Enhanced V-Model

Typically, software development processes are time consuming, expensive, and rigorous, particularly for safety-critical applications. Even if guidelines and recommendations are defined by sector-specific functional safety standards, development process may not be completed because of excessive costs or insufficient planning. The V-model is one of the most well-known software development lifecycle model. In this study, the V-model lifecycle is modified by adding an intermediate step. The proposed modification is realized by checking the fault diagnosability of each module. The proposed modification provides three advantages: (1) it checks whether the constructed model covers all software requirements related with faults; (2) it decreases costs by early detection of modeling deficiencies before the coding and testing phases; and (3) it enables code simplicity in decision of fault occurrence.

[1]  A. Govardhan,et al.  A Comparison Between Five Models Of Software Engineering , 2010 .

[2]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Software Engineering Economics , 1993, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[3]  Error Cost Escalation Through the Project Life Cycle , 2010 .

[4]  Gerard J. Holzmann,et al.  The SPIN Model Checker , 2003 .

[5]  Marta Z. Kwiatkowska,et al.  PRISM: Probabilistic Symbolic Model Checker , 2002, Computer Performance Evaluation / TOOLS.

[6]  Toshimitsu Ushio,et al.  Fault detection based on Petri net models with faulty behaviors , 1998, SMC'98 Conference Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.98CH36218).

[7]  MengChu Zhou,et al.  A Survey and Comparison of Petri Net-Based Deadlock Prevention Policies for Flexible Manufacturing Systems , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[8]  Udo Pulm,et al.  Systematic Mechatronic Design of a Piezo-Electric Brake , 2007 .

[9]  Tadao Murata,et al.  Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[10]  M. Hagner,et al.  A methodology for model-based development and automated verification of software for aerospace systems , 2013, 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[11]  Guillaume Brat.  Reducing V&V Cost of Flight Critical Systems: Myth or Reality , 2017 .

[12]  Raja Sengupta,et al.  Diagnosability of discrete-event systems , 1995, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[13]  Christos G. Cassandras,et al.  Introduction to Discrete Event Systems , 1999, The Kluwer International Series on Discrete Event Dynamic Systems.

[14]  Sri Krishna,et al.  Explore 10 Different Types of Software Development Process Models , 2012 .

[15]  Sheng-Luen Chung.  Diagnosing PN-based models with partial observable transitions , 2005, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf..

[16]  Stéphane Lafortune,et al.  Failure diagnosis using discrete event models , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[17]  M.M. Lehman,et al.  Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution , 1980, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[18]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Verifying and Validating Software Requirements and Design Specifications , 1989, IEEE Software.

[19]  W. W. Royce,et al.  Managing the development of large software systems , 1970 .

[20]  Paul Rook,et al.  Controlling software projects , 1986, Softw. Eng. J..

[21]  Mustafa S Durmuş Non-member,et al.  Fault diagnosis in fixed-block railway signaling systems: a discrete event systems approach , 2014 .

[22]  Wei-Tek Tsai,et al.  An experimental study of fault detection in user requirements documents , 1992, TSEM.

[23]  Stefano Russo,et al.  Model-driven engineering of a railway interlocking system , 2015, 2015 3rd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD).