Sector, INCOSE’s of INCOSE significant AFIS’ on testimony place tookwith This contributions. work the commanding Roussel, Jean-Claude Relations International INCOSE AFIS and the20th Anniversary during missions, led. Tucoulou Jean-Claude Celebration - - ; [email protected] Gouyon, David - [email protected] searchers the theme forms a paradox; a a paradox; forms the theme searchers contextu faced, manufacturers challenge to economy a product from change alizing to How a service experience economy. or their complexity control to design systems uses, of simplicity/acceptance ensure and processes engineering systems are how this rationale, by methods impacted and this facilitate engineering systems can how companies? within transition tunities on the systems engineering theme, theme, engineering the systems on tunities teaching, implementation, industrial its This edition’s issues. research related and the systems’ unifying From was: theme ease and their acceptance to complexity Linking use. expertise,of and teaching, developed research, engineering systems teachers-re Lorraine of the University by industrial communities exchange oppor exchange communities industrial - - ; [email protected] Eric Bonjour, - Jean-Claude Tucoulou, and Jean-Claude Tucoulou,

he AFIS Academy-Industry meet AFIS Academy-Industry he 4-6 December commenced ings the University at 2018 in Nancy complementary Six Lorraine. of

Research activities involving the Systems the Systems activities involving Research The University of Lorraine, the university university the of Lorraine, University The These meetings provide academic and and academic provide Thesemeetings the Master’s Degree in Complex Systems Systems Degree in Complex the Master’s and Engineering Engineers School of Higher the National Innovation and Engineering in Systems (ENSGSI). ) INCOSE of Hervé Panetto, Panetto, ; Hervé [email protected] Mayer, ; Frédérique [email protected] Marangé, Pascale ; [email protected] A COMPLETEA AGENDA neering & Industrial Engineering Academic Academic Engineering & Industrial neering 2017:” Programs • • of University in two theme Engineering de CRAN (Centre laboratories: Lorraine UMR de Nancy, en Automatique Recherche team (Research ERPI CNRS 7039) and these support processes) innovative on courses. training organizing these meetings, has, since 2005, these since has, meetings, organizing Systems teaching courses pioneering two in referenced and in France Engineering Engi Systems Directory of the “Worldwide dustry Forum 2018, the Doctoraldustry Seminar Forum Prize 2018, 20th the 2018, the AFIS Thesis the and AFIS celebration, Anniversary of Gala “AFIS the theme with Dinner Forum 20th anniversary!” its celebrates 20th Anniversary of AFIS! Meetings in Nancy - Nancy in Meetings the of Celebration The Academy-Industry Review of the AFIS 2018 2018 AFIS the of Review ; [email protected] Eric Levrat,

events brought together 165 participants: 165 participants: together brought events the Faculty Preforum, the LF2L-ENSGSI 2018 RobAFIS Technology Science and of the 8th AFIS Academy-In competition, T - - ¡

The 2018 Best Poster Award winner winner Award Poster 2018 The Best in the the participants invited INCOSE This year presented 17 posters for the best for 17 posters presented year This DOCTORAL SEMINAR AND BEST AFIS 2018 POSTER AWARD the French and researchers young for est dynamism. research engineering systems David the organizers, congratulate We of (University Panetto Hervé and Gouyon The high quality. the event’s for Lorraine), took a poster who submitted 17 participants regis free AFIS 2018 forum of advantage PhD thesis their promoting Thus, tration. forum their and poster by supported work exchange. participant Lorraine, of University Wu, Quentin is CRAN / SAFRAN Aerosystems. Modeling MBSE in an know-how of reuse and electrical aircraft to application approach: 4). (See photo systems. distribution the PhD of the winners as well as seminar, summarizing paper a write to prize, thesis published and their work enhancing and special in thisthese INSIGHT papers issue. AFIS 2018 poster award. This great success This great award. poster AFIS 2018 inter the Meetings’ AFIS demonstrates for - the jury announced the results. Doctors who Doctors the results. the jury announced 2016 and between November graduated high quality eight 2018 submitted November were criteria The evaluation applications. publications) both academic (originality, impact approach, (systems industrial and Winners practices). engineering systems on Freddy was 2018 winner The follows. as are entitled work thesis his for Simo, Kamdem of systems of federation “Model-based supervised Thesis by Dominique modelling.” Dominique and HeuDiaSyc, UTC, Lenne, The & Space. Defence Airbus Ernadote, (ENI Sylla Abdourahim were winners other Sonia Ben Albi), IMT Mines Ham Tarbes, David Gouyon, Emmanuel Caillaud, Frédérique Mayer, Anthony Legendre, Legendre, Anthony Mayer, Frédérique Caillaud, Emmanuel Gouyon, David Florence Koné, Maxence Lafon, Quentin Wu, Alain Roussel Emmanuel Caillaud (Co-ChairDamien of AFIS), Trentesaux, Abdourahim Sylla, Roussel Alain Simo, (former Kamdem Freddy president Mayer, Frédérique of AFIS) ida (CentraleSupelec) and Li Zheng (INSA Li Zheng and ida (CentraleSupelec) to 3). Congratulations (See photo Toulouse). these winners! - - - ), a co-design Nexter Systems). “Ergonom Systems). Nexter - University of Valenciennes). Valenciennes). of University – http://lf2l.fr/fr/ Eric Levrat and Eric Bonjour (University (University Eric Bonjour Eric Levrat and the took participants 70 forum Finally, Christophe Ducamp (AIRBUS). “Virtual “Virtual (AIRBUS). Ducamp Christophe of Director (Deputy Trentesaux Damien Catherine Devic (EDF). “Digital Twins Twins DevicCatherine “Digital (EDF). The prize for the best PhD thesis work work PhD the thesis best for prize The The Lorraine Fab Living Living Fab Lab The Lorraine The preforum is an event organized the organized an event is preforum The We also thank the speakers for the high also the thank for speakers We Castel Valérie and Kujawa Laurence prospective platform evaluating uses and evaluating platform prospective the by developed innovation of acceptability the AFIS hosted in Nancy, laboratory ERPI industrialists together brought It Preforum. East Region; in the Greater SMEs from AFIS researchers. and lecturers, students, experienced industrialists, in invested complete to also engineering, came systems the thank who speakers We the feedback. interesting and feedback rich provided the participants. with exchanges que Mayer (University of Lorraine) and and Lorraine) of (University Mayer que des à Diriger (Habilité Luzeaux Dominique des Armées). On 6 Ministère Recherches, the AFIS meetings,December 2018, during AFIS PRIZE FOR THE BEST PHD THESIS WORK SYSTEMSIN 2017-2018 ENGINEERING of Lorraine). “Complexity of Systems and and Systems of “Complexity Lorraine). of Uses.” of Simplicity/Acceptance these extend ex to gala opportunity dinner “Challenges of Civil Autonomous Systems. Systems. Civil Autonomous of “Challenges Humanity.” and Ethics, AFIS SEMINAR– 2018 AFIS PREFORUM changes during another convivial moment. convivial another during changes Simulators and Digital Twins: How to Check to How Digital Twins: and Simulators Soon as Possible.” as Usage & Validate MACS GDR for the Performance of Nuclear Power Power Nuclear of the Performance for Life.” to Models Bring to How or Plants... ics at the Heart of User Centered Design at Centered User of the Heart ics at Systems.” Nexter in Systems Engineering 2017-2018, the Engineering in Systems the GIS with collaborating edition, third Frédéri by co-chaired was S-MART, (LF2L®– day before the forum, aiming to promote promote to aiming the forum, before day region. in the forum’s engineering systems SMEs many addresses 2018 The theme their of the value improving about concerns services: and Objects products “Connected and Opportunities What Innovation: and SMEs?” for Challenges quality of their presentations. of quality Group (Nexter

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 10 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 11 - - - Preliminary version of requirement requirement of version Preliminary 10) (Deliverable referential architectural possible of Presentation 20) (Deliverable designs choice architecture of Justification 40). (Deliverable 2015-2016-2017-2018: Operators and and 2015-2016-2017-2018: Operators interactions technical systems Reference configuration (Deliverable 30) (Deliverable configuration Reference Final requirement referential referential Final requirement 10) (Deliverable design (Deliverable Final architectural 20) (Deliverable of definition Justification 40) Validation Verification, Integration, 50) (Deliverable Plan maintenance and study Maintainability 60) (Deliverable definition 70) (Deliverable management Project instructions verification and Assembly 80). (Deliverable RECENT TECHNICAL SUBJECTS RECENT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT 1. 2. 3. Previous years have seen various evolu seen various have years Previous Full development Phase 2 results, supplied supplied 2 results, Phase development Full ■

4. technical aspects: in the case studies’ tions 3. www.robafis.fr): on details (more ture 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. (more details on www.robafis.fr): on details (more under the form of a detailed development a detailed development of the form under struc 8 deliverables an require document, ARCHITECTURE (ROBAFIS 2019) - - - - - addresses possible solu possible addresses and an operational prototype prototype operational an and an upstream study phase phase study upstream an a full development phase phase a full development Phase 1: Phase development a preliminary where (§2) document ment (§3) ment selected in the solution to correspond phase. the first tion identification (at least 3 candidate 3 least candidate (at identification tion of choice the justified and solutions) based studied the on selected solution, drafts; solutions 2: Phase docu a detailed development where PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY Concluding Phase 1 requires student student 1 requires Phase Concluding To enhance the system architectural architectural the system enhance To The aim is to highlight both phases to highlight is aim both The A DEVELOPMENT IN TWO PHASES ■ ■

education on a project life cycle realization: cycle realization: life a project on education the implementa a full cycle including life passing a system vision; the second one a a one the second vision; a system passing vision. product-oriented 2. ARCHITECTURE (ROBAFIS 2019) tion of an operational system, deployed by by deployed system, operational an of tion environment. in a real a client, 1. phases: in two opment teams to supply a preliminary development development a preliminary supply to teams 3 deliverables into structured document, choices and technology choices distinction, distinction, technology choices and choices devel a model of proposed 2015 we since specific nature and contribution, using a using contribution, and specificnature encom one first the definition, progressive ------David Gouyon, [email protected] Gouyon, ; and David [email protected] his paper presents the RobAFIS presents paper his which AFIS, the competition or INCOSE, of chapter French 2006. Previous since yearly ganizes

the book “To discover and understand understand and discover the book “To and (Fiorèse Engineering” Systems 2012) Meinadier (Tucoulou the book “ThinkingSystem” 2014). Le Put and Daniel-Allegro

RobAFIS’ main objective is highlighting highlighting is objective main RobAFIS’ Since 2007, students and their supervis and 2007, students Since ■ ■ the benefits of basing systems engineering engineering systems of basing the benefits orative space (RobAFIS 2019), questions 2019), questions (RobAFIS space orative methodological technical or including requirements stakeholder to related issues document. the development to or ing teachers may exchange with the jury with exchange may teachers ing in industry AFIS expert working members, During engineering. systems teaching or via a these experts answer, development, collab as dedicated RobAFIS page FAQ ments recommended for RobAFIS are: RobAFIS for recommended ments stand and develop systems engineering uses engineering systems develop and stand and best recommended as practices, and docu reference AFIS. Two by formalized tition alongside its pedagogical its objectives alongside tition 2011) Bonjour and Gouyon (Tucoulou (Tucoulou 2013) Gouyon and (Tucoulou and Bonjour 2015) (Tucoulou Gouyon and AFIS enhances 2017). RobAFIS Gouyon research and educational action, offering under better to operation an institutions Jean-Claude Tucoulou, Jean-Claude Tucoulou,

with the System Between Operators and & Security Interactions Interactions & Security petition Actuality: Safety RobAFIS Student Com

presented this compe presented INSIGHT of editions T - Each edition required all components all components required Each edition best the three ranking, the overall In Civile de de l’Aviation Nationale Ecole of University of the ISC Master The the best received CLERMONT SIGMA tional safety and security requirements, or or security and requirements, safety tional con and a monitoring mode from remote served page), 3, next (Figure by console trol the on depending operators separate two performed operation. the solution of necessary the operation for year, This kit. the AFIS provided from come the of platform the bare was the exception of constructed page) 4, next (Figure system ecological a low with product or material the and recycled, or reused footprint, at being easily recyclable itself solution of the The evaluation life. its of the end audit project and the fileengineering satisfaction. these requirements’ integrated a specialthe most to prize AFIS awarded solution. eco-responsible and innovative Ranked the AFIS Prizes. 1st received teams Cergy of the EISTI Pontoise were ex-aequo INSA of team the INSATOMIQUE and the PANDA was Ranked 3rd Toulouse. INSA Toulouse. of team Factor the Best Human received Toulouse Best and Engineering System to Approach SYSTEM NEXTER the System of Usability Award. the and best engineering received Lorraine aptitude maintenance of demonstration Award. Maintainability AIRBUS nature the innovative for audit project the satisfaction and platform the bare of disposal end-of-life design and of AFIS Prize. requirements Deployment phase Figure 2. - - Master ISC Clermont – – ITESCIA (CNAM) ITESCIA Sigma IMT – Mines d’Alès IMT UTC ESIEE UTC Equipes RobAFIS 2018 Equipes RobAFIS Université de Lorraine – Master ISG – Master Université de Lorraine Université de Bordeaux – Master GILOG Université de Bordeaux Ecole Nationale de l’Aviation Civile – SITA option ISI Civile – SITA Ecole Nationale de l’Aviation Université Technologique de Troyes – Départment EAA Troyes de Technologique Université Université de Technologie de Compiègne – Master ISC de Compiègne Technologie Université de Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne – Master EEAII Ardenne Champagne Université de Reims Teams Ecole Internationale des Sciences du traitement de l’Information Sciences du traitement Ecole Internationale des Institut National des Sciences Appliquées Toulouse – RED PANDA Toulouse Appliquées Institut National des Sciences Institut National des Sciences Appliquées Toulouse – INSATOMIQUE Toulouse Appliquées des Sciences Institut National Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté – Master on Green Mechatronics Green – Master on Franche-Comté Université de Bourgogne 2017: Evolution of the two systems systems the two of 2017: Evolution in a common simultaneously deployed environment in an the system of 2018: Evolution high operational imposing environment of introduction and constraints safety a low with requirements environmental recyclability. and ecological footprint The proposed subject concerned a robot robot a subject concerned proposed The operate could sequences system The This year broke record participation. participation. record broke year This 2018: “13TH EDITION” ORGANIZED“13TH AS PART 2018: ■ ■

Figure 1. ber 2018, an event hosted in Nancy by the by in Nancy hosted ber event 2018, an of the Faculty at Lorraine, of University Technology. Science and radioactive transporting and handling for a nuclear of in the environment packages 2). (Figure center reprocessing waste opera mode maximizing automatic either 5. 14 teams participated in the competition in the competition participated 14 teams students and 100 teachers 1) and (Figure 5 and Decem on 4 the final for presented OF THE20TH ANNIVERSARY OF AFIS

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 12 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 13 (h) - " (h)

" " (h) - 9.5 4.625 x

x

Page (w)

" (w) vertical Quarter Quarter " . Paris, Half Page Half Half Page Half horizontal " (w) x 4.625 (w) " 20(4), 45-46. 20(4), 7 3.375 3.375 . (h)

. 9.5" x

16(4), 7-10. 18(4), 12-13. (w) " no bleed 6819 Full Page Full (in french). Editions french). (in Cépaduès. Size: 7 Size: ¡ (h)

Master ISC of the University of Lorraine, Lorraine, of the University ISC of Master Fiorèse S., and J.-P. Meinadier. To 2012. Fiorèse S., and J.-P. discover and understand Systems Engi neering “Development RobAFIS. 2019. Repository.” http://www.robafis.fr/ RobAFIS/Referentiel.html RobAFIS 2019.” “FAQ RobAFIS. 2019. http://www.robafis.fr/RobAFIS/FAQ_ RobAFIS_2019.html (h)

cesses implimentation, received the first the first received cesses implimentation, Engineering System Faisandier time Alain Prize. REFERENCES ■ ■ ■ for the development document quality and and quality document the development for technical pro engineering the systems 11" 11.25" +1 201-748- 14(4), 9-11. x x

: [email protected]

(w) (w)

: 01:10 with bleed phone Full Page Full Roland Espinosa email Print & E Media Advertising Print & E Media Trim Size: 8.5" Size: Trim Bleed Size: 8.75" Bleed Size: IHM MANU I’Robot EISTI Modèle Bras mécanique Bras Pince en cours de fermeture Bras en cours d’utilisation Ad Due Date February 20 February 20 May August 20 20 November N/A N/A N/A N/A $985 $985 $1399 Tucoulou, J. C., J. “RobAFIS student and Gouyon,.Tucoulou, 2015. D. actuality: A continuously evolving pedagogy Systemes Engineering.” for INSIGHT “The first RobAfis-RobSE C., J. E. and Gouyon,.Tucoulou, 2017. D. Bonjour, international student competition in Systems Engineering.” INSIGHT C., J. B. Daniel-Allegro,Tucoulou, and A.System Le Thinking Put. 2014. France AFIS. Tucoulou, J. C., D. Gouyon, and E. Bonjour. 2011. “A student challenge “A in C., J. Gouyon, systems and D. Tucoulou, E. 2011. Bonjour. INSIGHTengineering: 2010.” RobAFIS C., J. “RobAFIS student and Gouyon,.Tucoulou, 2013. D. competition: from systems engineering the to engineering INSIGHT system.” one of Net rate B&W per issue per B&W Net rate Out ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Auto IHM PILOT Non 2020 ADVERTING 2020 ADVERTING RATES Manette Mode $2175 $2175 $1570 $2625 $3035 $2530 $3320 5 4 3 2 1 Theme Net Rate 4/C per Issue per Net Rate 4/C 2020 Deadlines and Themes 2020 Deadlines and SIGHT IN Mm/s Platform example design HMI for the handling operator Artificial Intelligence in Systems Engineering in Intelligence Artificial Critical Infrastructure Protection and Recovery II and Recovery Protection Infrastructure Critical Engineering Systems Loss-Driven Line Engineering in Product Security 80 Ad Size DIRECTION Issue Full Page Full Cover 2 Cover 3 Cover 4 Cover vertical Page, Half horizontal Page, Half page Quarter March June Sept Dec Figure 4. Figure 3. - - Software Service Service Processing System Embedded System ofSystem Interest The Enabling Systems are all other all are Systems Enabling The Cybernetic support resources for PSS delivery and op delivery PSS and for resources support eration. They apply several capabilities and and several capabilities apply They eration. support to the company from competences These model realization. the PSS business are: components systems Product Electronical Product-Service System Product-Service Mechanical Offer Value Digital Infrastructure Physical A systems engineering perspective of PSS (Maleki Belkadi Bonjour and Infrastructure Enabling Systems Capabilities be electronical, mechanical, and/or and/or mechanical, be electronical, cybernetic. service including Service components, embeddedand the software, processing, system. Organizational Figure 1. Manufacturers) Equipment (Original OEMs 2018) Bernard ■ -

roduct-Service (PSS) Systems new value proposes strategically a long- through the customers for increases that term relationship

Today, firms are adopting Product-Service Systems (PSS) business models requiring new designing, producing, and consuming consuming and producing, new designing, requiring models business Product-Service (PSS) Systems adopting are firms Today, complexity. cycle management life and thePSS development addressing solution promising a is engineering methods. Systems systems. the PSS enabling part as of representation capabilities this perspective, focuses organizational this paper on Following behind this virtual organiza processes the collaborative characterize to clarify and to the structure propose diagrams UML Two management and designthe for as a background functions engineering based modeling framework systems proposed The tion. cycle. the PSS life along collaborations of  ABSTRACT Products whose components can can whose components Products Previous works (Maleki, Belkadi, Bon (Maleki, works Previous ■ INTRODUCTION ; and Belkadi, [email protected] ; Farouk ; Elaheh Maleki, [email protected] [email protected] Harrat, Mourad [email protected] Alain Bernard, jour, and Bernard 2018) OEMs (Original Bernard 2018) OEMs and jour, demonstrate Manufacturers) Equipment approach, engineering based a systems on integrated an function as PSS can that sub-systems: main two of composed system systems enabling and interest of system Bernard and Belkadi, Bonjour, (Maleki, finalsolution 1). The (Figure 2018) OEMs its for who pays the customer to provided of the system is consumption) its (or usage are: components system’s This interest.

1. Perspective a Systems Engineering Model for PSS Within Within PSS for Model Extended Enterprise

their loyalty. Literature defines it as a it defines Literature their loyalty. intangible and tangible of combination and original offers provide to components (Tukker needs fulfillto specific customers’ and Beltagui, 2006; Pawar, Tischner and Seliger 2010) and Roy, Riedel 2009; Meier, in the paid EU programs and institutes (PSS). product-service to systems attention P

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 14 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 15 - - - 0..* 1..* 1..* +followed by +followed Activity 0..* 1..* 1..* PSS Business process PSS Business +Process ID +Process +Responsible Coordination Rule Coordination 1..* 1..* Organizational Capability Organizational +has This model includes several concepts: several concepts: model includes This Looking the Enterprise Extended to ing viewing it as an Extended Enterprise Enterprise Extended an as viewing it ing diagram the UML 2 shows Figure possible. capabilities organization an proposing based PSS, this definition. on model for processes, rules, PSS business coordination different The typologyand resources. of human are resources inheriting classes skills imma assigned), (some enabler and resource, financial terial resource, is capability Network capability. network each stake for the necessary condition the for creation value allows it as holder and (Berghman, Matthyssens, customer the rules of 2006) changing Vandenbempt a producer from while moving the market Lusch and (Vargo process a collaborative to involve: classes capability 2008). Network parts; who deals physical with Supplier, Service Local and Provider; Department, localized units in the company’s of one Finally, geographical positions. different functions properly Capability Network process. a collaboration through a critical aspect to organization, an as the way remains the performance reach sharing, and resource investments (Mohr (Mohr investments resource and sharing, 1994; Dyer 2000; Browne Spekman and Extended 2002) characterizes Zhang and at the are characteristics These Enterprise. mak capability PSS organizational heart of 1..* - - - Business Role Business Resource 0..* 1..* +Name Domain +Business Instance +Related 0..* Collaboration +performed in ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITYORGANIZATIONAL AS AN In project development, the term development, project In

+has ners as an inter-enterprise collaboration collaboration inter-enterprise an as ners high trust, of knowledge the necessity with terrelated stakeholders that create, sustain, sustain, create, that stakeholders terrelated A capacity.” value-creating its enhance and between part contract business long-term 2. EXTENDED ENTERPRISE design teams, into decomposition zation, on efforts coordination of minimization 2002; Sosa, (Braha more and the project, 2003; Whitfield, Rowles and Eppinger some are Kortabarria 2005) and Duffy, complexity PSS, the systems’ In examples. aligned an view of creating increasing, is and strategies enterprises’ the involved could through This be possible processes. which Enterprise” “Extended of the concept perspective. Systems of a System implies Post, of Sachs, the definition to According is (2002), Extended Enterprise Preston and in of a network within nodal element “the organization refers to the functional to (the refers organization the organic and structure) design process teams’ (the collaborative architectures (Bonjour, their interactions) and members organizational on 2008). Several works design with dealt in product architecture optimi design as processes such topics collaboration meta-model as a backbone of of a backbone meta-model as collaboration capabilities. the PSS organizational Human enabler +DomainOfExpertise ------Supplier 1..* 1..* +Involved in 1..* Service Provider Skill +Involved in 1..* Network capability Financial Resource Financial Immaterial Resource Immaterial +Shared Knowledge +Shared Culture +Shared +Mutual Interest +Skill domain +Level of+Level expertise Organizational Capabilities Model (Maleki Belkadi Bonjour and Bernard OEMs (Original 2018) Equipment Manufacturers) Local Department Local +Involved in Physical and digital infrastructures, and Physical the stake assist and within which exist al processes for added value creation creation added value for al processes the PSS life during maintenance and cycle. structures include informatics network, network, informatics include structures more. and systems, servers, information as defined capabilities, Organizational operation and the necessary resources holders’ network. The PSS owner or owner PSS The network. holders’ these rent or partner buy could another infrastructure infrastructures. Physical distribution buildings, are examples Digital infra stations. and network Consequently, the organizational ca the organizational Consequently, Therefore, designing a PSS implies a PSS implies designing Therefore, ■ ■ pability within the value network should should network the value within pability Extended an as managed be consistently propose to aims This paper Enterprise. nizational capabilities should classify the should capabilities nizational highlight variety and process and resource relationships. member the network ment (Wallin et al. 2015). The resulting resulting 2015). The et al. (Wallin ment a higher complexity suggests network the and the multidisciplinary regarding deal To their roles. partners and variety of the modelling orga thiswith complexity, Figure 2. the need to consider its whole life cycle, cycle, life whole its the consider need to in the involved all stakeholders integrating Needclarification, phases: PSS life different develop solution seeking, and solution - - - ¡ - . 35: . 35: . 319–326 . 319–326 continued on page 22 on page continued Interface > 1..* +Name +Interface Type +Configuration +Refers to +Refers Coordination rule Coordination Supplier coordination rule Supplier coordination +Performed in +Performed nizational capabilities, key enabling systems systems enabling key capabilities, nizational of the startingmodel is a PSS. This point of man the collaboration of characterization industrial assisting framework, agement collabo the appropriate choosing for actors in a new PSS when strategy engaging ration this realize collaboration To based business. is work ongoing framework, management of collabo the identification addressing methods, assessment performance ration criteria. as mentioned the factors using approach as a foundation to represent PSS represent to a foundation as approach collaboration explores It characteristics. the orga support to a foundation model as PSS process Network capability Collaboration 1..* +Impacts . . . Collaboration strategy Collaboration Collaboration Factor Collaboration +Indicator method +Calculation This work extends previous research research previous extends work This Bonjour, E.Bonjour, 2008. “Contributions to the Supports of Development the for Function Systemof Architect : Coupling Modular Product Architectures and Design Project Organizations.” Université de Franche-Comté, https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel- 00348034 Braha, 2002. D. “Partitioning Proceedings to Product Tasks Teams.” Development of ICAD Browne, and J., Zhang. J. 2002. “Extended and Virtual Enterprises – Similarities and Int. Agil.Differences.” J. Syst. Manag. 1: 30–36, doi:10.1108/14654659910266691. H. J. 2000.Dyer, Collaborative Advantage: Winning through Extended Enterprise Supplier Networks. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, https://books.google.fr/ books?id=3S5vI0TdqWYC ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC Information 2382:2015: 2015. technology – Vocabulary. Maleki, Belkadi, E., F. E. and A. Bonjour, Bernard. “Interfaces 2018. Modeling for Product-Service System Annu. Integration.” 13th Conf. Syst. Syst. Eng 2018 doi:10.1109/SYSOSE.2018.8428735. Berghman, Matthyssens, L., P. and K. 2006. Vandenbempt. “Building Competences Creation: New Customerfor An Value Exploratory Ind. Mark. Study.” Manag 961–973, doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.04.006. 961–973, CONCLUSION prise members. Maleki, Belkadi, Bonjour, Belkadi, Bonjour, Maleki, members. prise a detailed classification Bernard explain and (Maleki, PSS context within interfaces of Bernard 2018). The and Belkadi, Bonjour, “shared is definition concept interface boundary between functional units, two the about characteristics by various defined signal interconnections, physical functions, as characteristics, other and exchanges, (ISO/IEC 2015). appropriate” ■ 3. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ REFERENCES on the application of systems engineering engineering systems of the application on +Outsourcing policy +Outsourcing partners moment +Integration of+Degree partners responsibility Structural Capital.CF Structural Relational Capital.CF Relational Cognitive Capital.CF Cognitive ------Learning.CF Dependence.CF Coordination.CF Proposed collaboration model collaboration Proposed Knowledge Sharing.CF Communication quality.CF Communication According to this model, collaboration collaboration this model, to According zational and operational interfaces, which interfaces, operational and zational informational and physical other conduct components, between tangible interfaces the Enter Extended by owned separately ate each factor for measure and assessment assessment and measure for each factor ate en systems methods. calculation In using by gineering network vocabulary value terms, organi different conducts collaboration sions (cognitive, structural, and relational) relational) structural, and (cognitive, sions 1998), Coordination, Ghoshal and (Nahapiet sharing, knowledge quality, communication associ Indicators learning. and dependence, oration. We mention social capital dimen social capital mention We oration. icy (develop, co-develop or buy decisions), decisions), buy or co-develop icy (develop, the and moment, integration partners’ (Petersen, responsibility partners’ of degree strategic are 2005) and Ragatz Handfield, face. (OEM) PSS providers examples choice collab impact factors different addition, In process implements a collaboration strategy a collaboration implements process in decisions term the critical long involving pol Outsourcing capability. network a given ganization is dependent on several factors several on factors dependent is ganization partners, resources of the commitment like and mechanisms, coordination shared, a global Requiring model detailing more. through collaboration of concept the above design and view helps of points various following The complexity. such manage is diagram UML a second 3 proposes Figure “Collaboration” class of the a specification as 2. in Figure cited Figure 3. The together. working all stakeholders of the PSS or among successful collaboration

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 16 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 17 - - Actor 4 Actor 5 - Actor 6 Actor 3 Actor 7 Actor 2 Actor 8 They can establish a virtual team to work work to a virtualteam establish They can The challenge of resource allocation is allocation resource of challenge The easier and frequently without any design any without frequently easier and 1). intermediary (Figure process one control simultaneously and together IOT. different encompassing design process organi process design the future Therefore, zation structure will be the point-to-point will structure be the point-to-point zation intermediary. any without structure feature fundamental strategy a corporate lim has organization (LevinthalAny 2016). efficient the most requires it resources: ited achieve to plan improvement optimum and (Ah readiness overall the possible highest 2015). Papageorgiou and Martin, Yeh, madi, Actor 1 - Actor 9 Actor 11 Actor 10 Company 4 Company 3 Design is a human activity, related to to related activity, Design a human is Meanwhile the Internet of Things’ (IOT) (IOT) Things’ of the Internet Meanwhile human needs, addressing the necessity to to the necessity needs, addressing human state environmental the present change 1998). Design Gero actors and (Rosenman design enhance closer to collaborate must pres competitive to due efficiency global sure and development process complexity complexity process development and sure cycle development product and increasing 2007). Girard Rose and (Robin decreasing Song, Elloumi, (Osseiran, development the different 2017) changed Monserrat and in the design (those involved designers’ The organization. relationship process) collaborate and communicate can designers - - Detailed Design Analysis Task of Conceptual Design Conceptual Embodiment Design Embodiment

; and Philippe [email protected] Sperandio, ; Séverine [email protected] Improve ith the Internet of Things’ Things’ of the Internet ith many development, rapid as such new challenges scarcity global collaboration, Internet of Things to the future horizontal organization structure (Schoenthaler et al. 2015)

Company 2 Company 1 Figure 1. location methodology and project selection methodology project location and to managers project methodology help to in process designthe manage effectively factories. future ers’ project relationships. The engineering engineering The relationships. project ers’ communication actor design depends on process.This efficiency leads inthe design allocation resource human increased to complexity. selection process project and al resource human propose we Therefore, of resources, and more shape the design shape more and resources, of Guangying Jin, Girard, [email protected] Girard, Factories of the Future the of Factories and Project Selection in Resource Allocation Design Process: Human Human Process: Design Management of the W in in Figure 2 and 2 and in Figure in Figure 2 and Figure Figure 2 and in Figure in Figure 2 and Figure Figure 2 and in Figure in Figure 2 and Figure 3) Figure 2 and in Figure Collaboration ability corresponds to to corresponds ability Collaboration designand communication conflict to aim steps These two harmony. team collaboration efficient most find the actors different of communication and the project increase to combinations speed quality. and completion ( personality Actors 3). It considers mutual cooperation, cooperation, mutual considers 3). It experience, and of years satisfaction, experience the calculate to project Together Work to Ability Groups identify different and value (GAWT) groups. combination candidate Figure 3). Analyzing the candidate the candidate 3). Analyzing Figure the Five requires personalities actors’ (Neuroticism, (FFM) Model Factor Openness, Agreeableness Extraversion, and (McCrae Conscientiousness) and Costa accepted widely 2013), the most structure trait describing to solution Costa and 2013), (McCrae problems in differences individual reveals and the Revised Meanwhile, personality. (NEO- Inventory NEO Personality the FFM (Costa and measures PI-R) the total release 1992) to McCrae personality ability. and together work to ability A group’s work to ability (individual) a person’s ( in a group After completing the two branch branch two the completing After The right branch prioritizes the prioritizes branch The right ■ ■ and define the final evaluation. According According final define the evaluation. and (designer selection steps the previous to personality, their profile, considering selection project and ability, collaboration satisfaction), designers’ addressing brainstorm must manager a project designer errors candidate potential determine and shortcomings and/or Then, the impacts. error corresponding a personal severity, assigns manager project each occurrence for rank and detection, the FMEA (Failure on depending designer, methodology Analysis) Effect and Mode Beauregard and McDermott (Mikulak 2008). Calculating Priority the Risk 3) and designer collaboration level ( level designer collaboration 3) and Figure 2 and Figure 3) for different project project different 3) for Figure 2 and Figure final define the we Finally, combinations. designer. to multi-project the for risk manage can we processes, ( designers projects which the designer can satisfy which the designer can projects skill requirement. minimum the project’s can design projects for Skill requirement design, graphic Interface) be UI (User more. and design basics, design software, which multi-projects then prioritize We project satisfythe designer can different time follow. occupation combinations’ multi-projects we calculate the Afterwards, ( level satisfaction projects projects designers Calculating Calculating of the projects multi-projects to multi-projects level for different Defining the final in Figure 2 in Figure projects satisfaction projects combinations of the requirements in the requirements withh the mandatory the designer satisfied Calculating the multi- Calculating collaboration level for collaboration Selecting Projects that Selecting Projects different combinations different 4 5 Select projects to the designers Select projects End a group (APWG) a group Beginning Actors’ horizontal ability and and ability horizontal Actors’ ( ability collaboration and Figure 3). The horizontal ability ability horizontal 3). The Figure and (skill, creativity, factors overall means project impact which can availability), time delay. completion and quality of a person’s work in of a person’s Calculate the group’s Calculate (GAWT) and the ability ability to work together Figure 2 shows the whole process of of process the whole 2 shows Figure required as the needs,Describing such we process, making the decision help To ■ 3 Risk Management considering horizontal ability (skill, ability horizontal considering education, occupancy rate, availability, and analysis personality so on), and age, the design process for ability cooperation is objective The second factories. in future Finally, satisfaction. designers’ considering personal considering is objective the third effects. interdependent and resources. human precedes more, and time, skills, occupation branch left The processes. branch the two the right and projects, to designers allocates When designers. for selects projects branch the left along severalscheduling projects need identifying projects priority branch, allocation the human solve promptly, to a This allows this project. of problem candidate allocating manager, project the is which project understand to actors, project the that, After project. urgent most compatible project priority locates manager mandatory the project’s addressing actors, requirements. needs and their analysis: calculate and candidate designers Define the final evaluation - - - - - Yes - Input parameters to the candidate projects to Input parameters 6 projects If all the Allocate designers to the projects Allocate designers completed personality of view of the No Launch the project Look for compatible Look in a project portfolio in a project actors from the point actors from Identify the priority project Identify the priority 2 (concept of level”) “urgency Follow the progress of the progress the project Follow Define the total normalized value Whole process humanresources allocation and project selection Look for compatible Look collaboration abilities collaboration view of and horizontal actors from the point of actors from Due to flexible and frequent designer and frequent flexible Due to discussed Based the problems on The Project Management Triangle Triangle Management Project The 1 Figure 2. methodology collaboration and communication in communication and collaboration technical structures, organization future problems behavioral designers’ and issues depending other co-workers will affect Therefore, intricacy. the relationships’ on an becomes risk the human managing design future for condition essential success. process research of this objective the first above, human the multi-project approach to is while problem allocation resources fore, managers require additional attention attention additional require managers fore, collab combinations’ actors the different to ability. communication and oration nication and collaboration ability. There ability. collaboration and nication cient for a project’s success because it omits omits because it success a project’s for cient including; crucial dimensions success such members, team the project on impact other and satisfaction; project position as commu member team project positioned (Haughey 2011, Thorne 2016); quality of quality 2016); 2011, Thorne (Haughey budget, the project’s by constrained work manage scope; a project is deadlines, and model used analyze to constraints’ ment the triangle insuffi is However, projects. An efficient resource allocation problem’s problem’s allocation resource efficient An con a company for is important influence decisions’ investment the growing sidering (Francis the world around decentralization 2009). Pereira and Khurana Huang

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 18 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 19 - - Designer j WTSL 2 1 WTSL A. CRC Designer j

(12) Project Satisfaction Project (5) . ji ij F1 F2 2 ST + ST ij i ST W 4(1):5. | 25 21 j 11 2 1 16 22 23 12 13 14 15 24 . = – WTSL (ST) i SF1.2 SF1.3 SF1.4 SF1.5 SF1.6 SF2.1 SF2.2 SF2.3 SF2.4 SF2.5 SF1.1 WTSL 214 133 141 151 161 111 121 131 211 = |WTSL strength ofstrength relationship 221 231 241 251 Individual perception of Individual perception 212 i 213 132 19(2):161-186. ji ST WPSG SSF1.2.1 SSF1.3.1 SSF1.3.2 SSF1.3.3 SSF1.4.1 SSF1.5.1 SSF1.6.1 SSF2.1.1 SSF2.1.2 SSF2.1.3 SSF2.1.4 SSF2.2.1 SSF2.3.1 SSF2.4.1 SSF2.5.1 SSF1.1.1 i 4 WTSL Designer i (3) (4) 5 Actor 2 ) ab nm H b a 1(2):84-84. NY n) (PREWA (E– Actor 2 ba E n=1 SL Satisfaction of A2 to A1 2 NM m=n+1 (7) + ab SL Co-working projects Co-working Co-working duration Co-working NM–1 n=1 = ab Actor 3 A = T Satisfaction A2 to A1 s 161:105-115. . Indirect affected RPN affected Indirect Direct affected RPN affected Direct Interdependent effect Interdependent GAWT PREW 3 Actor 1 Actor 1 Reduced Personal RPN Personal 47(4):943-989. TPRPN + ∆TIRPN = ∆TPRPN ∆TRPN Neuroticism experience Openness to Openness strategy Ahmadi, R. S., C. Martin, H. Yeh, and E Papageorgiou. “Optimizing 2015. ERP Readiness Budgetary Under Improvements Constraints.” International Journal of ProductionEconomic Press. “Project Thorne, Triangle.”Management N. 2016. Nick’s Digital Solutions. http://www.nicksdigitalsolutions.com/project-management-triangle/ Levinthal, “Resource Allocation 2016. D. and Firm Boundaries.” Forthcoming, Jour nal Management. of Available SSRN: at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820691 Costa,McCrae, 2013.”Introduction to the R. T. Empirical Jr. R., and P. and Theoret ical Status the of Five-Factor Model Personality of T. A. Widiger In and T. Traits.” P. PersonalityCosta, (editors). Disorders and Jr. the Five-Factor Model Personality of American Psychological(15-27). Association. doi: 10.1037/13939-002. Mikulak, R. R. J., McDermott, and M. Beauregard. 2008. The BasicsFME of Osseiran, A., Elloumi, O. “Internet Things.” of IEEE Song, J. Monserrat. and F. J. 2017. Communications Standards Magazine Girard. B. Rose, “Modelling and 2007. P. Robin, V., Collaborative Knowledge to Support Engineering Design Project Computers Manager.” in Industry 58(2):188-198. Rosenman, M. A., and S. J. Gero. 1998. “Purpose and Function in Design: the From Socio Cultural Studies to the Design Techno-Physical.” Costa, P. T., and R. T., R.Costa, McCrae. 1992. P. “Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: assessment The PersonalityNEO Psychological Inventory.” Francis, R., J. S. Huang, I. K. Khurana, and R. Pereira. 2009. “Does Corporate Transparency Contribute to Efficient Resource Allocation?” Journal of Accounting Research “Understanding 2011. the D. Haughey, Project Management Constraint.” Triple Project Smart. https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/understanding-the-project-management- triple-constraint.php Risk response ■ ■ 5 4 3 2 1 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ REFERENCES ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ NEO PI-R Conscientiousness ¡ Agreeableness (240-item personality questionnaire) (240-item Extraversion 2 Actor 2 (6) (1) (2) | m Availability Occupancy rate – y m m) n Actor 3 Personal satisfaction Personal – | y Creativity Direct effect Direct AG Indirect effect Indirect (M N n=1 Interdependent Risk Interdependent M h=m+1 5 4 3 2 1 0 M–1 m=1 = M–1 m=1 TRPN = TPRPN + TIRPN = TPRPN TRPN Important parts of human resource allocation and project selection methodology TAVG Skill Education AG = Age Actor 1 Risk Management Process. Management ISO 31000:2009: Risk method. FMEA: A modern analysis risk numerical relationships. power indirect and direct of the consideration with between actors divergence and the convergence Analysis MACTOR: Although the methodology approaches the methodologyAlthough approaches Using this methodology, a project a project this methodology, Using 1 6 Experience Note. Average = Total TAVG Gap. AG= Average Gap of one property of the horizontal ability for the entire group. GAWT = Group’s Ability to Work = Pair Together. Experience Working Together Ability between actor and ‘a’ actor SLab ‘b’. = Satisfaction Level for actor to actor ‘a’ NYab = the ‘b’. number of years worked together between actor and ‘a’ actor Hab = the ‘b’. number of projects worked together between actor and ‘a’ actor NM = Number ‘b’. of Members in the group. . . . WTSL = Weighted Total Satisfaction Level for the designer. TRPN RPN. = Total TPRPN Personal = Total RPN. TIRPN interdependent = Total RPN. ΔTRPN = reducedTotal RPN. ΔTPRPN Personal = Total reduced RPN. ΔTIRPN reduced = Total Interdependent RPN. ST = Strength of social between two designers. relationship manager can approach the human resource resource the human approach can manager risk selection, and project allocation, factories, in future problem management design group the candidate especially for problem. communication and collaboration and limitations above, the problems is One limitation remain. difficulties designer measuring the method for is launches the company before abilities temporal the missing is Another projects. social and interaction compatibility actor analysis. life the project’s during evolution methodology ensure the cannot Therefore, stability, continued results’ the measuring degradation. or improvements, possible Number (RPN) defining the designer’s designer’s the defining (RPN) Number before, happens the design to process risk We can part. the treatment risk finally, the error a methodologypropose reducing if the remaining check and risk, actor we tolerable, the is risk If tolerable. is risk the launch and the organization complete Otherwise,project. manager the project its redefine and the actor, eliminate should organization. Figure 3. - c set t conf scrap (sec) t (min) n n (pieces) (pieces) Steel Corner ) ) 3 3 al V (m SM (m =1.726 J ; Mario loss 2 ) 3 al Ex V (m EXTRACTION loss ) 3 al V (m Exergy Loss Exergy (Ex ) ) 3 al =8.649 J

