Integrating systems and software engineering approaches
It is widely observed that systems engineers and software engineers approach problems differently, using different language, different notation and different tools. There may have been a time when this was perfectly acceptable, a time when, owing mostly to the limitations of computing hardware, software and hardware could be developed separately, and then integrated during the final stages of a project. However, the rapid increase in processing power, coupled with a dramatic reduction in processor size, has made it possible to embed so much processing power into today’s devices that nearly all systems depend on sophisticated software for much of their functionality. To effectively develop such systems, integrated approaches to systems and software engineering are required.
The reconciliation of software and systems engineering approaches has been the topic of research for several decades. While numerous approaches have been proposed, the fundamental issues have never been fully resolved [References 1-7]. More recently, one study presented strong evidence that the differences may run much deeper than notation and language, extending to the underlying mental models members of the two communities use when reasoning about problems. [References 1-7]. This project updates that earlier study by exploring the literature on reconciling systems and software engineering published during the last five years to develop a more comprehensive assessment.
1. Daniels, T. B., “The hybrid process that combines traditional requirements and use cases”, Systems Engineering, 14 Sep 2004.
2. Doyle, L., J, Pennotti, M., C., Systems Engineering Experience with UML on a Complex System, Conference on Systems Engineering Research, April 2005.
3. Doyle, L., J, Pennotti, M., C., Impact of Embedded Software Technology on Systems Engineering, INCOSE 2006, The 16th International Symposium, July 2006.
4. Hoffman, H., From function driven Systems Engineering to object-oriented Software Engineering, I-Logix whitepaper, 2000.
5. Katic, N., B. Nevstrujev, D. Vogel, and M. O. Pendergast, “Bridging the gap between structured requirements and object-oriented analysis and design”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 525-35 vol.3, 1996.
6. Rickman, D.M., A Process for Combining Object Oriented and Structured Analysis and Design, Proceedings, 3RD ANNUAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING & SUPPORTABILITY CONFERENCE, 23-26 October 2000.
7. Oliver, D.W., Kelliher, T.P., Keegan, J.G., Engineering Complex Systems with Models and Objects, McGaw Hill, 1997.
8. Doyle, L, Cognitive Theory of System Models, PhD Dissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology, 2007.
9. Doyle, L., J, Pennotti, M., C., Cognitive Fit Applied to Systems Engineering Models, Conference on Systems Engineering Research, April 2004.
10. Agarwal, R., De, P., Sinha, A. P., Comprehending Object and Process Models: An Empirical Study, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, July/August 1999, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 541-556.
11. Agarwal, R., Sinha, A.P. And Tanniru, Mohan R., Cognitive Fit in Requirements Modeling: A Study of Object and Process Methodologies, Journal of Management Information Systems Vol. 13 No. 2, Fall 1996 pp. 137 – 162.
12. Morris, M.G.; Speier, C.; Hoffer, J.A., “The impact of experience on individual performance and workload differences using object-oriented and process-oriented systems analysis techniques”, System Sciences, 1996., Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on Man-machine interfaces, Volume: 2 , 3-6 Jan 1996, Page(s): 232 -241 vol.2.
Experience with embedded systems software