Oops hope you’ve recovered now. Our youngest daughter off school again with some flu-like bug…
Hi, yes I did, have inserted below, as I had some questions (my text JJ like this):
I had a look at The Wiki - I think an excellent way of extending the two sides of A4.
Judging by the enthusiasm shared at the last working group maybe we could encourage a wider contribution from their own experience of looking into the MBSE black hole?
I am sure that there is a wealth of experience from the practitioners --- we must draw out why they chose a particular solution.
JJ This is a fair point. I think this was Alex’s intent to, but he’s been somewhat incommunicado recently, I’ve really got an explanation…
During the presentation on the future of a UAF I was particularly taken by the matrix shared with the room.
JJ can’t recall the presentation matrix – I see the minutes of the meeting are on the wiki, but I can’t see the presentations – can’t even see mention of the UAF???
JJ Perhaps James can clarify – perhaps I missed it.
Could we extend the use of the Wiki to index the types of view created and the tools used to create them? This might form the basis for exploring the relative merits of each approach and allow the wider user community to share their own experience where added value has been achieved using more complex tools and processes.
My experience has been that given a chnace the engineering community will always keep things simple enough to meet their own ends!
JJ I assume that what you are doing here is making a bridge between views / perspectives on MBSE, and the needs of the different stakeholders [systems engineer, engineering manager…], correct?
JJ Seems like a good idea in principle. The Wiki could certainly be used to support that type of info organisation. Given that the ‘views’ are themselves based on perspectives on a model (cf Perry’s stuff), in principle the actual capture of stakeholders views etc., could be done in SysML, and then generated to wiki pages. But this might be too big a leap in the short term, and perhaps better done manually so we see how it works.
WE could begin the process by creating a list of views/perspectives etc which we would normally associate with maturing requirements to design ... and see where it went?
JJ This is perhaps a different (but complementary) approach to the one you describe in the para above, i.e. for former, views for different stakeholders, the latter views for different SE activity areas vs ISO 15288. Incidentally on the latter there may be a head start, with the lesser known ISO 15289, which is some sort of information perspective on ISO 15288 activity areas as I recall.
I would also suggest we explore the entry and exit criteria for the 'modelling space', this seems to be a concern to much of the audience--- just when do you stop playing?
JJ fair comment, entry and exit criteria, say versus activity areas, could be very useful. The biggest challenge is how to define – or even scope – these given the wide applications of SE and MBSE…