V (m loss Critical parameters to control defini control to Critical parameters tion. the at enters the aluminium Melting: state. the molten at exits and solid state the transfers a plunger Injection: to a chamber into aluminium molten the mould. into it inject aluminium the molten Moulding: cavity. mould solidifies in the ) 3 al Ex MOULDING V (m 3. Die casting is a metal casting process process a metal is casting Die casting 1. 2. 3. Stefano Cafagna, Cafagna, ; and Stefano 1

characterized by forcing molten metal molten forcing by characterized cavity. a mould into highunder pressure injection cycle aluminium die casting The phases: different four encompasses Parameters to measure according to according to measure Parameters analysis Exergetic (CPS) ENERGY ANALYSIS ENERGY flow Ideal - - - [email protected] ) 3 ) ) , al 3 3 l l V V (m (m V (m =4.375 J loss ) 3 al V INJECTION Ex (m Machine Parameters (PLC) Input/Output flow of the Process Master Italy Italy Master [email protected] Panetto ; Hervé ) ) 3 3 l al V (m V (m 1, 2, 3

Process Performance (MES) TING =1.320 J LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS LIFE CYCLE (LCA) Master Italy s.r.l, Conversano, Bari, Italy Conversano, s.r.l, Italy Master Mass balance Mass ) loss 3 ) 3 3 al MEL SM (m V (m Ex Split manufacturing process in differ process manufacturing Split Critical sub-system evaluating the ex evaluating Critical sub-system ent sub-systems. sub-systems. ent identification. ergy contribution loss Process energy inefficiency identification energy inefficiencyProcess identification and quantification. and LCA identifies the critical manufacturing criticalthe manufacturing identifies LCA The exergetic analysis allows: analysis exergetic The 1. 2. ■ PROCESS: DIE CASTING ALUMINUIM [Mass balance] Figure 1. process and the company’s critical product critical product the company’s and process and consumption resource of in terms process critical The line). (green pollutions re are, in analysis the critical product and spectively, die casting aluminium and steel steel and aluminium die casting spectively, 2). Figure 1 and (Figure corner ; Michele Dassisti, 2

- - - 3

[email protected] anufacturing enterprises are are enterprises anufacturing of array an facing presently industry challenges. 4.0 (I4.0) require requirements” “Digital

[email protected] Measuring Parameter definitions definitions Parameter Measuring Sensor Application execution. Measurement

Energy evaluation. usage The monitoring strategy is a hybrid strategyis a monitoring The quantifying tool analytical an is LCA is a thermodynam analysis exergetic The Structuring a monitoring strategy for for strategy a monitoring Structuring 1. 2. 3. analyse to the and present goalto is The small acces produces s.r.l. Italy Master ■ Department of Mechanics, Management & Mathematics (DMMM), Polytechnic of Bari, Bari, Italy; Bari, Italy; Bari, of Polytechnic (DMMM), & Mathematics Management Mechanics, of Department France; CNRS, CRAN, Nancy, de Lorraine, Université Lezoche, Lezoche, ic method (Bakshi, Gutowski, and Sekulic and ic method (Bakshi, Gutowski, permits: 2011) that approach combining Life cycle analysis cycle analysis Life combining approach (EA) based on analysis exergetic and (LCA) energy balance 1) and (Figure balance mass 2) evaluation. (Figure the to-and-from flows interpreting and the product’s, through environment cycle. life whole service’s or process’, elements of quantities appreciates LCA materials, (energy, processes in the flowing standard depends on it but more) and databases. sories for civil window frames and has has and frames civil window sories for strategy. a monitoring implemented industry 4.0 must contain: industry 4.0 must in a design for adopted strategy monitoring company Italian a real s.r.l.’s, Italy Master expertise in (SME) matter subject with digital transformation. tional and technological criticalities. technological and tional [email protected] 1 2 deep understanding and analysis accurate opera operations’ the manufacturing of Concetta Semeraro, Semeraro, Concetta s.r.l Case Study s.r.l 4.0: Industry A Monitoring StrategyA Monitoring for M

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 20 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 21 provides service support provides to Physical layer (PL): production production (PL): layer Physical equipment, human, including factors environment. and materials, data, production (DL): layer Data data, equipment data, tooling data, cost data, quality data, material data, environmental data, human base. the cyberforming layer’s which (NL): through layer Network can the cyber layer physical and critical is to It time. real communicate virtual entities’ and the physical build exchange. data for connection (CL): the physical Cyber layer The digital model. cyber layer layer’s with results simulated compares by represented information known equations. physical or mathematical different a set focuses of on It a physical represent to models and behaviour, structure, system’s monitored needing interactions Modelling Systems predicted. or the modelling is (SysML) Language physical, building for language models. parametric and behavioural, interrelated nine provides SysML types describediagram to function, system and behaviour, structure, while supporting requirements specification, models the systems’ By verification. and analysis, blocks as subsystems modelling properties, value as parameters and Diagram Definition the Block using an becomes (bdd), the behaviour action set the describe inputs to how particular, In outputs. into transform the models (stm) diagram the state an and states defining behaviour lifetime. its during events object’s change the states how simulates Stm external events. or based internal on models (par) diagram A parametric equations. constraint the exergetic or laws physical represent Constraints logical operators and mathematical input evaluate that decisions or a result. return to parameters user interface and Application layer: and management layer’s the physical It the cyber through layer. control expected as work thetries PL make to and regulation real-time through through high CL fidelity sustains calibration. model parameters The architecture proposed comprises five five comprises proposed architecture The 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. itself along the product constraints (Grieves (Grieves constraints theproduct along itself digital 2017). The is twin the Vickers and (Glaessgen digital mirror process’ physical 2012). Stargel and 2017, Ponomarev, Zhang and ( Tao layers Potekhin and Popelnukha, Kudryashov, 2017): - - -

- ITERATIVE OPTIMIZATION c - set t conf scrap (sec) t (min) n n (pieces) (pieces) Steel Corner 0 al T T (˚c) (˚c) ext el J) ( W =1.726 J loss al Ex (˚c) T EXTRACTION Digital twin el mol J) ( loss W Exergy Loss Exergy (Ex ) DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT DIGITAL m c (mm) al (˚c) T ) m (Pa p mo (˚c) T ) m (Pa CYBER- p =8.649 J PHYSICAL SYSTEMS (CPS) SYSTEMS loss al DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT DIGITAL (˚c) Ex T MOULDING 1 2 v v (mm /msec) (mm /msec) Data is an important element for mon for element important an is Data This way, operational, technological, and and technological, operational, way, This of models realistic to access requires It digitalDefining of the twinis a set 1 2 Parameters to measure according to according to measure Parameters analysis Exergetic (CPS) t t (msec) (msec) non-controllable areas. areas. non-controllable haviours, and manufacturing process con process manufacturing and haviours, update to time data real receives It strains. itoring and modelling complex systems. systems. complex modelling and itoring model assisting information contains Data predic and optimization, simulation, ling, Technologies’ Information New With tion. virtual data and physical developments, increased. fidelity and richness, volume, strategy integrates monitoring stage’s This sources, different fuses from data and and accurate extracting more and obtaining 3). (Figure data from useful information space the physical from data environmental in states predict and results simulate can the virtual space. models These state. current the process’ 3) (Rosen, digital typically twin (Figure are 2015). Bettenhausen and Lo, Wichert, Von be properties, physical emulating models Inj el J) ( 1 2 W ENERGY ANALYSIS ENERGY flow Ideal c c (mm) (mm) IN MES MODEL ) ) a1 a1 (manufacturing DATA STOREDDATA p p (Pa (Pa execution system) execution - DIGITAL TWIN DIGITAL - - 1 al T (˚c) (˚c) T =4.375 J loss IN PLC Machine Parameters (PLC) Input/Output flow of the Process al controller) (˚c) T INJECTION Ex DATA STOREDDATA (programmable logic (programmable REAL ENVIRONMENT REAL ), and heat heat Ex, W), and al (˚c) T Process Performance (MES) el mel TING J) ( =1.320 J W LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS LIFE CYCLE (LCA) REAL ENVIRONMENT REAL Energy balance Energy The digital twin digital The ) loss s 0 al T (˚c) p (Pa (˚c) T MEL ) input and output variation. variation. output and Ex, Q) input Die casting aluminium process Ex

Extraction: an ejection mechanism Extraction: ejection an mechanism the mould of out the casting pushes cavity. Exergy loss depends on material exergy material Exergy depends on loss OPTIMIZATION ITERATIVE 4. optimization strategy monitoring The PROCESS: DIE CASTING ALUMINUIM [Energy balance] DIE CASTING ALUMINUIM PROCESS: ), work exergy ( Ex, M), work Figure 2. Figure 3. ing process behaviour: it is thus necessary thus is it behaviour: process ing to classify the parameters identify and to and derived, the main, within monitor cy. Exergetic analysis application shows shows application analysis Exergetic cy. the 3) is (Subsystem phase the moulding because the exergy loss critical subsystem 1 (Figure subsystems other higheris than strategy monitoring first 2). The Figure and is 4.0 implementations, Industry for goal, and why what, where, defining selecting and rectangle). sensorize (red to ( exergy ( predict the exergy means loss Reducing ed entropy and this one is responsible for for responsible is this one and ed entropy efficien system the less-than-theoretical criterion requires minimizing Exloss minimizing , since requires criterion the generat to exergy proportional is loss . . 36:1–10 . 36:1–10 5:20418– . 125:240 . 14:1552–1556 doi:10.1016/j. . 14:1552–1556 . 48(3):567–572. 1818. 46(7):150–156. “Digital and M. Zhang. F., Tao, 2017. Shop-Floor:Twin A New Shop- Floor Paradigm Smart Towards Access IEEE Manufacturing.” 20427. Wichert,Rosen, R., G. G. Lo, Von and the Bettenhausen.K. D. “About 2015. Importance and Digital Autonomy of the for Twins Future Manufacturing.” of IFAC-Pap Glaessgen, E., and Stargel. D. “The 2012. Digital Paradigm Twin Future for NASA AIAA/ 53rd and Air US Vehicles.” Force ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 20th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 14th AIAA Grieves, M., and Vickers. J. 2017. “Digital Mitigating Twin: Unpredictable, Undesirable Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems.” Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems 85–113. Lee, E. J., Lapira, S. and Yang, A. Kao. Manufacturing “Predictive 2013. of Next-GenerationSystem-Trends Proc Production Systems.” IFAC K., N. Kudryashov,Ponomarev, N. Popelnukha, Potekhin. and 2017. V. “Main Principals and Issues Digital of DevelopmetTwin for Complex Technological Processes.” Paper presented the at Annals DAAAM of and Proceedings the of International 523–528. Symposium DAAAM ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ¡ PHYSICAL MODELS PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR MODELS BEHAVIOR RULE MODELS . Cambridge, doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6. Whitfield, R. I., A. H. B. Duffy,and Kortabarria. L. 2005. “Identifying and evaluating parallel design activities using the design structure matrix.” Sosa, M. E., and Eppinger, C. S. D. M. Rowles. 2003. “Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and Their Impact Design on Interactions.” Team Mech. J. Des doi:10.1115/1.1564074. A., Tischner. and 2006.Tukker, U. “Product-Services as a Research Field: Past, Present and Future. Reflections a from Decade Research.” of Clean. J. Prod jclepro.2006.01.022. S. L.,Vargo, and Lusch. R. F. 2008. “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing Acad. J. the Evolution.” Mark. Sci Parida,Wallin, and Isaksson. V. J., O. “Understanding 2015. Product-Service System Innovation Capabilities Development Manufacturingfor Companies.” Journal Manufacturing of doi:10.1108/jmtm-05- Technology Management. 26:763-787 2013-0055. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CYBER LAYER (CL) LAYER CYBER DIGITAL MIRROR DIGITAL - . - (Systems modelling (Systems language) SYSML RHAPSODY IBM,

-

. 59: . 59: - REAL TIME DATA TRANSMISSION DATA TIME REAL Simulating future behaviour – The – The behaviour future Simulating digital twin virtually can simulate plan to processes manufacturing reconfiguration system and process external changes. to in response – validation and Optimization the system’s optimize and Validate and simulation using operation feedback. sensor real-time . 23:371–388 . 23:371–388 . 15:135–152 • • . 29:468–493 Bakshi, B.R., G. Gutowski, T. and P. D. Sekulic. Thermodynamics 2011. and the Destruction Resources of England: Cambridge University Press. REFERENCES ■ NETWORK LAYER (NL) LAYER NETWORK - INTERFACES Manuf. Technol PROTOCOL AND PROTOCOL COMMUNICATION – 3 3 3 ...... = 1 = 0 s c = 4 m = 22 Pa = 20º C n = 30 m = 210 Pa = 675º C n 1 = 685º C Quality 0 16 0 = 43 sec 1 = 220 min al m c al V T T p Production Parameters t T V p SM = 26 m set Environment Performances Performances t

Machine Parameters Machine Parameters

DATA LAYER (DL) LAYER DATA REAL TIME DATA ACQUISITION DATA TIME REAL APPLICATION LAYER and USER INTERFACE LAYER (AUL) LAYER and USER INTERFACE LAYER APPLICATION 100 1 1 < . 45:6–28 http://cc10.aubg.bg/students/MCA100/ 250 35 35 690 < 30 690 < 210 10 43 3 22 < < < < continued from page from continued < < < < < < < ) ) ) ) 3 ) 3 3 m (Pa (Pa (ºC) (m (m (ºC) (ºC) (sec) (min) l 0 m 1 0 t al al c (mm) ) (pieces ) (pieces p t V se p T T s T c m V SM( t c < < < n n < < < (mm/msec) < 2< 0< 2 < < 12 30 v 1< 15 The architecture monitoring for strategy 0 0 30 27< 180 65 Remote monitoring – The digital – The twin monitoring Remote Geometry digital – The assurance design the correct twin accelerates developing. product systems, interconnected large allows systems, manufacturing as such which visibility remote operational and systems virtualallows monitoring systems’ the production of validation and (energy monitoring status current monitoring). fault – Digital twin analytics Predictive predict can prediction state future manufacturing in problems and errors therefore they occur, before facilities and failures, downtime, preventing more. 650 < . 23:242–266 doi:10.2307/259373. . 180 70 • • • PHYSICAL LAYER (PL) LAYER PHYSICAL PHYSICAL PROCESS PHYSICAL The proposed architecture applies to man to applies architecture proposed The doi:10.1108/01443570910953595. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2004.07.009. Sachs, S., Post, J. and L. Preston. 2002. “Managing the Extended Enterprise:New Calif. The Stakeholder View.” Manage. Rev Strat_Man/post-al-managing-extended-entreprise_einwiller.pdf Pawar, K. S.,Pawar, A. Beltagui, and C. J. K. H. Riedel. 2009. “The PSO Triangle: Designing Product, Service and Organisa Prod. Int. Oper. J. tion Manag to Create Value.” Petersen, K. R. J., B. Handfield, and G. L. Ragatz. 2005. “Sup plier Integration Into New Product: Coordinating Product, Process and Chain Supply Design.” Manag Oper. J. Mohr, J., and J., R.Mohr, Spekman. 1994. “Characteristics Partner of ship Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication, and ConflictTechniques.” J Manag. Strateg. Resolution doi:10.1002/smj.4250150205. Nahapiet, and J., S. Ghoshal. 1998. “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage.” Acad. Manag. Rev uct-Service CIRP Systems-IPS2.” Ann. Meier, H., R. Roy, and “Industrial H., G. R. Seliger. 2010. Roy, Meier, Prod 607–627 doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2010.05.004. 607–627 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Harrat et al. Harrat ■ ufacturing process for (Lee, Lapira, Yang, Yang, (Lee, Lapira, for process ufacturing 2013): Kao and Fig. 4.

