Ford Project

1
Ford Project
Team Synergy Kanat Abirov Greg Bylenok Goran
Momiroski Nataliya Shevchenko Kevin Steppe
August 7, 2003
2
Agenda

• Intro
• Requirements
• Significant Events

• Adding Resources
• Risks
• Architecture
• Tools
• Demo

3
MoBIES in a Nutshell
Model-based development process
Model Components
Assemble Components
Analyze Assemblies
Generate Code
Model-Based Integration of Embedded Systems
4
MoBIES Benefits

• Reusability of components
• Improved accuracy of simulations
• Better control design
• Reduction in lines of hand-written code
• Higher quality and faster time-to-market

5
High Level Requirements

• The user can
• Layout components
• Characterize components
• Edit constraints
• The system will
• Connect components
• Check constraints
• Export to Simulink

6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Requirements Fall

• Handle large scale models
• Up to 100 components
• Characterize components automatically
• Specify external interface for models
• Check several constraints
• Connect models
• Export to Simulink

10
Requirements Changes Spring

• End-to-end product working on a 6-8 component
  model
• Check for connectivity and compatibility of basic
  port parameters

11
Requirement Changes Summer

• Hierarchy of models to support more components
• Readable layout of components in AcmeStudio and
  in Simulink

12
Shift of Focus on Quality Attributes

• Fall Priorities
• Scalability
• Features
• Usability

• Summer Priorities
• Hierarchy
• Features
• 100 Components

If the client doesnt use the product no one
cares how scalable it is
13
Significant Events
Kanat joins full-time
Manni leaves
Kevin breaks shoulder
Pick roles
Fall Spring
Summer
Decide to sub contract
Client Mtg / SRE
ATAM
Release One
Release Two
Ken vanishes
Choose ACME
Client Mtg
14
A Better Timeline
Kanat joins full-time
Pick roles
Fall Spring
Summer
Decide to sub contract
ATAM
Client Mtg / SRE
Release One
Release Two
Choose ACME
ATAM Intro
Client Mtg
Client Mtg
15
Adding Resources

• To break Brookes Law
• Ensure prior familiarity
• Subcontract self-contained and well-defined work
• Points for using subcontractors
• Be available
• Be very specific about code expectations

16
More Subcontracting Notes

• Test early
• Avoid a false sense of security
• Schedule a later phase item
• Expect to rework some things

17
Agenda Revisited

• Risks
• Architecture
• Tools
• Demo

• Intro
• Requirements
• Resource Change
• Adding Resources

18
Risk Tracking

• Condition
• Consequence
• Risk categories
• Tracked
• ? Problems that occurred
• ? Risks mitigated
• ? Risks mitigation tasks

19
Risk Aware Approach

• Introduced tasks to address risk
• Ordered tasks to reduce risk

20
Architecture Evolution

• Successes and Failures of Architecture
• Architecture helped with task allocation
• Architecture provided big-picture context
• - Implementation really driven by Eclipse
• - Team skimped on design

21
Tools

• AcmeStudio
• COTS became Open Source
• ABLE support was critical
• Eclipse
• Learning curve was steep

22
Decisions and Consequences

• AcmeStudio vs. Vanderbilt
• Defects were plentiful but eliminated quickly
• Time on Architecture vs. Design
• Integration was difficult
• Incremental Design vs. Up-front Design
• Incremental design shows results quicker but may
  require rework

23
A Short Demo
24
Questions
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)