Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

MBASE Process: WinWin Spiral

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "MBASE Process: WinWin Spiral"— Presentation transcript:

1 MBASE Process: WinWin Spiral
Copyright 2000 by USC and the Center for Software Engineering, all rights reserved. MBASE Process: WinWin Spiral Three principals to visualizing application development 1. Integrating four system model, each one capturing specific attributes 2. All four models have specific interdependencies 3. An iterative spiral that is anchored with management milestones. At each anchor point, key stakeholders decide whether and how to proceed. Philosophy: Eliminate or mitigate model clashes by concurrently evolving · Requirements · Other key choices: e.g. architecture, operational concepts, etc.

2 MBASE Invariants and Variants

3 MBASE Guidelines MBASE Model Guide MBASE Process Guide
describes models describes suggested model creation approach (variant) MBASE Process Guide Describes activities and dynamic model integration large, so provided in EPG redundant with model guide (at present) MBASE Active Templates Process Guide “The Trinity” Model Guide Active Templates

4 General MBASE Considerations
Made up of OCD, SSRD, SSAD, LCP, and FRD and various IOC plans Collaboration Essential, Elements Strongly Integrated this reduces risk overall Keep deliverables in sync, strong interdependencies Conceptual integrity critical! Be consistent, traceable,… LCO: less structure, detail, more “vision” - major issues LCA: no “TBD”s, formal, no unresolved issues IOC: only detail what was actually built Generally no set number of pages be concise, but cover, “lean and mean” be willing to “throw away” meet completion or “exit” criteria

5 General MBASE Considerations Cont.
Avoid repetition, instead reference the information. Avoid “broken” or “blind” or “vague” references Do not include text from guidelines, without relating to your project Follow formatting guidelines (grader win-condition!) Describe what things are for your project, not the guidelines Outline and summarize, avoid “the great system novel” Use a consistent referencing format (e.g , REQ-7) Not “one size fits all” - tailor to your project, use only what is relevant risk driven documentation IOC guidelines separated from LCO/LCA there are places that they integrate and mix look out for “construction phase”

6 Integration of MBASE System Definition Elements
Domain Description System Analysis System Requirements System Definition Statement of Purpose Organization Background Project Goals Project Requirements Organization Goals Levels of Service Levels of Service Requirements Organization Activities System Capabilities Capability Requirements System Design Organization Entities Component Model Object Model Activity Model Behavior Model Operations Model Interaction Model Enterprise model Class Model Operational Concept Description (OCD) System and Software Requirements Definition (SSRD) System and Software Architecture Description (SSAD)

7 Purpose of OCD Describe context of system. why build it? What do we have? Where are we starting? Describe stakeholders of the system: how the system will work when deployed. Allow evolution from current to new operational concept. Allow adaptation of concept. Clarify the value of new system.

8 OCD Completion Criteria (LCO)
Top-level system objectives: Organizational Context, System Boundary, System Environment, Evolution Considerations Operational Concept: ID stakeholders, Determine Responsibilities, Coordinate Operational Scenarios, System Concept Shared Vision and Context for Stakeholders: Common system visions, goals, language and understanding, Rationalize capabilities

9 OCD Completion Criteria (LCA)
Elaboration of system objectives and scope by system increment Elaboration of operational concept by system increment All scenarios (stakeholder-critical nominal and off-nominal) coordinated with clients SSAD satisfies operational concept Tracing between Project Goals and Organization Goals and Activities Tracing between System Responsibilities and Project Goals and Organization Activities

10 OCD Audience and Participants
Customer for Domain Description Domain Domain Expert for System Analysis Use language and define CDL appropriately for intended audience Participants Same stakeholders as WinWin negotiation Establish concept of operation agreed on by all stakeholders

11 OCD High-Level Dependencies
WinWin Negotiations Give System Capabilities Domain Description Terms (CDL) Project Goals and Constraints OCD Yields Project, System and Level of Service Reqs for SSRD Domain Description and Initial Analysis for SSAD Stakeholder and Organizational Responsibilities Business Case Analysis parameters for FR

12 Purpose of SSRD Describe Capability Requirements: system subject matter measured by concrete means Describe Project, Level of Service, and Evolutionary (non-functional) Requirements: Behavioral properties of functions (performance, usability, etc.) Describe Global Constraints: constraints that apply to the entire system as a whole (including interface, environment and Data reqs) Mandates (“must”, “shall”, “will”): how the system must be implemented with respect to general tech.

13 Requirements in General
Describe a contract between the developers and the customer customer: if the developers build these requirements, then I agree that the system is built developer: if I build these requirements, then I have built a satisfactory system for the customer this is very misleading and full of strong assumptions! Important: all requirements must be implementable and testable Gotha’s: vague requirements volatile requirements “hidden” or implied requirements

14 SSRD Completion Criteria (LCO)
Top-level capabilities, interfaces, quality attribute levels: Growth vectors (evolution reqs), Priorities Stakeholders’ Concurrence on Essentials Requirements Satisfiable by at least one system/software architecture

15 SSRD Completion Criteria (LCA)
Elaboration of capabilities, interfaces, quality attributes by iteration. Resolution of TBDs, Elaboration of evolution reqs Stakeholders’ concurrence on priority concerns (prioritization) Traces SSRD (and indirectly to FRD, LCP) Requirements satisfiable by the architecture in the SSAD

16 SSRD Audience and Participants
Domain Expert and Customer (decision makers) Implementers and Architects Participants Same stakeholders as WinWin negotiation

17 SSRD High-Level Dependencies (Page 1)
SSRD Depends on WinWin Taxonomy Outline of SSRD evolves from taxonomy No one-size-fits-all taxonomy or requirements description Importance of adapting taxonomy to domain SSRD Depends on OCD for: Statement of Purpose Project Goals System Capabilities

18 SSRD High-Level Dependencies (Page 2)
SSRD Depends on Prototype for: User Interface Requirements Additional documents depend on SSRD: SSAD to obtain System and Project Requirements LCP to relate requirement priorities to system increments or to requirements to be dropped in a design-to-cost/schedule development plan FRD to check for satisfaction of: Capability, Interface, Quality, and Evolution Requirements

19 Purpose of SSAD Documents the Architectural Analysis and the System Design, “blueprint” Serves As A Bridge between Engineering (Inception and Elaboration) and Construction Phase The SSAD is refined during the Construction Phase into a Software Detailed Design Specification The SSAD should not repeat information from other documents: reference other information. Vital to project integration and cohesion. Conciseness is paramount

20 SSAD Completion Criteria (LCO)
Top-level definition of at least one feasible architecture: Physical/Logical elements, choices of COTS and reusable elements, detailed analysis Feasibility Criterion: a system built to the architecture would support the operational concept, satisfy the requirements, be faithful to the prototypes, and be buildable within the budgets and schedules in the Life Cycle Plan Identify infeasible architecture options

21 SSAD Completion Criteria (LCA)
Choice of architecture and elaboration by iteration: physical/logical components, COTS, Architectural style, deployment considerations, critical algorithms, analysis issues resolved in design Architecture evolution parameters Complete design for each component of the system Tracing to and from OCD/SSRD Assurance of Satisfaction of Feasibility Criterion

22 SSAD Audience and Participants
Domain Expert for System Analysis Implementers for System Design Participants System Architect Domain Experts (to validate analysis models) Implementers (to validate design models) Project Managers (to test feasibility)

23 SSAD High-Level Dependencies
SSAD depends on OCD for: Statement of Purpose Project Goals and Constraints System Responsibilities SSAD depends on SSRD for: System Definition and Requirements Level of Service Requirements Project Requirements FRD depends on SSAD to ensure that: Project, Capability, Interface, and Evolution Requirements are achievable

24 Purpose of LCP Basis for monitoring and controlling the project’s progress Basis for controlling the project's progress in achieving the software product objectives Helps make the best use of people and resources throughout the life cycle Provides evidence that the developers have thought through the major life cycle issues in advance Organized to answer the most common questions about a project or activity: why, what, when, who, where, how, how much, and whereas Maintaining the conceptual integrity between the tasks and the things they create/solve is a prime quality criterion.