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 22 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 23 - - These considerations are good solutions good are solutions These considerations crease of complexity and multidisciplinary multidisciplinary and complexity of crease propose et al., Smaoui Thus, engineering. commu facilitate may approach MBSE an conception in the AV involved nications Manufacturers the design phase. during improve systems complex realize already Systems Model-Based using when jointly more, other architectures explicitly include include explicitly architectures other more, aspect safety (Thorn, modules dedicated after Chaka 2018). Finally, and Kimmel, examination architecture AV different Zöllner, Kuhnt, Tas, the comparison, and main some Stiller outlined (2016) and architecture, distributed characteristics: redundant systems, monitoring included observing sensors complementary and environment, surrounding the vehicle’s uncertainty, information sensor considered for controller from feedback incorporated module and separation planning, motion function software predicted redundancy, sensor map map-based and degradation, status. the system’s know to information they However, AV. a safe develop to made asthe in such difficulties other engender - - - - Thus to guarantee the vehicle is safe and and is safe vehicle the to guarantee Thus In the autonomous vehicle engineering engineering vehicle the autonomous In manufac the responsibility manage To aligned with the ISO 26262 automotive aligned the ISO 26262 automotive with the elec focus on manufacturers standard, turers, investigate many solutions. One One solutions. many investigate turers, functional optimized the AVs addresses (2017) et al. Ulbrich definition. architecture charac architecture a modular proposed hierarchical a functional and terized by in blocks included different of separation (2015) also Maurer and Matthaei the AV. they used but modularity incorporated human covering: approach down a top accomplishment, aspects, mission operated and environmental localization, data, map Further cooperation. and self-perception, trical and electronic malfunctions which malfunctions trical electronic and occur. can safety 2013), vehicle (Hellestran context become certifications and demonstrations responsibility control vehicle critical. The to in part (according or totally back comes who the manufacturer, to level) autonomy at performance safety demonstrate must control. human equalleast to - - - -

een as the technological solution, solution, een the technological as arrival and vehicles’ the automated problems: several address benefits saved lives regarding benefit safety  ABSTRACT faces It functional safety. the vehicle’s which ensures issue, validation safety the classical to itself limit cannot engineering AVs some presents types. these This paper new of vehicle thein functionalguarantee performace challenge, validation newa safety questions. important with some concludes and reflections issue validation

Traditional engineering (manual vehicle) (manual engineering Traditional sibility to the driver. Safety requirement requirement Safety the driver. to sibility demonstrating of consists thus validation critical generate cannot failures vehicle events. hazardous trol guarantor, bares the driving responsi the driving bares guarantor, trol importance. bility the road consider do not manufacturers vehicles, (other deviations user behavioral encounter. can pedestrians.) the vehicle this respon transfer manufacturers Instead tion). This classification means, the more more the means, classification This tion). the less level, the Automation advanced words, other In driver. the human involved con the vehicle as vehicle, the automated INTRODUCTION Eric Levrat, eric.levrat@ ; Eric Levrat, [email protected] ; Eric Bonjour, [email protected] Koné, Florence Tchoya [email protected] Géronimi, ; and Stéphane [email protected] Mayer, ; Frédérique univ-lorraine.fr

Performance Limitations Validationof Functional (AVs) Engineering:(AVs) Safety AutonomousVehicles Challenges for

or injury reduction, economic and societal and economic reduction, injury or convenience, and efficiency traffic benefit, (NHTSA 2005) improvement. mobility and deployment, this technology’s manage To (SAE) Engineers the Society Automotive of 0 (No level levels: Automation defined six Automa 5 (Full level to Automation) S ------Due to AV complexity, previous experi previous complexity, AV Due to to due approaches, previous to Added combinatorial situation’s chaotic The The first identification strategy con strategy identification first The cerns experience use. This approach aids aids approach experiencecerns This use. from starting in avoiding manufacturers driving previous ideauses The scratch. function based experiences, ADAS like to systems, driving manual or systems Driver scenario list. identify a relevant they this list, inform complete can returns misuses or events about the manufacturers accident way, the same In driving. during critical identifying for helpful are databases AV. for be a challenge may that situations all depict scenarios; manufac cannot ences strategy One strategies. need other turers uses collectto specific information driving one, specificAnother scenarios. target and imple AV expert to on knowledge refers governments Note technologies. mented defining and regulations revising busy are to follow must manufacturers procedures identify and their AVs, deploy and validate test. need to scenarios manufacturers ing AV ac AVs, all the difficulties in validating collaborate suppliers) and (customers tors common define and knowledge share to scenarios. generic completeness test physical makes explosion an experimental in conceive to difficult becomes 2014). It Paddock and (Kalra way critical of the universe necessary explore to by and strategies, other with situations the numerous Generating simulation. to difficult cases simulation makes test De Souza, Fayolle, Vallée, use (Raffaëlli, and Pétrot, Géronimi, Rouah, Pfeiffer, the most remains it Ahiad 2016). However, given this obvious is method and promising carrying ofout experiments, the difficulty handle To especially areas. in urban as n, generatio and scenario identification simulation- by validation the AV as well address must based method, manufacturers define they must particular Firstly, issues. and it, composes what a scenario is, what combinatorial From model it. to how He and Hu, Gao, Duan, approaches(Xia, (Geng, approaches ontology-based 2018) to 2017; Huang and He, Zhao, Yu, Liang, 2017; Geyer, Maurer and Bagschik, Menzel, Kienle, Kauer, Hakuli, Franz, Baltzer, of the concept 2013) through et al. Meier, 2016) Sax and (Bach, Otten, maneuvers Xia, (Hallerbach, approach simulation and 2018), methods are Koester and Eberle, this issue. to answers bring to multiplying encounters AV an the situations Secondly, unpredictable scenarios are driving during explosion, their combinatorial to due and a finite generate need to Industrials profile (a mission sample situation class situation different containing each evaluate to use it and representations) - - - - The ISO 26262 standard does not doesnot standard 26262 ISO The Assis Driver the Advanced However, Preliminary versions of this future this future of versions Preliminary The last version of the PAS 21448 (2019) PAS of the version last The performance limitations may occur (even if may limitations performance electrical free electronic from is or the AV failures). so they mitigation, limitation recommend standard a complementary developing are called SOTIF. SAFETY VALIDATION OF THE RESPECTING AV PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS al methods insufficient or obsolete forthe obsolete or al methods insufficient validation. ADAS the under available are standard Available 21448 (Publicly PAS name: reference 21448). This Specification the26262 ISO to a complement provides functional performance AV on focusing by specificcharacteristics targets It safety. algorithm complex sensing, as such dysfunctions actuation and processing, function performance desired linked to road situations, different In limitations. the studies it events, unpredictable with influence behavioral embedded systems’ purpose reducing is SOTIF’s safety. AV on showing scenarios and dangerous known dangerous unknown to due risk residual actual The future acceptable. scenarios is emergency focuses on edition reference’s braking (emergency systems intervention Assistance Driver Advanced and systems) higher to progress can but (ADAS), Systems measures additional with levels automation 21448 2019). (ISO/PAS tance Systems (ADAS) introduced this introduced (ADAS) Systems tance systems the first are ADAS need. standard’s pro driving the autonomous initiated that and 1 levels automation to ject. They belong Their the SAE classification. to 2, according user protec usefulness, road especially for attracted quickly comfort, driver and tion importance Utility interest. increased reliable, be robust, these systems required safety vehicle general the affecting not responsibility thewhich manufacturer’s is De Rouah, Souza, Fayolle, Vallée, (Raffaëlli, Ahiadand 2016). Pétrot, Géronimi, Pfeiffer, systems detection on relying Unfortunately, identified parameters the numerous and convention proves profile a mission during proposed some combinable methods to methods to combinable some proposed validation and the specification with help approaches, the proposed activities. Among condition environmental find can we use cases(ISO/ operational and analysis real will face many 21448 2019). AVs PAS condition environmental to due situations, conditions, traffic to related variations, users’ road other or infrastructure, weather, predict to difficult is it Since behavior. must manufacturers all these situations, new approaches. consider ------This short article will present some some article present willshort This One challenge is the difficulty defining the difficulty is defining challenge One Beyond the functional architecture, the Beyond the functional architecture, To assign the AV the ability to perform perform to the ability the AV assign To cal and/or electronic (E/E) architecture (E/E) architecture electronic cal and/or These embeddedtechnologies implements. Although, to specify. difficult new and are the electrical malfunctions electronic and vehicle’s affect the which can face, they may functional fall automotive under safety, scope: ISO 26262, some standard safety tion systems, communication systems, and and systems, communication systems, tion which electri systems, control intelligent THE SAFETY THE INTENDED THE OF STANDARD FUNCTIONALITY (SOTIF) reflections about these questions. these about reflections ard looking for? How do manufacturers do manufacturers How for? looking ard its regarding validation safety AV perform limitations? performance potential ment, and make decisions. The observable The decisions. make and ment, performance AV to due breaches, safety these when facing situations limitations, Of the Safety a new under standard: are ISO/PAS (SOTIF)( Functionality Intended stand is this what 21448 2019). Therefore, ing to Koné, Bonjour, Levrat, Mayer, and and Levrat, Mayer, Bonjour, Koné, to ing pro validation (2019), the safety Géronimi ensuring manufacturers include must cess detect their correctly surrounding can AVs distant or detect nearby environment, they will that perform ensure objects, and or conditions in poorsuccessfully weather This configurations. degraded environment awareness verifying their situational means misuse), foreseeable without or (with ability environ they dynamic react to the ways the environment and considering it a po it considering and the environment per the AVs for behavior chaotic tentially This modules. interpretation and ception requiring thus basis, a situation occurs on the co-driver request either to the AV time strategy real develop or control, (according constraints therespecting safety the safety Thus, level). the Autonomy to some consider must process validation occurring even if limitations performance electrical free electronic from is or the AV Accord AVs safety. the affecting failures lanés and Haver 2015) which are automated automated which 2015) are Haver and lanés function parts. AV faces issues. Emerging studies focus studies Emerging issues. faces AV safety specifictechnology-related on Assistance Driver (Advanced ADAS like Mi Onieva Villagrá Pérez Systems)(Godoy Engineering (MBSE) and Model-Based Model-Based and (MBSE) Engineering this logic With (MBSA). Assessment Safety Levrat, Deniaud, Mauborgne, in mind, Loise propose (2016) and Micaëlli, Bonjour, vehicle-level) high-levelof (or a definition (called in goals safety requirements safety ISO 26262) based a model-based on safe process. engineering systems its driving task, manufacturers use specific manufacturers task, driving its localiza and sensors as such technologies

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 24 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 25 - . ¡

63(3):155- . 87:256-268. Department of – . . AccessedSeptember 20, 2005.

. Future work will help address the identi address will help work Future a simulation architecture able to handle handle to able architecture a simulation the while managing scenario generation based evaluating, by validation safety AV the AV scenario results, the simulated on level? safety question. central and this fiedissues doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.04.011. Raffaëlli,Vallée,P. De Souza,F. Fayolle,G. L., Rouah,X. M. Pfeiffer, S. Géronimi,Pétrot,F. and S. Ahiad.“Facing 2016. ValidationADAS Complexity with Usage Oriented Testing.” http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07849 ERTS. Model Based “A EU-TP1606. *Smaoui, 2018. A.C., Liu F. and F. System Engineering Methodology an Driving for Autonomous System Design.” 17-21. Kuhnt, Ö.S.,Tas, F. J.M. Zöllner, and C. Stiller. 2016. “Functional System Architectures Fully Towards Automated IEEE IntelligentDriving.” Symposium 2016 Vehicles (IV). doi:10.1109/IVS.2016.7535402. Thorn, E., S. Kimmel, M. Chaka. DOT 2018. Transportation. A Framework Driving Automated for System Scenarios. and Cases Testable Ulbrich, S., A. Reschka, Rieken, J. S. Ernst, G. Bagschik, F. a Functional “Towards Dierkes, M. Nolte, and 2017. M Maurer. System Architecture 1-16 Vehicles.” Automated for http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08557 Scenario “Test Xia, He. 2018. Duan, J. Hu, and Q., Gao, Q. Y. F. Design Intelligent for Driving doi:10.1007/s12239 System.” *Koné, T. F., E. E. Bonjour, Levrat, F., and S. Géronimi. T. Mayer, *Koné, F. “Safety2019. Demonstration A Vehicles: Autonomous of Review and Future Research Questions.” CSDM drivingMatthaei, R., - A “Autonomous andM. 2015. Maurer. top-down-approach.” At-Automatisierungstechnik S. Deniaud,Mauborgne, E. P., Levrat, E. J.P. Bonjour, Micaëlli, and Loise. “OperationalD. 2016. and System Hazard Analysis in a Safe Systems Requirement Engineering Process - Application to Automotive Industry.” Sci Saf Issue Road Vehicles Self*NHTSA. Driving.” 2005. “Automated https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated- vehicles-issue-road-self-driving 167. doi:10.1515/auto-2014-1136. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . 30(3):253- performance limitations. We first first We limitations. performance (SOTIF) reference the future presented Then, limitations. such which addressed approach possible one explored we validation the AV handle to recommended limitations, these performance regarding which need issues, existing with ending the simulation- complete to investigating one However, approach. based validation set to up how remains: question central Safety the of – . , Proceedings 599-605. . doi:10.7249/RR1478. 8(3):183-189. doi:10.1049/iet-its.2012.0188. We addressed the AV safety validation validation safety the AV addressed We intended functionality. ISO (International Organization Standardization)/PAS. for Road vehicles 21448:2019. ISO/PAS 2019. Kalra, N., and S.M. Paddock. “Driving 2014. RAND to Safety.” Corp Hellestrand, G.R. “Engineering 2013. Safe Mobile Autonomous Systems Systems of Using Specification (Model) Based Systems SysCon – 7th 2013 Annual Engineering.” and Architecture IEEE International Systems Conference 263. doi:10.3846/16484142.2014.1003406. 263. Hallerbach, Xia, Eberle, S., Koester. 2018. Y. and U. F. “Simulation-Based Identificationof Critical Scenarios for doi:10.4271/2018- Cooperative 1-12. and Vehicles.” Automated 01-1066. doi:10.1109/SysCon.2013.6549944. Godoy, J., J. Pérez, J. J., E.Godoy, Onieva, Villagrá, J. Milanés, V. and Driverless Demonstration Vehicle on “A R. 2015. Haber. Motorways and in Urban Environments.” Transport Geyer, S.,Geyer, M. Kienle, B. Franz, S. Hakuli, M. Kienle, M. Kauer, et al. “ConceptS. and Meier, a Unified of 2013. Development Ontology Generating for and Use-Case Test Catalogues for Assisted Guidance.” and IET Vehicle Automated Intell Transp Syst Geng, Zhao, X., H. L. Liang, He, and P. R Huang. B. Yu, 2017. Scenario-Adaptive“A Driving Behavior Prediction Approach Driving.”to Urban Autonomous Appl Sci 7(4):426. doi:10.3390/ app7040426. Bagschik, “Ontology Menzel, G., and T. M. 2017. Maurer. Based Scene Creation the for Automated of Development http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01006 Vehicles.” Bach, S. J., Otten, and E. Sax. “Model Based 2016. Scenario SpecificationTestAutomated of Driving for Development and Functions.” Symp IEEE Proc 1149-1155. Intell Veh doi:10.1109/ IVS.2016.7535534. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ REFERENCES CONCLUSION situation class’ safety. Finally, each situation each situation Finally, safety. class’ situation its influencing uncertainty contains class we alsoneed Therefore, assessments. safety compose and model the uncertainties to the in a metric representing evaluations AV safety. by level granted confidence challenge focusing on its potential potential its on focusing challenge

- - - - [email protected] languages at different abstraction levels for for levels abstraction different at languages engineers purposes. Consequently, different understanding, sharing, difficulties have a reach To models. others’ questioning or all these views, for understanding common all cycle (design/pro the life consider if we duction/operation/decommissioning), it is is it duction/operation/decommissioning), modeling a common through inconceivable to too become complex would (it language Such dimensions). all problem represent of hundreds or dozens involves modeling direct any Additionally, model designs. inconceivable. is model comparison subset to compare means propose we Therefore, given particular (views)models at tasks for enterprise by directed points exchange decision facilitating processes, reference the development along agreements point practices. enterprise to cycle according Antoine Rauzy, and Antoine Rauzy, - -

- - ; [email protected] Theoretically, these interactions should should these interactions Theoretically, Agnès Lanusse, face the growing industrial complexity, the complexity, industrial face the growing (mechanic, disciplines engineering different thermic, software, electric electronic, and they virtualize their contents, architecture) these are models design However, models. it and specificto viewpoints generally their collabo support to them share to difficult is tions (models). These models come from from models These come (models). tions different with working teams different rative analysis and solution emergence. This This emergence. solution and analysis rative new collabora provide to urgent is it why is opportunities interaction methods and tive to establish fields engineering various for earli consistencies and goals on agreement cycle. the development along er and understanding, system a common on rely generally engineers discipline different but representa system different on reason - - - - - Models Synchronization, Integration in multi-disciplinary processes, Model-Based Safety Assessment, Model- Assessment, Safety Model-Based processes, in multi-disciplinary Integration Synchronization, Models

n a moving world where innovation innovation where world n a moving prog constantly new technologies and coming constraints where and ress, solici grow; engineers’ standards from  KEYWORDS:  ABSTRACT complex for demands to ill-adapted silos” in “disciplinary organization classical making industry faces newModern challenges com manage can Organization” in a “Multidisciplinary communication inter-team promoting advocate We systems. evolving and In emergence. solution early favors and issues, complex more to solutions offers discovery, problem early better: allows plexity it fields engineering various integrate methods to and processes new collaborative requires organization such to deed the transition meth and modeling adapted set-up to approach a collaborative propose we this paper, In cycle. the development along and earlier modeling related and Engineering Systems Model-Based for interest the rising leverages It odological in the practices enterprise. This collaboration. their support to synchronization model engineeringdiscipline different to approach new a offer to technologies viewpoints methods, and applied processes, several applied (under viewpoints), context system the studied considers approach between particular two system fields: framework engineering collaboration a creating by it illustrate We engineers. by produced stages. life cycle different at analysis safety applicative avionics design and architecture driven engineering, Systems engineering. Systems engineering, driven Moreover, with a classical organization organization a classical with Moreover, cation prevent early solution emergence. emergence. solution early prevent cation to their limits reach practices Such complexity system control and manage to Therefore, management. project and ment cycle stages, without providing them providing without cycle stages, ment sources, information accurate or reliable assessment. specific context needed for discovered in disciplinary silos,problems experts communi and lacking too late tation to assess new propos critical assess system to tation in safety als (particularly new architectures) increasingly becomes terms performance design choice fast for Demands important. develop upstream from comes feedback INTRODUCTION ; [email protected] Legendre, Anthony Models and Risk Analysis Risk and Models between System Architecture Architecture System between of Model Synchronization Dependability: Methodology System Engineering and I

