Towards a Unified Product and Project Lifecycle Model (PPLM) for Systems Engineering

Developing and sustaining complex systems requires collaboration of multidisciplinary teams, coordination of processes, methods and tools, allocation of resources and utilization of adequate facilities within enterprises. The system engineering management comprises three intertwined domains: the product, the project and the enterprise. Despite the obvious links between them, each is carried out using its distinct ontology and toolset. This conceptual separation hinders effective handling of the project and product lifecycle activities within the enterprise. Testing activities of complex products are focused on verifying the performance of increasingly large modules, from software and hardware components, through subassemblies to the entire operational system. What needs to be developed, tested, and delivered is determined by the product requirements, its functions, architecture, components, and their interactions. When each component should and can be developed and tested is determined by the project plan, which is dynamically re-estimated, re-evaluated, and re-planned depending on different parameters such as the project actual status compared with the plan, recourses availability, risks, technological breakthroughs or other impacting issues. Whether carrying out the development mission is feasible is determined by the responsible enterprise, its size, structure, management criteria, other projects running in parallel, commitments, and many other aspects. This paper introduces a unified project-product lifecycle management framework that attempts to address the problems cause by separating the product from the project that is supposed to deliver it within the executing enterprise.Copyright © 2008 by ASME

[1]  C. A. R. HOARE,et al.  An axiomatic basis for computer programming , 1969, CACM.

[2]  Axel Uhl,et al.  Model-Driven Architecture , 2002, OOIS Workshops.

[3]  Joseph Kasser,et al.  Elements of a Framework for the Engineering of Complex Systems , 2003 .

[4]  John Rushby,et al.  Formal verification of algorithms for critical systems , 1991 .

[5]  Alan J. Hu Formal hardware verification with BDDs: an introduction , 1997, 1997 IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing, PACRIM. 10 Years Networking the Pacific Rim, 1987-1997.

[6]  Paul Clements,et al.  Recommended Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation. , 1997 .

[7]  Peter Herrmann,et al.  Verification of xUML Specifications in the context of MDA , 2002 .

[8]  Larry Wos,et al.  Problems and Experiments for and with Automated Theorem-Proving Programs , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[9]  Thorsten Grotker,et al.  System Design with SystemC , 2002 .

[10]  Ewing L. Lusk,et al.  LMA-based theorem prover , 1982 .

[11]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  The temporal logic of actions , 1994, TOPL.

[12]  Tony Andrews Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1 , 2003 .

[13]  Dov Dori,et al.  Object-process methodology - a holistic systems paradigm , 2013 .

[14]  K. J. Healy,et al.  Silk : A Java-based Process Simulation Language , 1997, Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings,.

[15]  O. Slotosch,et al.  MoDe: a method for system-level architecture evaluation , 2003 .