25 LCP Completion Criteria (LCO)
ID life-cycle stakeholders: users, customers, developers, maintainers, interfacers, general public, others Top-level stages, increments: Top-level WWWWWHH (Why, What, When, Who, Where, How, How Much) by stage Major risks Identified Achieve deliverables, budgets, and schedules: by at least one system/software architecture

26 LCP Completion Criteria (LCA)
Elaboration of WWWWWHH for Initial Operational Capability (IOC). Partial elaboration, identification of key TBDs for later increments All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plan Achieve deliverables, budgets and schedules by the architecture in the SSAD

27 LCP Audience and Participants
Primarily for the performer teams in each stage Important for customers Useful for other stakeholders. Participants Project Manager: leads the baselining of the plan for that stage. Plans for future stages: done by a designated team member during Engineering Stage. Stakeholders should participate: if affected by plan

28 LCP High-Level Dependencies
Products specified by Requirements and Architecture must be buildable and supportable within the budgets and schedules in the Life Cycle Plan. Plans for transition and support must be consistent with the Operational Concept Description.

29 Purpose of FRD Ensure feasibility and consistency of other package components (OCD, SSRD, SSAD, LCP, Prototype) Demonstrate viable business case for the system Identify shortfalls in ensuring feasibility, consistency, and business case as project risk items for LCP Demonstrate that a system built using the specified architecture (described in the SSAD) and life cycle process (described in the LCP) will fulfill prediction of other docs Rationalize life cycle decisions in a way the prime audience (the customer and users) and other stakeholders can understand Enable the customers to participate in the decision process and to express their satisfaction with the product

30 FRD Completion Criteria (LCO)
Assurance of consistency among elements above for at least one feasible architecture. Via analysis, measurement, prototyping, simulation, etc.. Business case analysis for reqs, feasible architectures LCA Assurance of consistency among elements above for the architecture specified in the SSAD All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plan

31 FRD Audience The primary audiences are the LCO and LCA Architecture Review Board members Key system stakeholders Experienced peers Technical Specialists in critical areas The parts dealing with client satisfaction must be understandable by the client representatives on the ARB. The technical parts must be sufficiently detailed and well organized to enable the peers and technical experts to efficiently assess the adequacy of the technical rationale. Valuable to developers and other stakeholders, provides a rationale for important decisions made by the project.

32 FRD Participants Project manager responsible for content
OCD author should prepare business case All stakeholders responsible for consistency and feasibility via Win-Win negotiations Agreements can be contingent on demonstration of feasibility

33 FRD High-Level Dependencies
The thoroughness of the Feasibility Rationale is dependent on the thoroughness of all the other LCO and LCA components. Issues incompletely covered in the Feasibility Rationale are sources of risk, whose management should be covered in the Life Cycle Plan’s (LCP) Risk Management and Monitoring Procedures section (LCP 4.1)

34 IOC Plans To be discussed later
Preview by looking at the MBASE IOC guidelines Completion criteria is generally editing the models to “as-built” status so that they reflect the IOC of the system

35 Starting Your Project Meet with your team communication
basic approach alternatives fail-safe, “crunch” times, etc. designate basic responsibilities “leads” not “do-all” be flexible risks, constraints, problems expectations for project stick with positive only

36 Starting Your Project Meet with your TA communication
how your TA can help between your team and the customer your team and the class discuss class expectations and possible problems scheduling of reviews grading concerns resource issues project concerns

37 Starting Your Project Meet with your customer communication
basic approach alternatives fail-safe, “crunch” times, etc. Domain interview (see recitation!) CDL (OCD 4.) Start building DD (OCD 2.) Scope project (simps/comps) manage expectations discuss top risks and their severity Discuss next steps WinWin negotiations

Download ppt "MBASE Process: WinWin Spiral"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google