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 28 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 29 - - - - No Yes PSSA RAMS/ Sys CCA To Items To + Sys FHA Sys + From Aircraft From identification requirements identification requirements Previous Consistency Validation Evolves into FCs Safety Context View2’ Context & Context Verification architecture View2 decomposition Context & Context Failure Conditions Failure (FCs) identification Functional (logical) Functional 1 We identify synchronization points as as points identify synchronization We ison and traceability rules. These concepts rules. traceability These concepts and ison information, permit experts share to and agreements, reach changes, propose consider we If rationale. and trace decisions we model federation, like approaches, other an informa defining simply not by differ process a define we but map, exchange tion a (or agreement an reach to dedicated rationale). the related and non-agreement Concepts and mechanisms ( Legendre ( Legendre mechanisms and Concepts 2017) Rauzy and Lanusse (2 in the example severaling disciplines the characterize we each one, In addressed). specifyartefacts used and the exchanges’ and nature, goal, information related and the will provide information Such scope. this ex to dedicated model core abstracted in shown as participant), each (for change compar we define dedicated Then 1. figure exchange and/or decision stages involv stages decision and/or exchange RAMS / Safety Context RAMS / Abstraction Inconsistency - Event tree Event Functional - Table FHHA Table - - - Concretization system structure 1 Comparison View2 1: Abstract � Need of Chosen Functions Pivot consistency exchanges n exchanges MetaModel Conforms to Conforms Compromise(s) 1 they need decisions. The local The they need decisions. Comparison Results Comparison 1 View1 Abstract The current processes guide synchroni processes The current The approach is to is see a synchroniza approach The ment, change requests, and related ratio related and requests, change ment, en provide we engineers, support nale). To mechanisms. gineer specialized comparison coincides point synchronization each Thus, mechanisms comparison dedicated with used where after obtained generally is synchronization (traced). iterations several expert exchange whileobserved identification point zation specific domain by or the enterprise by improve to wants if the company standards (ISO compliance standard international its 632 or 61508, ARP 4761, ISO 15 288, EIA IEE 1220). Main principles Main point a synchronization as process tion engineers both disciplines’ where sequence (agree decisions model alignment make of the chosen compromise Concretization diagram diagram diagram Composite Internal block Block definition 1. of Evolution one of at least 2. the views 1. of the consistency of (Bis) Validation the views - Concretization If not Abstraction Consistency View1 Context & Context Allocation of use cases and functions Internal system design Functional decomposition into View1’ Context & Context Evolves Verification Iterative method for applying models synchronization method for applying Iterative Yes Validation Synchronizing models: an Iterative method 1) a conceptual framework for for framework 1) a conceptual Synchronisation point between architecture system and safety analysis contexts Design Previous Functional No To Physical To the validity of points synchronisation built by previous consistency relationships Verifying 1. of Abstraction system views 2. of Comparison of views and elements abstracted the system 3. 4. one inconsistency is observed then: least at If, Architectural Consistency system analysis From operational From System context Architecture Architecture system context Architecture Architectural Design Architectural The approach proposed is twofold. It is twofold. proposed approach The Figure 2. Figure 1. nization enactment in the enterprise along along in the enterprise enactment nization process. the development TOWARDS A NEW PROCESS BASED MODELS PARADIGMSYNCHRONIZATION This results in a model synchronization model in a synchronization results This mechanisms. methodology dedicated and a motivating as consider, we this paper, In particular two fields’ engineering example, in a roles major playing exchanges possible cycle: system development critical system In analysis. safety design and architecture its the method and present we the following implementation. model comparison and synchronization synchronization and model comparison 2) a methodology model synchro and for proposes: ------¡ continued on page 33 on page continued > These works bring answer elements elements answer bring works These To reduce these field gaps, two main main two these gaps, field reduce To Models serve as communication sup serveModels communication as el synchronization enactment alongside alongside enactment synchronization el the enterprise. within processes existing in an within practical implementation Its is form instrumented in an context dustrial act can as the principles but still a challenge methodological while guidelines progress through instrumentation the process’ ing stage points. early significant cess between the system architecture and and architecture betweencess the system aeronautical based an on analysis safety by conducted experimentation casestudy’s specialisttwo teams. tooling, severalon scales: conceptual, However, techniques. operational and driven co-conception to: contribute few interaction an integrating approaches, cycle, the development throughout process method. a model-basedor interaction (2016) Bouffaron’s Fabien cite can We the co-specification on work important models. system-based executable CONCLUSION software or ports, statements, calculation to link the They alsostrongly generations. processes. by activities implied of nature describedwork facilitat in The this paper methodological proposal adaptive ed an con and organizing, defining, of capable interactions the multidisciplinary ducting model consistency maintain to required the throughout system the same describing a defining required This cycle. development the mod support to framework conceptual tion from annotated systems engineering engineering systems annotated from tion Papadopoulos (Bozzano NuSMV, models modeling level 2) Higher Hip-Hops); with Based RAMS aspects Model of to leading and MBSE (MBSA) and Analysis Safety + informa MBSA model transformation researchers thiscontext, In exchange. tion the mul address to several clues explored A con problems. tidisciplinary interaction Mauborgne P. by model proposed ceptual used during (2016) enriched the concepts the consider activities to architect system aspects provided qualitative dysfunctional am removed This engineers. the safety by these used two the terms by about biguities federation, The model fields. engineering Beugnard, Koudri, Guerin, (Guychard, a tooled technique 2013) is Dagnat and relations, strict consistency ensure to creation. view intersectoral and traceability Saez, (Prosvirnova, project Seguin,MOISE Exupéry Saint IRT 2017), Virelizier and pro a collaborative proposes (Toulouse), and Safety) study isolation from different different from isolation study Safety) and methodologicaltechnical cultures. and in the developed last directions research artefacts genera decade: 1) automatic - - - points, – Definition of synchronization – Definition of traceability. 2. context disciplines Definition of the methods, views of disciplines, methods, – Declaration of processes, activities, of– Declaration processes, – Identification of– Identification needs. interaction 3. Models 3. To understand each discipline’s each discipline’s understand To the system’s throughout processes integrate Mainly, cycle. development a global vision, into the local visions particularly work. industrial 3 decline the and define precisely To in mechanisms model synchronization a particular context. industrial a conceptual framework, which brings which brings framework, a conceptual the model to concepts all the required synchronization; methodology, iterative an for a proposal frameworks architectural by inspired model TOGAF as apply 9.1, to such in a specific industrial synchronizations 3); (Figure context technical feasibility of Demonstrations a concrete on application and in tooling casestudy. configuration synchronisation This work resulted in: resulted work This pragmat is both approach proposed The This work is in the continuity of recent recent of is in continuity the work This ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ RELATED WORK ic and original. It required raising several raising required It original. ic and technological and scientific important locks: and then applied at several development several development at then applied and gained reflect information the cycle stages 57 coher model synchronization: during 27 inconsistencies and drawn relations ence inconsis 8 corrected (including identified the engineers). by 19 assumed and tencies approach the showed experimentation This dialogue. formalized and targeted brings research directions targeting multi- targeting directions research design. We disciplinary co-operative particularly the domain more explored trying interaction to MBSE-MBSA of RAMS and engineering systems overcome Maintainability, Availability, (Reliability, 1. - - context ------Synchronisation 4. Applying synchronisation 5. tracking Consistency Projects – Flow of disciplines of between the exchanges engineering, traceability. concretizations, comparisons, of– Execution abstractions, Global model synchronization methodology synchronization model Global Model synchronisation methodology synchronisation Model stakeholders – Define new objectives, limits of limits – Define new objectives, argumentation ofargumentation the evolutions of the architecture Through this iterative cycle we determine we determine cycle iterative this Through A representative case study from the from case study A representative The approach described imposes the approach The The synchronization mechanism itself mechanism synchronization The – Provide a history and – Provide Figure 3. RESULTS is system studied The ed the methodology. a fighting onboard system detection a fire in detectevents fire to assigned helicopter Five helicopter. in the specificareas three dimensioned moments synchronization el synchronization mechanisms. synchronization el pline and characterize artefacts used. Then characterize and pline the different from identify which steps we the which leads to interact; must processes . From exchange for of needs identification mod configure we exchange for these needs the involved processes steps for each disci each for steps processes the involved work uses process modeling and definition definition and modeling uses process work OMG ISO 42010 and as such standards, describe and model processes to BPMN, views. related text. This is why we defined a methodologywe defined a is This why text. 3 illus Figure the approach. implement to a change the methodologytrates following TOGAF. by inspired process management analysis process Based the enterprise’s on method), frame iterative an propose (we Methodology enactment Methodology cretization step allowing improved proposals proposals improved allowing step cretization the from in the coming original models, the 2 illustrates Figure results. comparison principle. model synchronization els considered. Second, a system knowledge knowledge a system Second, considered. els the abstractions by caught step comparison a con Third, the consistency. edit setto or defense and aeronautics sectors implement sectors aeronautics and defense accompanying process definition to help help to definition process accompanying their particular to it con adapt engineers follows three-steps. First, abstraction step to step abstraction First, three-steps. follows the mod from information extract relevant

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 30 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 31

a D&D project requires considering the considering requires a D&D project businesses and stakeholders variety of nuclear physics, nuclear involved: nuclear robotics, mechanics, chemistry, science, computer instrumentation, they express could Indeed, more. and their to relating requirements various other to relating field while knowledge collaborative the improves This fields. meet to Moreover, exchanges. and work life the D&D project the requirements, from data of amount a large cycle manages needs and several detail levels, different deliverables, different and documents several skills businesses from involving 2013). Their 2012) (IAEA (OECD-NEA are updating and provisioning, creation, Jean-François Milot, ; Jean-François [email protected] the many stakeholders involved, and and involved, stakeholders the many responsibilities and roles their various interactions varied element the many of data, amount the significant handle to knowledge and information, based a on the strict requirements culture risk strong require that evolutions the project adaptability. and model flexibility Firstly, incidents during a nuclear a nuclear during incidents Firstly, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ facility’s lengthy operation phase may may phase operation lengthy facility’s facility. the or impacted modified have and know thus should D&D projects design during these changes consider ensuring on focusing performance, and designing addition, all times. In at safety - - oday, nuclear facilities of various various of facilities nuclear oday, their Dis reaching types are Decommissioning and mantling pay must Managers (D&D) phase.

 ABSTRACT many activities’ various requiring operations, complex involves facilities nuclear (D&D) of Decommissioning and Dismantling and Energies Alternative (French The CEA constraints. significant numerous address must and collaborate, to stakeholders and timeframes, and their costs reduce these operations, pilot better to research conducting is Energy Commission), Atomic method a with of in theform implementing, and studying to leading remain, issues many However, performance. overall improve and specifies formalizes method This engineering. first systems and project complex and principles systemic tools, appropriate structure, to team the method the project will enable based these Second, requirements, on set consider. to requirement the entire Lastly, viewpoints. organizational both and the technological from feasibility and coherence the project’s demonstrate and check, D&D the possible on depending re-evaluation, management product and D&D strategy permit a constant the method should and future design,the for requested the functionalities provide to aims software demonstration Developing evolution. project being Mock-Up Digital project D&D a complete provide should which maintenance, and implementation software enterprise systems. information the stakeholders’ of databases and the tools to connected and interoperable the many activities D&D operations activities D&D operations the many require

D&D meets numerous complexity fac complexity D&D meets numerous ■ [email protected] Moitrier, ; and Cyril jean-franç[email protected] ISSUES as: such tors INTRODUCTION Vincent ; Vincent Chapurlat, [email protected] Lafon, Maxence

Nuclear Facilities and Decommissioning of Monitor Dismantling to Design, Organize, and and Organize, Design, to A Model-Based Approach

particular attention to D&D project design D&D project to particular attention to consider Theyhave management. and history of and complexity the inherent especially is because it facility, each nuclear to all D&D elements generalize to difficult capitalization significant despite projects feedback. of valorization and T ------¡ . No. NW-T-2.4. NW-T-2.4. . No. Defined users make and validate these validate and Definedmake users time, over evolve can The patterns Today, the partially method has equipped Today, PROSPECTS design and the proposed handle to quested future for helpful framework, monitoring design, implementation, software enterprise pro should tool last The maintenance. and D&D project interoperable vide a complete the tools to connected Digital Mock-Up informa the stakeholders’ of databases and Lafon and Nastov (Chapurlat, systems tion D&D usefulbe should for 2018). This catalyze should and management project in D&D projects. work collaborative mented the modeling patterns concept, concept, patterns the modeling mented a project to common elements describing set (several a disman scenarios use such or features, different its and technique tling technical spec including outlet, a waste in typefound waste a given for ifications can Stakeholders several projects). D&D thus patterns modeling share and make cope to handling metamodel facilitating hetero facility this decommissioned with to draw managers They compel geneity. can we addition, experiences. past In from flexibility features, a few through ensure dynamism and evolution) to (adaptation model verification or feedback (automatic D&D organization in the validation) and use aims pattern Model monitoring. and element experienced catalyze project to justify their to use reuse and reproducibility decision-making facilitate to thereby and time in real improve and achieve to steps the D&D system solution, the dismantling viewand of a multi-point with a whole, as approach. multidisciplinary experts often in the are and patterns nuclear businesses: D&D involved various instrumentation, and measurement A more. and regulation, transportation, each and these patterns stores database use feed his them can to manager project other expertsor create specific can model, new patterns. necessary is it guarantee to consequently the manage to and traceability modification each project. on impacts developed a demo software based on use on based software a demo developed conceptual, of the meeting cases proving and methodological, economic, technical, project’s at the identified challenges human re features provide beginning. Results ------Vol. IAEAVol. Nuclear Energy Series. IAEA. Cost Estimation 2013. for Research Reactor Decommissioning Chapurlat, V., B. Nastov, and B. M. Nastov, Lafon. “RevisitingChapurlat, 2018. V., Digital SME for Mock-Up Involved in Systems Engineering Deployment.” 12th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization and SIMulation, Toulouse, France, June. 27-29 From the management side: during side: during the management From From the modeling side: D&D System side: D&D System the modeling From systems of a system as formalization described the properties by including (1998) Maier management process piloting, project work based adaptive on implementation flow principle proposed by Samiri, Najib, Najib, by Samiri, proposed principle flow (2017). Boukachhour and El Fazziki, ■ REFERENCES ■ The proposed method, to enforce, in enforce, to method, proposed The The method, thanks to MBSE, enables enables to MBSE, method, The thanks metamodel timeless a generic First, Proj DSML. defines Each viewpoint Currently, CEA (Lafon, Chapurlat, Chapurlat, (Lafon, CEA Currently, The D&D life cycle uses and needs and uses these D&D life The cycle imple have in the method, we Finally, ■ ■ performance to test and assess alternative alternative assess and test to performance event’s unforeseen trace some to solutions, and behavior, project’s the whole on impact a whole. as in part or the project validate to ect managers will model D&D to beect able managers all their models along share and systems therefore must These DSML the projects. by understandable and be ergonomic experts,experts, various modeling from not businesses. concepts: important two cludes PROGRESS a successful to the project bring to ments based these Second, requirements, end. on structure, project enable the method should whiledemon validation and verification, both feasibility and coherence its strating view organizational an a technical and from the method 2010). Finally, (Pesola point dismantling permit continuous a should reassessment, (waste) product and plan evolution project the possible on depending events). unforeseen (new stakeholders, representation D&D system a formal a Such each project. to related construction various of elements set of “a is D&D system in interact that nature heterogeneous and facility.” a nuclear decommission to order set through a basic concept implements It the classical including viewpoints, some mentioned. previously viewpoints semantically syntacticallycollects and and relationships describes and these concepts nuclear various to adapts therefore and evolutions. project and facilities Milot, and Moitrier 2018) is studying the studying 2018) is Moitrier and Milot, first method. Each D&D project proposed specifies and allneededrequire formalizes two concepts. two - - - Therefore, we adopted a Model-Based a we adopted Therefore, addresses modeling framework The methods or standards existing Current sess the project’s global safety, security, and and security, global safety, sess the project’s eration is however requested for validation, validation, for requested however is eration decision-making involving and monitoring, all activities for broadly more strategies 2017). The Institute Management (Project a D&D procuring goal is new method’s step by step built model” “whole project from results This the design phase. from composition or model federation current must The framework viewin each point. the of the analysis enable and integrate (both from dependency relations interfaces, related aspects), and pragmatic or semantic links between all This allows D&D models. relevance gain to description project whole as to want accuracyand when managers guages nor the same media over time. We We time. media over the same nor guages case, which today the maps mention may fed digital media. Models’ on evolving are TOWARDS A NEW METHOD major stakes for managers. However, data data However, managers. for stakes major collected from availability, and quality phases(records, life facility cycle different D&D for a recurring issue represent plans), define to important therefore, is, It projects. types collect data to and raw the relevant possible as early as projects D&D trace for 2014). (IAEA Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach approach (MBSE) Engineering Systems IEEE 2015) IEC, (ISO, principles and propose 2008) to 2016)(Estefan (NASA D&D a new method for promote and monitoring, and engineering project necessary based with and equipped tools This framework. modeling a systemic on description facility nuclear support must detail a sufficient with characterization, and project and consideration, data and level first a detailed enabling level at description deployment, before validation design and in real adaptation and then monitoring Chapurlat, (Nastov, time when in progress 2016). Pfister and Dony, perspective descriptions, stakeholders by sharing, and understanding for aiming functional, classical, them through guiding and behavioral, requirements, physical, This viewpoints. management risks approach, based a systems on framework, vocabulary the D&D existing or integrates a new common when requesting emerges stakeholder support To vocabulary. D&D while considering collaboration this organizational, technical and projects’ be unambiguous. must framework various when considering limited remain modeling and detail levels, viewpoints, the same use neither Models languages. denoted (conventionally language modeling DSML language Modeling Specific Domain lan interoperable nor context) in MBSE

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 32 ■ ——. 2014. Decommissioning of facilities. Vols. General Safety ■ NASA. 2016. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. REV 2. Requirement, Part 6. Vols. SP-2016-6105. ■ Estefan, J.A. 2008. Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering ■ Nastov, B., V. Chapurlat, C. Dony, and F. Pfister. 2016. (MBSE) Methodologies. Version/Revision: B. Vols. INCOSE- “Towards V&V Suitable Domain Specific Modeling Languages TD-2007-003-01. for MBSE: A Tooled Approach.” 26th Annual INCOSE ■ ISO, IEC, IEEE. 2015. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 Systems and International Symposium, Edinburgh, UK, 18-21 July. software engineering – System life cycle processes. ■ OECD-NEA.2012. International Structure for ■ Lafon, M., V. Chapurlat, J. F. Milot, and C. Moitrier. 2018. Decommissioning Costing (ISDC) of Nuclear Installations. “Nuclear Decommissioning: a Systemic Approach adapted ■ Pesola, J. P. 2010. “Building Framework for Early Product to Project Dynamics.” DEM 2018. Avignon, France, 22-24 Verification and Validation.” VTT Publications 736. October. ■ Project Management Institute. 2017. A Guide to the Project ■ ——. 2018. “The D&D of Nuclear Facilities: a Systemic Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Sixth Approach for Project Organization and Monitoring.” Waste Edition. Management Symposia 2018. Phoenix, AZ, USA, 18-22 March. ■ Samiri, M.Y., M. Najib, A. El Fazziki, and J. Boukachour. ■ Maier, M.W. 1998. “Architecting principles for systems-of- 2017. “Toward a Self-Adaptive Workflow Management System systems,” Systems Engineering 1(4), pp. 267–284. Through Learning and Prediction Models,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 897-912.

Legendre et al. continued from page 30 REFERENCES ■ Bouffaron, F. 2016. “Co-Spécification Système Exécutable ■ Mauborgne, P. 2016. “Vers Une Ingénierie de Systémes Sûrs Basée sur des Modèles - Application à la Conduite Interactive de Fonctionnement Basée Sur les Modèles En Conception d’un Procédé Industriel Critique.” Thèse du Centre de Recher- Innovante.” PhD diss., Ecole Doctorale Sciences et Ingénierie che en Automatique de Nancy. des Ressources, Procédés, Produits, Environnement. ■ Guychard, C., S. Guerin, A. Koudri, A. Beugnard, and F. ■ Prosvirnova, T., E. Saez, C. Seguin, and P. Virelizier. 2017. Dagnat. 2013. “Conceptual Interoperability Through Models “Handling Consistency Between Safety and System Models.” Federation.” Semantic Information Federation Community IMBSA2017, Trento, Italy, 11-13 September. Workshop. ■ Legendre, A., A. Lanusse, and A.Rauzy. 2017. “Toward Model Synchronization Between Safety Analysis and System Architecture Design in Industrial.” Paper presented at IMBSA2017, Trento, Italy, 11-13 September. ■ Legendre, A. 2017. “Ingénierie Système et Sûreté de Fonctionnement: Méthodologie de Synchronisation des Modèles D’Architecture Système et D’Analyse de Risques.” Thèse de l’Université Paris-Saclay.

33 - - - - - Several approaches – (Sharon, De – (Sharon, Several approaches By leveraging numerous systems en systems numerous leveraging By est as usually understood in systems engi in systems understood usually as est models. MA produced to – related neering between interplay overriding the Therefore, seize. to important is both systems RELATED WORK best and practices, gineering standards, (INCOSE techniques scientific related tools 2009), helpful Rouse and 2015, Sage Unfortu available. MA are mastering for what-oriented either those are tools nately, verbose, or overly how-oriented), (not creates This unifyinglacking capabilities. implementa during difficulties and gaps – leading – especiallytion in new contexts uninformed practices and informal to identified the six main Among decisions. challenges engineering systems current Oster, Nichols, Kemp, Friedenthal, (Beihoff, 2015), “Tech Wade and Stoewer, Peredis, projects sides of programmatic nical and effective hampering coupled… poorly are The risk-based making.” decision project to relates in this paper addressed problem MA operation considering by this challenge system. a project-product as Coudert, Dori 2011; Vareilles, and Weck, 2015; Abeille and Geneste, Aldanondo, Wynn Eckert, 2017; Clarkson and Wynn Chen, Clarkson, Albers, Bursac, Maier, 2017) – from Shapiro and Gladysz, Gericke, - This paper summarizes a programmatic programmatic a summarizes This paper Given the aforementioned situation, a situation, the aforementioned Given study under the system this paper, In and globally reason on MA operation. As As MA operation. on globally reason and can MA development mastering a result, model-based to endeavour be a strategic engineering. systems the on goal – building that toward work (Simo author the first doctoral of thesis whenever the paper, 2017). Throughout may the reader willdetails be necessary, therein. references and thesis that to refer PROBLEM AT ISSUE AT PROBLEM key problem is understanding MA impacts MA impacts understanding is problem key models cycles they model life produce; on operation. MA influence which in turn arise. questions the following Accordingly, and in a disciplined master, to possible it Is foresee to MA development way, systematic take? A direction MA should a direction by one another from differentiate might the system on level expectation satisfaction But, use. resource and engineering under and to enter place, possible in the first it, is and desirable defining MA? Thus, measure necessary. is directions undesirable By operation. and MA development is unless refer, we the system mentioning otherwise system. studied specified,to the comprises system (product-project) This MA – and to parts – related system project the system-of-inter or system the product - - - – the and means

any systems are difficult to difficult are systems any build, (conceptualise, engineer because retrieve) and operate, is – that their uniqueness of

 ABSTRACT modelling activities master to aiming its components and propositions, challenges, work programmatic summarizes This paper engineering. in systems development

Modelling activities (MA) are trans activities (MA) are Modelling Engineering Development in Modelling Activities Modelling On the Mastering of of Mastering the On lined data and transformation procedure procedure transformation and lined data to related architectures and principles in such be available must MA operation locally to possible becomes it that a way tional supports fostering data, storage, use, use, storage, data, fostering supports tional under The insufficient. is analysis and versal to and used by various engineering engineering various used by and to versal advantages the potential activities. Despite system improvement, – communication and share knowledge and understanding, modelling, and models by – offered reuse – problems the same encounter might one with – as reasoning and traceability, clarity, is case This the documents. when informal various performed by concurrently MA are long over fields various on and people In situation, this life cycles. different and subject become should MA development and global understanding mastering to computa Possessing reasoning. provable INTRODUCTION ; and Dominique Lenne, [email protected] ; Dominique Ernadote, Simo, [email protected] Kamdem Freddy [email protected]

not easy to define a define easy to priorinot contributing (environment) obstacles and their While engineering. hampering and to specific addressing means well-mastered engineering aspects systems system exist, guide those and network to attempts and programmatically achieve to means functionally expected systems. M

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 34 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 35 - - - Scale packages & objects: …base …persistence …Semantics …Mapping …Constraints …Exploration …Co-Exploration implemented in Process (C) Constraints Expectations (R) Process Models (PM) Process is A given A modeling tool 2 Exploration 2 Exploration Non-Deterministic FSA produces is based on Possible behaviors Mappings (MG) projected on exploits of uses results based on Exploitation procedure 3 Co-exploration 4 Algorithm Search Next Points FA for M FA Analysis procedure Interface for definitions of semantics ofoperational M Models (M) Acceptable behaviours (SSG) state space graph directed is We characterized MA operation locally MA operation characterized We Abstraction of the system Assumption/Preference formalism Assumption/Preference approaches (Wynn and Clarkson 2017). Clarkson and (Wynn approaches enterprise consider could level Macro which address engineering and architecture issues permanent a wider perimeter and engineering. systems of the aim beyond 1. allow concepts Federation and System sis. context, and nature MA’s recognizing and systems proper them as considering relevant systems studied future delimiting explic not do approaches These elements. and asynchrony, autonomy, for account itly is the system Furthermore, concurrency. be continu should and non-deterministic operating MA focus on We reworked. ously the system-to- models, system-to-be-made their life with be-made themselves models on these effects life cycles. MA’s cycles; and specificmethodologies on hypothesis No the system-to- technical activities, for for fact, many In be-made exists. engineering methodscharacterize domain-specific be, therefore, would It engineering. systems a specific assume generally to awkward link believe a bijective We methodology. Geneste, Coudert, Aldanondo, (Vareilles, and 2015) between the product Abeille and as a system and globally as a federation, globally a federation, as and a system as hypothe modelling the latter’s set up and Strop criterion Strop Initial Point 1 Exploration 1 Exploration Deterministic HFSM Structure Models (AM) Structure Models (SM) State ------federated architecture federated for models reuse modelled by system X system X identified structure, process structure, and state models mappings, expectations, constraints) (process co-exploration traces, co-exploration etc, paths, graph, computed via a modular API computed via a modular input for produce produce produces results in results This work’s contribution is intro the contribution work’s This Figure 1 is an overarching logical struc overarching an 1 is Figure The basic need to master MA develop needmaster to The basic and Clarkson 2017). Model use for product product use for 2017). Model Clarkson and leads modelling to domains project and and notations modelling issues: tooling mod and visualization, development, tools, ture and description of MODEF’s main main MODEF’s of description and ture their artefacts and supporting and steps relations. supporting its and MODEF of duction theoretical principles, its with framework understanding, for practical arguments and ease and monitoring, modelling, analysis, consid operation and MA development of MODEF system. a project-product as ered com discuss and We axes. main four has works related specific these to 4 axes pare ought MODEF 2017). Holistically (Simo lower-focus and upper- with interact to macro-level meso- or – micro- approaches el analyses (Eckert, Wynn, Maier, Albers, Maier, (Eckert, Wynn, analyses el Gladysz, Gericke, Chen, Clarkson, Bursac, 2017). Shapiro and PROPOSITIONS limitations approaches’ current and ment to led have – hereinafter –highlighted which stands MODEF using and building of Systems of Federation Model-based for Modelling. - - - - mappings constraints to stakeholders process models process Analyse models against expectations and process expectations state and structure models state and structure Identify the studied system X studied system Identify the MODEF’s main steps and supporting artefacts and their relations Produce output and feedback output and Produce Specify expectations based on based Specify expectations Specify structure-state-process Represent structure, state, and state, structure, Represent Step 5 Step 6 Step Step 3 Step 4 Step Step 1 Step 2 Step Some lessons drawn from those ap from drawn lessons Some Figure 1. tion levels, considering different model different considering levels, tion (isolated, degrees coupling three with kinds (Eckert, Wynn, integrated) and coupled, Chen, Clarkson, Albers, Bursac, Maier, 2017; Wynn Shapiro and Gladysz, Gericke, uct dimension, exceptions are Systems Systems are exceptions uct dimension, Matrix DesignDynamics Structure and and De Weck, (Sharon, their variants and needmake is a to vital Dori 2011). There project and product formalise and explicit by – demonstrated interactions domain projects’ survey 2 large empirical after an Coudert, Aldanondo, (Vareilles, failures 2015). Additionally, Abeille and Geneste, The these expound interactions. works few abstrac different at happen might coupling proaches are: methods from project project methods from are: proaches project-prod handle seldom management tion, integration, or coupling (explicitly or or (explicitly coupling or integration, tion, by systems project and the product of not) purposes. different for and means different (Steward projects development Software a necessity: a 2000) introduce Tate and and functional requirements product’s a Gantt of tasks fall into design parameters axiomatic an following plan project chart to the reader refer design paradigm. We information. more 2017) for (Simo systems engineering, engineering, and and engineering, engineering, systems the associa addressed design have system ------¡ continued on page 39 on page continued 12(10):576-580. > . We reviewed a systems engineering engineering reviewed a systems We BEYOND MODEF’S MAIN MODEF’S BEYOND OBJECTIVE ed MODEF computation routines under a under routines computation ed MODEF Inter Programming Application modular To openness. and flexibility face – fostering concerns, analysis for model reuse, address (FA) architecture specifiedfederated we a base and structures data as such means, and Such implementation. its for algorithms, com models projecting function as means independent to tool a modelling from ing FMI (Functional follows FA structures. data ) https://fmi-standard.org Interface, Mockup (model structure separation condern on mod descriptive targets function). FA and models. simulation whileels FMI targets FA actsas com in structure model The did we Furthermore, components. posite the for interface a pre-defined impose not – the FMI case implementation function’s semantics interface’s the target considers 2015). (Tripakis machine a timedas Mealy must implementation an such argued We inter model structure an from derive a FA within define we Lastly, pretation. promoting framework category-theoretic viewpoints. relational structural and routines and model reuse outside of a of outside model reuse and routines we implement Therefore, tool. (modelling) challenge and related works to product- to works related and challenge MA through mastering project-systems a twosome, are These systems operation. engineering. modern systems for pivotal in some lose they control might However, environments engineering (concurrent) the cycles. Hence life long over operating grounded handlings appropriate need for foundations. provable-by-construction on their principles and components MODEF MODEF’s of deepenmight independently the A/P instance, For aim. main and procedure, the analysis formalism, prove might Architecture the Federated expectation, product-project, useful for yielded work This model engineering. and modelling to several perspectives related allocation, MA resource framework, FA. and algorithms, analysis ------Eckert, C.M., A. Maier, Wynn, Albers, D.C. J.F. N. Bursac, H.L.X. Clarkson, Chen, K. P.J. Gericke, B. Gladysz, and D. the “On Integration Product of Shapiro. 2017. and Process Models in Engineering Design.” Design Science 3(3). doi:10.1017/dsj.2017.2. Hoare, Axiomatic C.A.R. “An Basis 1969. Computer for Programming.” Communications the of ACM Chapman, W.L., J.W. Rozenblit, and A.T. Bahill. Rozenblit, and A.T. Chapman, “System 2001. J.W. W.L., Design is an NP-Complete Systems Problem.” Engineering 4(3):222-229. doi:10.1002/sys.1018. doi:10.1145/363235.363259 ■ ■ ■ Tooling of approaches and model reuse model and approaches of Tooling We built procedures for analyzing analyzing for procedures built 3.2 We The analysis procedure’s exponential exponential procedure’s analysis The MODEF does not include a specific include does not MODEF

(Hoare 1969; Meyer 1992). Both P and A 1969; Meyer (Hoare propositions: atomic the form’s on build S. The in the state C is the component describing enables structure pre-order on system’s the levels preference different binary the (too stringent) of instead states might there case: true false. Additionally, or more some states, be several foreseeable expected and others. than preferable feedback providing for and models system procedure analysis The stakeholders. to (Uniform-Cost a search on-the-fly, applies, in the co-explora – UCS) algorithm Search tem design problems. They appear as NP appear They design problems. tem Polynomial-time)-hard (Non-deterministic 6) and Chapter 2013, Maimon and (Braha and Rozenblit, (Chapman, NP-Complete no means This Bahill 2001) respectively. those solve to exists procedure fast known problem case, the in the first problems; decidable. not prove could 4. formed decisions. In comparable approach comparable In decisions. formed requirements formal on rely to rare is es, it standard using analyzing, for (expectations) Mod description. the system’s algorithms, a useful becomes analysing el-checking are when approach analytical technique practice. in apply to impossible or difficult results previous corroborates complexity and sys difficulties design process on tion of the state space described space models the by state of tion hierarchical and systems event (discrete expectaAside from machines). state finite the co-exploration, during checked tions, specific specify to address possible is and it MA: this to related cost) (time, constraints UCS. This search of application a novel is for substitute therefore can algorithm or research operations from one another We devisedhoc ad artificial intelligence. simple and synthetic provide to procedures – useful in to states foreseeable on data modelling tool or language, instead we we instead language, or tool modelling and foundations, added all principles, to how remains: issue an But algorithms. the computation integrate and implement - - - . . Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & 65. hal-00757488. Modelling of the system Analysis carried outwith models of the We introduced an Assumption/ an introduced 3.1 We We introduced a delimited system’s system’s a delimited introduced We Business Media. Business Braha, and Maimon. D., O. A Mathematical 2013. Theory of Design: Foundation, Algorithms, 17 and Applications, Volume of Applied Optimization Benveniste, A., B. Caillaud, Nickovic, D. R. Passerone, J-B. Reinkemeier,Raclet, A Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, P. Damm, W. Henzinger, and K.G. Larsen.T. “Contracts 2012. System for Design.” INRIA Beihoff, B., Friedenthal,S. Nichols,D. Kemp, D. C. C. Oster, In Motion.” World Paredis, “A 2015. and H. Wade. J. Stoewer, Systems Engineering Vision 2025 ■ ■ ■ REFERENCES clet, Reinkemeier, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Reinkemeier, clet, Larsen 2012) form and Henzinger, Damm, a guarantee of base. Instead this formalism’s Preference defined a we (G) (proposition), reflexive and – a transitive a pre-order as use close Our is A/P expectations relation. programming uses in contract the first to define models) (system programs where (P) postconditions (A) and preconditions veniste, Caillaud, Nickovic, Passerone, Ra Passerone, Nickovic, Caillaud, veniste, 3. system 2. project systems is a strong assumption be assumption a strong is systems project both given apply always not might it cause granularity. and structure systems Preference formalism or A/P expectations A/P expectations or formalism Preference specifying expectedfor behaviours. system (Ben contracts Assumption/Guarantee modelling framework to modelling modelling to framework modelling being architecture Due to architecture. organisation fundamental a system’s relationships, components, (carried by design its governing environment) and at the system studied we evolution, and a adding Without level. architectural an on relied we tool or language modelling discrete considered and formalisms existing state finite hierarchical and systems event models MA and modelling for machines (events) specify MA’s cycles. Mappings life (transitions), modelon life cycles effects MA’s observing on allowing reasoning choice modelling general This nature. particular techniques consider does not Method, Critical as Path such factors and Reviewing and Evaluation Program and measurement, budget Technique, cycles life Model tracking. schedule De (Sharon, models from derive to ought act model as 2011) or Dori and Weck, focusing approaches Specific constraints. indicators and insights quantitative on constraints. system determine help could believe they we should Nonetheless, qualitative with function in conjunction insights. procedural provide that models

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 36 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 37 - MBSE practices MBSE patterns MBSE practices » MBSE « EASIER

ADOPTION KNOW-HOW adoption process should consider engi consider should process adoption towards rushing before knowledge neering the proposed 2). In (Figure modelling extracting starts by the process approach, Among patterns. engineering systems will them, some team meet engineering therefore, is, It others. than needs more approach MBSE which an these patterns approach This will integrate. model and choose to the teams engineering allows added the most will have that patterns MBSE facilitate thus them, and for value methodology adoption. CAPITALIZATION MBSE patterns MBSE ADOPTION MODELLING KNOW-HOW Standards Current trend for the adoption of MBSE methodologies MBSE methods (ARP 4754A,…) Current practices Current Industry standards Systems patterns Unlike the current trend capitalizing capitalizing trend the current Unlike Figure 1. Systems Engineering Systems Modelling languages Engineering entice engineers to leap towards these new towards leap to engineers entice 2018), as Stenius and (Huldt approaches too is practices engineering with the gap significant. the development, an MBSE after knowledge MBSE methods Modelling languages Systems Engineering Standards Systems KNOW-HOW CAPITALIZATION ; Sophie Boudau, sophie.boudau@ [email protected] Gouyon, ; David [email protected] Proposed approach for the adoption of MBSE methodologies egarding engineering practices’ practices’ engineering egarding a document-based from transition Model-Based towards approach (MBSE) Engineering Systems

(ARP 4754A,…)

Current practices Current Engineering data: • Specifications • Older project • Schema Figure 2. Industry standards development. Previous works show pattern pattern show works Previous development. and capture asset engineering for relevance Gouyon, (Wu, reuse through valorization 2018). Unfortunately, Boudau Levrat, and adopt to trend the current appears it 1) does methodologies not (Figure MBSE approaches, it is necessary to demonstrate to necessary is it demonstrate to approaches, them design will MBSE help how end-users disruption. routine even during their system, engineering unlike changing However, is knowledge engineering practices, good to key system remains and sustainable CONTEXT OBJECTIVES AND Quentin Wu, Quentin Wu, [email protected] ; and Éric Levrat, safrangroup.com Engineering Adoption Model-Based Systems Valorization to Facilitate to Facilitate Valorization Systems Engineering Assets Assessment Scale for the Towards a MaturityTowards R L - - - 5 4 3 2 5 optimized 4 quantified 3 defined 2 planned 1 opportunist 1 M classification Library I 1 2 3 Proposed maturity scale R No reuse from previous previous from No reuse projects reuse by copy/ by Opportunistic reuse projects, previous from paste without method; manual adaptation reuse by copy/ by Planned reuse projects, previous from paste without method; manual planned adaptation reuse method: defined Defined reuse elements reusable selection of and transitions between defined abstraction levels measure of defined of Quantified measure (direct method efficiency reuse time…) adaptation or reuse Optimization: continuous method reuse of improvement 4 Identification M 5 Reuse M Reuse Figure 3. studied in detail valorization and systems systems and in detail valorization studied A assessments. asset reuse engineering Maturity Capability Engineering Systems Engineering (Software (SE-CMM) Model CMMI before 1995) developed Institute did 2010) Institute Engineering (Software aspects. reuse howev CMMI, consider not but practices high reuse level establishes er, side. the operational on instructions lacks assess assistance require companies Thus, performanc process reuse their current ing them. The improve to guidelines es and a systems defining this through is to answer - - Opportunistic AXIS Reuse No library classification No library : “I already saw : “I already Awareness something this”; like elements: reusable sharing of oral of use way,” this did it already “we board… paper sharing of formalized formalized Planned sharing of elements (communication, reusable identified as archiving…) models…) (texts, Defined capitalization method: a sharing around sharing organized structure measure of defined of Quantified measure capitalization method efficiency time…) (classification Optimization: continuous classification of improvement method The systems engineering community community engineering systems The tal software reuse practice adoption and and practicereuse adoption tal software (Younoussi work Recent implementation. compared and 2016) compiled Roudies and models maturity software other these and de each model a classification provide to help to parameters and criteria on pending choose approach. the right a company deploying for models maturity developed (Cornu, processes engineering systems 2012) or Irigoin and Quiot, Chapurlat, yet not have use but MBSE measuring tices and models to mature reuse activities. reuse mature to models tices and Model the Reuse Capability example, For determining a method for provides (RCM) reuse capability software organization’s an defining by 1998) Sonnemann (Rine and organization plan and to evaluate levels five However, improvements. capability reuse development concerning assessment as in multiple operate must process reuse and maturity a complete appears it dimensions coverage. criteria multiple model requires Model Maturity the RiSE Accordingly, De Almeida, Alvaro, Lucrédio, (Garcia, De Lemos Meira and Fortes, De Mattos, perspectives addressing four 2007) includes and technological, business, organizational, Model’s Maturity The RiSE issues. process incremen an purposemain supporting is - - Library classification Library No identification of No identification elements reusable identification Opportunistic from elements reusable of without previous projects, vision) method (uncomplete identification of Planned identification reusable elements, without vision) method (uncomplete Defined identification method: classification defined function of in abstraction levels measure of of Quantified measure defined identification method efficiency costs…) time, (identification : continuous Optimization: continuous of improvement identification method 1 5 3 2 0 4

Detailed maturity description level MATURITY LEVEL MATURITY A maturity scale provides a systematic a systematic scale provides A maturity This article proposes a scale to evaluate a proposes scaleto article evaluate This Identification Table 1. Table oped product maturity. Unfortunately, Unfortunately, maturity. oped product different propose models maturity many reuse and development to related issues in the done works Research processes. prac various propose community software STATE OF THE ART framework to assess organization devel organization assess to framework systems engineering asset valorization asset valorization engineering systems process the valorization assuming maturity, engineers’ valuable highlighting includes engineers other to distribute to knowledge level. thecomprehension needed time and at reusegoalto if the finalis that, means It processes assets, other engineering systems necessary these achieve expectations. to are community, in the software promoted As gains will significant reuse allow systematic quality and productivity in development De Almeida, De Alvaro, Lucrédio, (Garcia, 2007). De Lemos Meira and Fortes, Mattos, maturity a reusestrategy, to develop Thus, the maturity scale determining will facilitate this In operates. which a company at level will the progress assess it be to possible way, necessary estimate therefore and margins a through maturity their to improve efforts plan. action corresponding

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 38 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 39 - - - -

- - - . https://doi.org/CMU/ . ¡

. This first maturity scale version for version scale maturity first This scale axes the maturity works, future In systems engineering assets, but systems en systems but assets, engineering systems gineering assets should function as patterns patterns function as gineering assets should above. and 3 (defined) level maturity from PERSPECTIVES & CONCLUSION assessment model maturity card, identity el metrics various on depending example (for in of number and number version as such model reuse, supporting tools stantiations), more. and systems engineering asset valorization and and asset valorization engineering systems assessment. practice current allows reuse to elaboration also plan guides action It maturity. current improve modassets: MBSE consider and will refine 22(4):327–342. - - - ) MVSEA ——. 2010. “CMMI for Development, Version 1.3: Improving 1.3: “CMMI Development, for 2010. Version ——. Vareilles, Coudert, E., T. M. Aldanondo, L. Geneste, and J. Abeille. “System Design 2015. and Project Planning: Model and Rules to Manage Their Interactions.” Computer- Integrated Aided Engineering “Process Clarkson. Models inWynn, and D.C., 2017. P.J. Design and Development.” Research Engineering in Design ule/1995_008_001_16355.pdf Gouyon, É. D. Q., Levrat,Wu, Review and S. “A Boudau. 2018. Reuse Know-How of with Patterns in Model-Based Systems Engineering.” Paper Presented Ninth at International Con Conplexference on Systems Design & Management, Paris, December. 18-19 France, S., and “Capability Roudies.Younoussi, O. 2016. and Maturity Model Reuse: for A Comparative Paper presented at Study.” 2nd International Conference on Cloud Computing Technol Marrakech,ogies and Applications Morocco, (CloudTech), 24-26 May. 2000.Steward, and Tate. D., D. “Integration Axiomatic of Design and Project Planning.” Proceeding ICAD2000, of Cambridge, June. US-MA, 21-23 Tripakis, “Bridging S. 2015. the Semantic Gap Between Heterogeneous Modeling Formalisms and 2015 FMI.” International Conference Embedded on Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation Samos, (SAMOS), July. 19-23 Greece, doi:10.1007/s00163-017-0262-7. 29(2):161-202. Software Engineering Institute.“Maturity1995. Model Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model Proj ect.” http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/MaturityMod Processed Better for Products and Services.” Carnegie Mellon Software EngineeringUniversity, Institute SEI-2010-TR-033-ESC-TR-2010-033 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ (MI, ML, MR) - -

. Hoboken, Table 1 describes each maturity level in level 1 describes maturity each Table assets vary engineering de Systems MR ≤ MI ML ≤ MI is it possi these conditions, setting After = min MVSEA this is not possible without first identifying identifying first without possible this not is efficient more is reuse those assets. Also, the means classify assets. This if libraries startto is every axis the pro identification detail. the context In level. maturity on pending are section, in the first patterns presented cess, and its maturity level constrains other other constrains level maturity its and cess, this scaleassumes: Thus, axes. engineering overall systems define the to ble ( level maturity asset valorization follows: as . - . 14(4):427-440. . Hoboken, US-NJ: Wiley. . 36 continued from page from continued The scale’s peculiarity dependencyis axis The scale’s This article proposes a multiaxial scale a proposes article This Simo, F.K. 2017. “Model-Based Federation Systems of of Simo, 2017. F.K. Modelling.” Systems and Control Université [cs.SY] de CompiègneTechnologie (UTC) (Cedex, France). https://www.wiley.com/en-us Sharon, “Project A., O.L. and Dori. de Weck, D. 2011. Management vs. Systems Engineering Management: A Practitioners’ View Integrating on the Project and Product SystemsDomains.” Engineering Meyer, B. ‘Design 1992. “Applying Meyer, Contract.’” by Computer 25(10):40-51. doi:10.1109/2.161279. Rouse. and 2009.Sage, W.B. Handbook A.P., of Systems Engineering and Management INCOSE. Systems 2015. Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Cycle Life Process and Activities, 4th Edition US-NJ: https://www.wiley.com/en-us Wiley. Rine, and D.C., R.M. Sonnemann. 1998. “Investments in Reusable Software. A Studyof Software ReuseInvestment Success Journal Factors.” Systems of and Software41(1):17-32. doi:10.1016/S0164-1212(97)10003-6 nents, Architectures, and Reuse Campinas, (SBCARS), Brazil, 29-31 August. and I.Huldt, Stenius. “State-of-Practice T., 2018. Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering.” Systems Engineering Garcia, V.C., D. Lucrédio, D. Garcia, A. Alvaro, V.C., E.S. De Almeida, R.P. De Mattos Fortes, and S.R. DeLemos Meira. “Towards 2007. a Maturity Model a Reuse for Incremental Paper Adoption.” presented the at Brazilian Symposium Software on Compo ing Processes.” IEEE Paper presented 2012 at International Systems CA-BC, 19-22 Conference SysCon Vancouver, 2012, March. Cornu, C., V Chapurlat, J-M. Quiot, Irigoin. and F. “A 2012. Maturity Model the for Deployment Systems of Engineer 22(2):134-145. . 22(2):134-145. doi:10.1002/sys.21466 ■ ■ ■ ■ Simo et al. ■ ■ ■ ■ REFERENCES ■ tion, Reuse) and an overall maturity level level maturity overall an Reuse)tion, and level. axis each on ) depending (MVSEA proposes and on CMMI the This scale leans to definition level maturity its adapting needs.asset engineering specific systems reuse goalto theasset finalis links. Indeed, future and know-how disseminate assets to speed. ease However, and development MATURITY SCALE engineering asset valorization maturity maturity asset valorization engineering section. in the next scale, proposed which includes five maturity levels by axis, by axis, levels maturity five which includes engineering systems the different cover to aspects (Figure process asset valorization maturity quantifying both 3). This allows ) specific (MI, ML, MR to degrees some classifica Library activities (Identification, - - - - m ACT

1 DP ACT 1 ACT uncertainty and risks regarding the compa regarding risks and uncertainty ent, lead to inaccurate or inexact estima or inaccurate lead to ent, sched and growth in cost result and tions and realization solution during ule slippage articlefocuses on This evaluating delivery. a deliver and develop to ability a company’s process. bidding a during offered solution of the risks actsmeasure as a ability The technical (a offer a specific with associated nies’ future abilities to develop and deliver deliver and develop to abilities future nies’ the customers after solutions the proposed and Ward, (Chapman, their offers accept Coudert, Bennell Vareilles, 2000)(Sylla, Geneste and Kirytopoulos, Aldanondo, experienced companies, some 2017). In to judgments subjective provide designers a deliver to ability the company’s estimate depend human judgments, These solution. - n SS Thierry ; Thierry Coudert, [email protected] 2 TS SS Technical bid solution bid Technical 1 SS Laurent Geneste, [email protected] ; and Laurent [email protected] Figure 1. exceed the range of available technical available of exceed the range compa the supplier within solutions bid ny. Hence, to propose a relevant offer, it offer, a relevant propose to Hence, ny. which necessaryis design a solution to requirements all the customer’s covers 2017). However, Liu and Yu, Xu, (Zheng time to limited allow customers in general, as customers In addition, offer. an submit acceptance, the offer’s guarantee cannot the time during and resources optimizing crucial is when customers process bidding 1998). (Kromker the offers accept do not several phase, the bidding at Consequently, the of a pre-design perform companies a detailed of instead solutions potential time and the resources design reducing However, elaboration. offer used during contain these partially designed solutions - - -

n the bidding process context, to trans to context, process n the bidding a to a customer, offer a commercial mit must a bidder) (or contractor systems which solution design a technical bid  ABSTRACT to solutions feasible and competitive propose must contractors systems competitive, remain and volume their business increase To article, This information. relevant of the lack by challenged become situations industrial Engineer-To-Order However, customers. useto them a way and methods, their evaluation indicators, confidence two presents this problem, overcome to companies help to process. bidding a during asolution offer to ability future a company’s evaluating allow These indicators a design process. during In an Engineer-To-Order (ETO) bidding bidding (ETO) Engineer-To-Order an In Michel Aldanondo, ; Michel [email protected] INTRODUCTION Elise Vareilles, ; [email protected] Sylla, Abdourahim Elise Vareilles, complies with the customer’s requirements. requirements. the customer’s with complies con solution the technical bid general, In facture), and deliver the technical system the technical system deliver and facture), Offers the offer. accepts the customer once solutions. the technical system only include crucial is evaluate design it and to However, solution both a realistic perform parts to especially delivery their cost, evaluation, risks). associated (or feasibility and date, requirements the customer’s process, tains two interconnected parts (see Figure interconnected two tains part istechnical the system first 1). The the customer’s to (TS) which corresponds functional requirements technical and (SS) which the sub-systems includes and (Sauser, integrate helps architecture system Dimarzio and Henry, Ramirez-Marquez, technical is part 2008). The the second which (DP) delivery process system’s (ACT) resources activities and incorporates manu (or assemble necessary develop, to To-Order Bidding Process To-Order Offer During an Engineer- Deliver a Solution to to Solution a Deliver Contractor’s Ability to Evaluation of Systems I

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 40 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 41 - - - - - 7 5 9 6 8 n n level 5 level Activities CIP AFL Aggregation 7 5 6 8 4 m m level 4 level CIP AFL CIP PFL Process l l 7 5 3 6 4 CIP AFL level 3 level CIS/CIP We assume a configuration software software a configuration assume We OCP es), the two confidence indicators (OCS indicators confidence es), the two OCP) in a criteria actand decision can as select to interesting the most design process of example an is Following design solution. use. indicator confidence IN INDICATORS CONFIDENCE THE OF USE THE PROCESS DESIGN A Aldanondo, Vareilles, Guillon, (Sylla, tions 2018). A configura Coudert, Geneste and is a design knowledge-based software tion A generic model. based a generic tool on charac knowledge relevant model contains diversity solution the technical bid terizing generic This company. supplier by a offered decision a relevant with model associated instan the designer to allows tool aiding the to according solutions relevant tiate ing feasibility and realism. The solutions The solutions realism. and feasibility ing the evaluation on relies attractiveness delivery cost, as date, such values criteria feasibility Its technical performances. and to ability future the company’s on relies the to according it deliver and develop consider can feasibility This expectations. in the presented indicators the confidence has good a section. solution Thus, previous criteria both the evaluation good for values Therefore, indicators. the confidence and (cost, criteria the standard to in addition technical performanc and delivery date, designs and evaluates the potential solu the potential evaluates and designs - k k 5 3 2 6 4 - - TRL CIS level 2 level - OCS jk jk ) charac IRL CIS l ) further k 1 5 3 2 4 j j (CIP)). PFL and and (CIP)). PFL level 1 level CIS SRL TRL CIS System ij ij (CIP activity IRL CIS i i OCS and OCP computation matrix level 1 level level 5 level level 3 level level 2 level level 4 level OCS and OCP indicators

TRL CIS OCS/OCP SRL/PFL Aggregation With these two confidence indicators indicators these confidence two With Sub-systems and integration Figure 2. Level Feasibility Activity (AFL CIP indicators measure on a five-level a five-level on measure CIP indicators method scale.used to compute The same the OCS computes the technical system’s OCP based the PFL on delivery process’ 3). The (see Figure OCP CIP indicators and scale. a nine-level on measures indicator a (OCS OCP), will and a bidder have attractive an propose can that powerful tool during a customer to solution feasible and process’ A bidding process. a bidding design design engineering process’ or solutions several potential obtains phase 2017). In Leali, Di Angelo (Renzi, and critical in task the most this situation, selecting is the most process a bidding whilemaintain offer to solution interesting terizes each activity 1 (see Figure 2). The 2). The 1 (seeterizes each activity Figure the activities’ measures AFL indicator dimen three aggregating by feasibility (ii) the competence, (i) the resource sions: (iii) the activity and availability, resource scale. a five-level on AFL measures risk. In a Confidence indicator subjective The delivery Process a five-level on measures and success ity’s aggregation average weighted scale. a Then, delivery the two process method computes (PFL) Level Feasibility (Process indicators and ConfidenceIn Process characterizes each activity. It assesses the It each activity. characterizes the activ expert about feeling designer’s Figure 3. ------) and ) and i ) and ) and ) charac i ij (TRL (IRL ) further each characterize ij To compute the delivery process’ overall overall the delivery process’ compute To In the proposed method, two different different method, two the proposed In the compute 2, to in Figure shown As Integration Readiness LevelIntegration cal system’s factual and subjective (System (System subjective factual and cal system’s the Confidence and LevelReadiness (SRL) CIS indicators and (CIS)). SRL System In a scale. Finally, a five-level on measure the technical system’s method computes (see CIS indicators and OCS the SRL using scale. a nine-level on 2), measured Figure (OCP),confidence factualthe indicator gration (i and j). They assess the designer’s j). Theyassess designer’s the (i and gration and the sub-systems expert about feeling measure and success their integrations an aggregation Then, scale. a five-level on Henry, Ramirez-Marquez, method (Sauser, the techni 2008) computes Dimarzio and (CIS Sub-system In Confidence cators terize each sub-system and each sub-sys and terize each sub-system and TRL j). The (i and integration tem and the sub-systems assess IRL indicators maturity developmental their integrations Ramirez-Marquez, 1995) (Sauser, (Mankins measure 2008) and Dimarzio and Henry, indi scale.subjective a nine-level The on THE CONFIDENCE INDICATORS AND THEIR THEIR AND INDICATORS CONFIDENCE THE METHOD EVALUATION ery process indicator. Our previous work work Our previous ery indicator. process Coudert, Kirytopoulos, Al Vareilles, (Sylla, both proposes 2017) Geneste and danondo, their assess to bidders allows and indicators a during offered a solution deliver to ability process. bidding velopment and delivery after the customer deliverythe customer after and velopment article this Therefore, the offer. accepts as process, the management risks assists defined in ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 the confidence two presenting by standards, methods, and their evaluation indicators, a design process. use them to during how (OCS)OverallSystem is in Confidence Overall and indicator the technical system (OCP)Process is deliv in Confidence the system and delivery process pair). Thus, its Thus, pair). delivery process and system anticipate to bidders enables assessment de the technical system’s to related risks Sub-systems of integration the In Confidence j (CIS i and indicators characterize each technical bid each technical bid characterize indicators delivery and part (technical system solution and is factual indicator first The process). (sub-systems, the elements to intrinsic activities) and integrations, sub-system solution. the technical bid which compose of the objective evaluation an provide They the delivery and maturity technical system’s indicator, The second feasibility. process’ feeling, subjective based the designer’s on expert the designer’s considering allows success. the solution’s about feeling technical OCS, the factual indicators Level Readiness Technology sub-system (i) and each sub-system inte each sub-system (i) and sub-system - ¡ cost cost [53 56] [71 87] duration [85 94] [66 81] [71 87] [54 57] [53 54] [53 56] duration 11(1): 45–51. 45–51. 11(1): 19(5): 521–35. c3 continued on page 45 on page continued c2 c3 c2 > 28(2): 118–43. doi:10. 118–43. 28(2): sol3 sol2 sol3 sol1 “OCS = OCP ≥ 7” solution solution designer preference c5 c5 c4 c4 6 7 5 7 7 7 5 c1 7 OCP OCS OCS OCP 1080/09544828.2016.1274720. doi:10.1080/095119298130967. Mankins, “Technology J.C. 1995. Rediness Levels.” White NASA paper, Advanced Concepts Office. Renzi, C., F Leali, and L. Di Angelo.. Review Decision-Making on “A 2017. Methods in Engineering Design for the Automotive Industry.” Journal of Engineering Design Aldanondo, M., and É. Vareilles. 2008. “Configuration for Mass Customization: to Extend How Product Configuration towards Requirements and Process Configuration.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing doi:10.1007/s10845-008-0135-z. Chapman, C.B., S.C. and Ward, J.A. Bennell. 2000. “Incorporating Uncertainty in Competitive Bidding.” International Journal of Project doi:10.1016/ 337–47. Management 18(5): S0263-7863(00)00013-2. Kromker, M. 1998. “BIDPREP-to wards Simultaneous Preparation.” Bid International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing c1 ■ ■ proving their applicability and effectiveness effectiveness and theirapplicability proving case realistic a more performing requires Future research. future as considered study, a developing also consider should research the of factual evaluation a more method for CIP. CIS and indicators subjective REFERENCES ■ ■ ■ - - req1 req1 c) the relevant solution to the designer preferences solution to c) the relevant b) the relevant solutions to the requirements “req1” solutions to the requirements b) the relevant requirements requirements “req1” customer’s requirements cost [54 57] [53 54] [53 56] [54 58] [57 59] [85 94] [66 81] [71 87] [84 92] [81 88] duration We have presented two confidence indi confidence two presented have We requirements correspond to “req1.” Then, “req1.” to correspond requirements and “sol2,” “sol1,” solutions the three only the 4). Now, (see Figure relevant are “sol3” propose to select solution one designer must the company’s consider To the customer. to the the solutions, deliver to ability future andrequired OCS define designer can Let selecting OCP a solution. for values selected the designer has “7” consider us OCS OCP and values. the required as “Sol3” corresponds only the solution Then, (see Figure the designer preference to offer the commercial 4). Consequently, in a Note “sol3.” this solution considers could case, one complex practical or more several OCS, (cost, criteria optimize and a multicriteria a situation, OCP). such In determine could approach support decision select and weight appropriate criterion’s each Yu, Xu, (Zheng, solution interesting the most 2017). Liu and tors and their evaluation method. However, method. However, their evaluation and tors CONCLUSION (OCS OCP) their evaluation and and cators ability a company’s evaluating method for offered a solution deliver and develop to bidding Engineer-To-Order an during metrics and (factual different Two process. the OCS OCP characterize and subjective) to how also shown have We indicators. select to a criterion use a decision them as design engineering in an solution feasible step inthe a first represents This process. indica the proposed of process validation c3 c2 - - (i) - sol1 sol2 sol3 sol4 sol5 solution (CSP) (CSP) c5 c4 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 5 5 OCS OCP c1 a) generic configuration model a) generic configuration An example of confidence indicator use req1 req2 Considering a design or a configuration a configuration a design or Considering Consider the simple generic configuration configuration generic the simple Consider requirements Constraint Satisfaction Problem problem as a CSP allows constraint filtering filtering constraint allows a CSP as problem Each tool. aiding act an to as mechanisms designer’s or requirement customer’s propagate to triggers constraints preference values variable prune and this decision while duration and cost, the solutions, for the confidence updating automatically 2008). Vareilles and (Aldanondo indicators the customer’s consider example, an As straints “c2” and “c3” define each solution’s define each solution’s “c3” and “c2” straints “c4” constraints whereas duration and cost and OCS define each solution’s “c5” and the technical bid for instance, For OCP. = = [53 56], cost duration “sol3”: solution [71 87], OCS = OCP = 7. er’s requirements (sol1, sol2 and sol3 are sol3 are (sol1, sol2 and requirements er’s Con “req1”). the requirements to relevant framework. A CSP framework’s configura framework’s A CSP framework. model presented Figure 4, developed using using 4, developed Figure model presented a model uses elements: three problem tion Figure 4. requirements. customer’s a variable set, (ii) a finite domain for each for domain set, (ii) a finite a variable linking the constraints (iii) and variable, the requirements, this model, In variables. and the duration, the cost, the solution, (OCS and OCS) indicator confidence each values Their possible a variable. to associates variable’s the corresponding represent bid technicalsolutions Therefore, domain. possible Five “solution.” thelink variable to this represent “sol5”) to (“sol1” solutions defines “c1” Constraint domain. variable’s specific to custom relevant the solutions

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19

FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 42 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 43 - - - In this paper, we develop a framework a framework develop we this paper, In is to break down the software into objects. into the software down break to is & Design Language Analysis Architecture the Society by of standardized (AADL), (SAE) (SAE 2017), Engineers Automotive system specific control industrial addresses aspects physical and platform-oriented 2018). et al. 2004; Akdur et al. (Feiler focuses modeling the AADL on However, a includes and embeddedreal-time systems hard standard of catalogue comprehensive sumption (Kordon et al. 2013; Grolleau et 2013; Grolleau et al. (Kordon sumption method brings 2018). This al. ecosystem the industrial address to tools and ologies project. software a robot of realization ware and software elements in such systems systems such in elements software and ware relatively allowing their characteristics, and different of analyses dependable and precise performance, as such properties system con power or reliability, schedulability, - Hien Van Ngo, Ngo, Van ; and Hien [email protected] Object Management Group (OMG) (OMG) Group Object Management standardized Model-Driven Architecture Architecture Model-Driven standardized Unified 2003) through (OMG (MDA) Modeling Language/Systems Modeling 2007, (OMG (UML/SysML) Language separating 2012), which started with OMG how from specifications operation system capabilities. platform uses its the system tools and approach an provides MDA the of specifyto: independently a system specify platforms, platform, supporting the system, for choose a particular platform specification the system transform and the addition, In a particular platform. for Methodology (OOM) is Object-Oriented develop system to approach a common ment encouraging and facilitating software software facilitating and encouraging ment main four with reusability component encapsulation, abstraction, principles: purpose OOM’s hierarchy. and modularity, ------Thierry ; Thierry Soriano, [email protected]

n recent years, there has been has increas there years, n recent for cooperation in control interest ing Underwater Autonomous multiple achievable many to due (AUD) Drones  ABSTRACT control, formation specifically coordination, drone multi-underwater studying for a framework present goalto is This paper’s This Environment). System Robot (the Operating environment open-source in an paradigms based object-oriented a real-time on simulation the out testing to specification the requirements from cycle, life development whole the system’s will capture framework algorithms verify and the control develop quickly easily and Based models. can this specialized we on realization framework, and changes. manageable or requirements input while future meeting

According to Oh and Park (2015), some (2015), some Park and Oh to According INTRODUCTION advantages such as robustness, adaptivity, adaptivity, robustness, as such advantages tasks. exploration for flexibility and include: control coordination to approaches displace the position-based control, ty, or security) to avoid costly rework late in late rework costly security) avoid or to ty, maintenance. and development rithms more complex. Also, AUD failures failures AUD Also, complex. more rithms occur unexpectedlymay in autonomous environments. mode in harsh operation and predict must analysis system Therefore, operational and capabilities its understand reliabili performance, (its attributes quality ment-based control, and distance-based and control, ment-based develop rapid AUD’s However, control. approach different the numerous and ment algo controller’s the AUD made es have I. [email protected]

Hoang Anh Pham, Source Environment Methodology in an Open- an in Methodology Object-Oriented Towards an IntegratedTowards Underwater Drones: Coordination of Multi- I ------(in Gazebo) A real model real A ROS Environment A simulation model A COORDINATION OF TWO TWO OF COORDINATION

. This paper only presented presented only . This paper /topic ” topic. Using algorithm models algorithm Using ” topic. (number 2) thread can convert convert can 2) thread (number /odom CASE STUDY:

Figure 3 (on the following page) presents presents page) the following 3 (on Figure ” to type “nav_msgs/Odometry of messages as the “ test help will quickly in Matlab/Simulink the following In verifyand the requirements. this using section, detail a case we study study. to framework rithms for simulation models or realization realization or models simulation for rithms be support communication model with environ ROS and tween Matlab/Simulink the way, a synthetic 4). In (number ment time and model deals response with AADL model deals with the Simulink reliability, the model deals ROS/Gazebo and behavior, implementation. and 3D simulation with consensus presents previous author’s The 2018) and et al. (Pham details algorithm 2019) OCEANS et al. (Pham the conference development. AADL presents III. 2016) which includes – (OSATE ronment actuators and microcontroller, sensors, form the Threads characteristics. its with 1) details. (number blocks microcontroller consensus are algorithms this case’s Thus, avoidance processing, image algorithms, obstacle algorithm, and avoidance colli sion algorithm transfor using By algorithms. consensus 2015), the consensus rules (Lukas mation algorithms (number Matlab/Simulink the model on to threads, algorithms the consensus 3). With output and values input define the can we which willvalues way function in the same the Using model. the Matlab/Simulink as verify can we algo model, Matlab/Simulink UNDERWATER DRONES – BLUEROVS – DRONES UNDERWATER an example using the framework focused the framework using example an drones underwater two coordinating on software open-source ArduSub BlueROV. this AUD’s form autopilot the Pixhawk and components BlueROV models AADL basis. envi tool AADL open-source using by n, Perception - - - - =1,..., i Code Generation Code (t)],

j Planning and decision making (t)–x

C/C++ Libraries i world x [ in Gazebo in the real Simulation (t)

Robot model Robot model Robot ij a n ROS Environment j=1 – = Consensus algorithms Consensus (t)

i Matlab/Simulink x Framework based on Matlab/Simulink and ROS/Gazebo C/C++ files model AADL Figure 2 shows Matlab/Simulink and ROS and Matlab/Simulink 2 shows Figure Model Code Figure 2. generator. Semprebon (2017) and Bardaro Bardaro (2017) and Semprebon generator. this about details more (2017) provide et al. using this study the scope of In approach. the chosen sec have we platforms, available ulink can directly connect to Gazebo to simu ulink connect directly can Matlab/Sim on models from maybe or lator which C++ libraries, generate ulink can we environment. act a librarycan as in ROS and sends receives GazeboThe simulator receives It topics. the following on messages Matlab/Simulink, from commands velocity ” type “geometry_msgs/Twist of messages as sends It ” topic. the “/commands/velocity on Matlab/Simulink, to odometry information ond approach. We use the transformation use the transformation We approach. ond have model to the AADL to rules applied Moreover, Matlab/Simulink. on the models directly can Matlab/Simulink the model on et (Manhães Gazebo to simulator connect with and robots in virtual fit 2016) to al. models from or robots; actual ROS-enabled C ++ generate can we Matlab/Simulink, on a library function as in which can libraries, environment. ROS the From details. relationship environment the transformation through models AADL Matlab/ the on models rules, get could we Matlab/Sim on model Then, the Simulink. Matlab/Simulink Generator ------XML files XML AADL model AADL backed Ocarina A toolchain for coordination of multiple UUVs specification Requirements PROPOSAL OF A FRAMEWORK A FOR OF PROPOSAL By using AADL models to specify to models AADL the using By In addition to the AADL model, we can can we model, the AADL to addition In We propose a framework for studying studying for a framework propose We

Figure 1. els convert to XML files.Then XML files, to convert els generate engineering, round-trip through using by implemented in C/C++ libraries, Python However, environment. the ROS code this method’s create manually must input requirements specification, we can we can specification, requirements input component system determine precisely constraints, binding and requirements generalization and described abstraction at models, the defined AADL From levels. model simulation AUD test approaches two mod the AADL Firstly, realization. and uating design safety aspects and identifies aspects identifies design safety and uating supporting tools methods, and processes, 2014). et al. (Delange the evaluation borne Systems and Equipment (SAE 1996), (SAE Equipment and Systems borne eval on guidance general provides AADL spond to the ARP4761 standard. By using using By the ARP4761 standard. to spond conducting methods for and the guidelines Civil Air on Process Assessment the Safety mation timing concurrency between concurrency timing tasks mation due delay timing and connections, along in the time slots for waiting or queuing to protocol. transferring corre which components, error define the DEVELOPING THE COORDINATION OF OF COORDINATION THE DEVELOPING AUD MULTIPLE end-to-end analyze and specification ments time and processing including latency time processing it: affect factors Four delay. processing flow, in the tasks end-to-end by infor sampling, or queuing to due delay II. nication modules through actuators with with actuators through modules nication of external environment the the influence disturbances. for studying the multiple AUD coordina AUD the multiple studying for based OOM. AADL on applying by tion an as considered system, AUD control The hybrid of consist can embedded system, This components. software and hardware a signal process can embedded system commu and/or sensors from stream data multiple AUD coordination in figure 1. The 1. in figure coordination AUD multiple describe can models AADL the require

SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 FEATURE 44 SPECIAL DECEMBER 2O19 FEATURE VOLUME 22/ ISSUE 4 45 - . - ¡ . . In this study, we proposed a framework a framework proposed we this study, In . CONCLUSION to study multiple AUD coordination coordination AUD multiple study to to Thanks environments. in different conditions hypothetical various AADL, and latency verify flow the end-to-end embedded system. AUD an for faults Matlab/ or environment ROS Using status real-time supports tools Simulink and parameters, control visualization, will we works, future In 3D simulation. so can we framework, a complete study (the application algorithms verify more for neural network of the algorithms of rules to will more also and study control), trace models between AADL automatically models. Matlab/Simulink and . esc3 esc4 esc1 esc2 esc5 esc6 . control_motor_out_3 control_motor_out_4 control_motor_out_1 control_motor_out_2 control_motor_out_5 control_motor_out_6 control_total control_data allocation_matrix avoidance_obstact_control avoidance_collision_control formation_control ——. 2007. “UML Specification Version 2.1.1.” https://www. “UML 2007. SpecificationVersion 2.1.1.” ——. “SysML 2012. http://www. Specifications1.3.” Version ——. “Integrated 2018. Scenarios Formation of Tracking——. and 1996“Guidelines and methods conducting——. for the safety cmd OSATE. 2016. “SettingOSATE. 2016. and Development Up OSATE Environment.” https://osate.org/ https://www.omg.org/ 1.0.1. 2003. GuideOMG. MDA Version mda/ AADL “Applying 2019. Pham, Ngo. Soriano, H.A., T. V.H. to Realize Embedded Control Systems Coordination for of Multiple Low-Cost Underwater Paper presented Drones.” at OCEANS - Marseille, 2019 Marseille, June. France, 17-20 SAE. “Architecture analysis 2017 & design language (AADL) AS5506C.” https://www.sae.org/standards/content/as5506c/ “Model-basedSemprebon, A. robot development: 2017 From AADL through to ROS code thesis, Master’s generation.” Polytechnic University Milan of (Milan, Italy). Oh, K-K., M-C.Oh, K-K., Park, Survey and H-S. Ahn. of “A 2015. Multi-Agent Formation Control.” Automatica 53:424-440. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2014.10.022. omg.org/spec/UML/ omg.org/spec/SysML/ Paper presented at Collision Multi-Vehicles.” of Avoidance 13th Annual Conference System on Systems of Engineering Paris,(SoSE), France, June. 19-22 assessment process civil on airborne systems and equipment.” https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/ARP4761/ Simulation.” Paper presented OCEANS MTS/IEEE at 2016 US-CA, September. Monterey, 19-23 Monterey, Sylla, Guillon, A., D. E. Vareilles, M. Aldanondo, Coudert, T. and L. Geneste. “Configuration 2018. KnowledgeModeling : to ExtendHow Configuration from Assemble/Make to Order towards Engineer the to Order for Bidding Process.” Comput ers in Industry 99:29–41. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.019. “Personalized X. and Xu,Zheng, S. C. Yu, Liu. Product P., 2017. ConfigurationFramework in Adaptablean Open Architec ture Product Platform.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 43: 422–35. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.03.010. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 3 control_data control_data control_data 2 consensus_algorithm avoidance_obstacle_algorithm distance_data avoidance_collision_algorithm - position_data data_robot_I orientation_data position_data velocity_data accelerormeter_data data_robot_I ref_data MCU_Controller.with_threads . acc_out position_data velocity_data orientation_data distance_data ref_data Image_processing sensor_fusion data_robot_I path_planning communication_data 4 video_data mission_in accelerormeter_data gyro_data barometer_data accoustic_data magnetometer_data gps_data dvl_data pressure_data . motors6_in current_voltage_data communication_data accelerormeter_data temperature_data video_data gyro_data barometer_data accoustic_data magnetometer_data gps_data dvl_data pressure_data esc6_out esc esc esc esc esc esc6 esc2 esc4 esc5 esc3 CU currentVoltage_sensor current_voltage_data esc6_in esc2_in esc4_in esc5_in esc3_in esc1_in e M TE temperature_sensor h temperature_data r t 1 42 o . s f d 8:32-44. a in the ROS environment V in OSA e O hr L t ueR ControlUAV.with_devices l mcu_controller . Malakoff, France: Dunod. f B MCU_Controller.with_threads AAD o r TE o accelerometer_data video_out_ras ts f 3(6): 673. doi:10.1504/IJISE.2008.020680 673. 3(6): raspberryPi . London, UK: Wiley-ISTE. accelerometer_sensor en video_in_ras continued from page from continued n . doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1353156. e models on Matlab/Simulink and Gazebo e models on Matlab/Simulink o V in OSA p An example of using the proposed framework for a coordination multi-robots O m _out _data _data _data _data dvl dvl gyro ueR comm gps_data l L co acoustic gps pressure_data barometer_data _in _out acoustic_sensor compass_sensor gyroscope_sensor communication e B magnetometer barometer_sensor h accelerometer_sensor comm Manhães, M.M.M., S.A. L.R. M. Voss, Scherer, Douat, and Rauschenbach. “UUVT. 2016. Simulator: A Gazebo-Based Package Underwater for Intervention and Multi-Robot set-view.cfm?assetid=6881 Feiler, P.H., D.P. Gluch, J.J. Hudak, Gluch, J.J. and B. Lewis. D.P. P.H., 2004.Feiler, “Ebedded Systems Architecture Analysis Using SAE AADL.” Pittsburgh, Software US-PA: Engineering Institue, Carnegie Mellon University. https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/as Delenge, J., P.H. Feiler, D.P. Gluch, and Hudak. J.J. 2014. D.P. Feiler, Delenge, P.H. J., Fault Modeling“AADL and Analysis Wihin an ARP4761 Safety Assessment.” Pittsburgh, Software US-PA: Engineering Institue, Carnegie Mellon https://resources.sei.cmu. University, edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=311884 Bardaro, G., A. Semprebon, “AADL and M. Matteucci. 2017. Robotics:for A General System Approach for Architecture Modeling and Code Generation.” Journal of Software Engineering for Robotics Armborst, “Generating L. 2015. Simulink Models from AADL System Descriptions.” Bachelor Thesis,RWTH Aachen Germany). University (Aachen, Sylla, A., E. Coudert, Vareilles, T. K. Kirytopoulos, M. Aldanondo, and “Readiness L. Geneste.l. , Feasibility 2017. and Confidence Bidders to Help to Better : How Develop and Assess Their InternationalOffers.” Journal Production of Research Sauser, B.,Sauser, J.E. Ramirez-Marquez, Henry, and Dimarzio. D. D. System2008. Maturity “A Index the for Systems Engineering Life International Cycle.” Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering Kordon, F., J. Hugues, J. F., A.Kordon, Canals, and A. Dohet, editors. 2013. Embedded Systems: Analysis and Modeling with SysML, UML, and AADL Grolleau, E., Hugues, J. Ouhammou, Y. and 2018. H. Bauer. Introduction aux Systèmes Réel: Embarqués Conception Temps et Mise En Oeuvre Akdur, D., V. Garousi. Survey and Demirörs. on O. V. “A Akdur, D., 2018. Modeling and Model-Driven Engineering Practices in the Embedded Software JournalIndustry.” of Systems Architecture doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2018.09.007. 91:62-82. t AAD camera camera ■ Sylla et al. Sylla ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ REFERENCES ■ Figure 3. Systems Engineering: The Journal of The International Council on Systems Engineering Call for Papers

he Systems Engineering journal is intend ed to be a primary systems. Definitive case studies involving systems engineering practice source of multidisciplinary information for the systems engineer- are especially welcome. ing and management of products and services, and processes of T all types. Systems engi neering activities involve the technologies The journal is a primary source of infor mation for the systems engineer- and system management approaches needed for ing of products and services that are generally large in scale, scope, • definition of systems, including identi fication of user and complexity. Systems Engineering will be especially concerned with requirements and technological specifications; process- or product-line–related efforts needed to produce products that • development of systems, including concep tual architectures, are trustworthy and of high quality, and that are cost effective in meeting tradeoff of design concepts, configuration management during user needs. A major component of this is system cost and operational system development, integration of new systems with legacy effectiveness determination, and the development of processes that systems, inte grated product and process development; and ensure that products are cost effective. This requires the integration of a • deployment of systems, including opera tional test and number of engi neering disciplines necessary for the definition, devel- evaluation, maintenance over an extended life cycle, and opment, and deployment of complex systems. It also requires attention re-engineering. to the life cycle process used to produce systems, and the integration of systems, including legacy systems, at various architectural levels. Systems Engineering is the archival journal of, and exists to serve the In addition, appropriate systems management of information and following objectives of, the International Council on Systems Engineer- knowledge across technologies, organi zations, and environments is also ing (INCOSE): needed to insure a sustainable world. • To provide a focal point for dissemination of systems engineering knowledge The journal will accept and review sub missions in English from any • To promote collaboration in systems engineering education author, in any global locality, whether or not the author is an INCOSE and research member. A body of international peers will review all submissions, and • To encourage and assure establishment of professional the reviewers will suggest potential revisions to the author, with the intent standards for integrity in the practice of systems engineering to achieve published papers that • To improve the professional status of all those engaged in the • relate to the field of systems engineering; practice of systems engineering • represent new, previously unpublished work; • To encourage governmental and industrial support for research • advance the state of knowledge of the field; and and educational programs that will improve the systems • conform to a high standard of scholarly presentation. engineering process and its practice Editorial selection of works for publication will be made based on con- The journal supports these goals by providing a continuing, respected tent, without regard to the stature of the authors. Selections will include publication of peer-reviewed results from research and development in a wide variety of international works, recognizing and supporting the the area of systems engineering. Systems engineering is defined broadly essential breadth and universality of the field. Final selection of papers in this context as an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the for publication, and the form of publication, shall rest with the editor. realization of succes s ful systems that are of high quality, cost-effective, and trustworthy in meeting customer requirements. Submission of quality papers for review is strongly encouraged. The review process is estimated to take three months, occasionally longer for The Systems Engineering journal is dedi cated to all aspects of the hard-copy manuscript. engineering of systems: technical, management, economic, and social. It focuses on the life cycle processes needed to create trustworthy and Systems Engineering operates an online submission and peer review high-quality systems. It will also emphasize the systems management system that allows authors to submit articles online and track their efforts needed to define, develop, and deploy trustworthy and high progress, throughout the peer-review process, via a web interface. quality processes for the production of systems. Within this, Systems All papers submitted to Systems Engineering, including revisions or Engineer ing is especially con cerned with evaluation of the efficiency and resubmissions of prior manuscripts, must be made through the online effectiveness of systems management, technical direction, and integra- system. Contributions sent through regular mail on paper or emails with tion of systems. Systems Engi neering is also very concerned with the attachments will not be reviewed or acknowledged. engineering of systems that support sustainable development. Modern systems, including both products and services, are often very knowl- All manuscripts must be submitted online to Systems Engineering at edge-intensive, and are found in both the public and private sectors. ScholarOne Manuscripts, located at: The journal emphasizes strategic and program management of these, http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/SYS and the infor mation and knowledge base for knowledge principles, Full instructions and support are available on the site, and a user ID and knowledge practices, and knowledge perspectives for the engineering of password can be obtained on the first visit.

46 Unique brand of recognition and visibility 1 for your organization

Access to the latest thinking relevant to the 2 practice of Systems Engineering Put a spotlight on your organization’s 3 competency in Systems Engineering

Be associated with the highest culture of 4 professionalism and innovation Demonstrate organizational support to 5 INCOSE’s mission 6 Develop sustainable business relationships Powered by MagicDraw® Cameo® Systems Modeler

Version 19.0 offers these capabilities

MagicGrid

Integrations Methods & Standards  Siemens Teamcenter  SysML 1.5 support  OSLC (provider and consumer)  UML 2.5.1 support  Excel/CSV synchronization  MagicGrid Usability & Infrastructure Simulation & Analysis  Live hyperlinks to elements in texts  Monte Carlo Analysis  Search in diagrams  New MATLAB integration  Legends  FMI 2.0 support  Basic units (ISO 80000 update)  Concepts in the Sequence diagram  Improved implied connectors  Open Modelica integration  SysML allocation matrix modes

CATIA No Magic 700 Central Expressway South, Suite 110 Allen, Texas 75013 214.291.9100 Phone

Learn more about No Magic solutions at nomagic.com No Magic

© 2019 CATIA No Magic. All rights reserved. Design: FigDesign.

INCOSE-Insight-ads-2019.indd 1 5/21/19 12:17 PM