Enhancing Requirements Completeness of Automated Driving System in Concept Phase | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Enhancing Requirements Completeness of Automated Driving System in Concept Phase

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems (MESAS 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13207))

  • 1200 Accesses

Abstract

During the product lifecycle, a change in the requirements may involve expensive consequences on the system development. Nevertheless, having a decent understanding of the system and documenting the correct requirements from different perspectives help to minimize the changes caused by missing functionalities, therefore, reduce the development cost.

Developing comprehensive understanding of the system in the concept phase promotes the completeness and reduces the requirements’ changes. That helps also to create a good model of the system and develop simulation and test cases, which reveal the bugs and the design issues early. This work focus on thinking strategy to answer the research questions, “How to analyze the Automated Driving System (ADS) to improve the requirements’ completeness”.

ADS is a complex system that works in non-deterministic environment, in addition, it is a safety related system, meaning that, any malfunction during the operation can cause a harm to people or properties.

Three systematic methods were investigated. First, identify the gaps of the stakeholders. It uses product life cycle to identify a list of internal and external stakeholders and then identify their expected needs. The second systematic process utilizes holistic thinking perspectives method to build a broad understanding of ADS and its neighbor systems. This process tries to direct the system definition using external, internal, progressive, quantitative and scientific perspectives. The last method deals with safety requirements identification tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 11439
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 14299
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Palomares, C., Franch, X., Quer, C., Chatzipetrou, P., López, L., Gorschek, T.: The state-of-practice in requirements elicitation: an extended interview study at 12 companies. Requirements Eng. 26(2), 273–299 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-020-00345-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chatzipetrou, P., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T.: Requirements’ characteristics: how do they impact on project budget in a systems engineering context? In: 45th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2019.00048

  3. Kulk, G.P., Verhoef, C.: Quantifying requirements volatility effects. Sci. Comput. Program. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2008.04.003

  4. Carson, R.S., et al.: Requirements completeness. In: INCOSE International Symposium, p. 14 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2004.tb00546.x

  5. SAE J3016 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cleland-Huang, J., Vierhauser, M.: Discovering, analyzing, and managing safety stories in agile projects. In: 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) (2018) https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00034

  8. Royce, W.: Managing the development of large software system. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Heimicke, J., Spadinger, M., Li, X., Albers, A.: Potentials and challenges in the harmonization of approaches for agile product development and automotive SPICE (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hölldobler, K., Michael, J., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B., Wortmann, A.: Innovations in model-based software and systems engineering. J. Object Technol. (2019). https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2019.18.1.r1

  11. Wheatcraft, L., Ryan, M., Svensson, C.: Integrated data as the foundation of systems engineering. In: INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00438.x

  12. Zowghi, D., Coulin, C.: Requirements elicitation: a survey of techniques, approaches, and tools. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 19–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Pacheco, C., García, I., Reyes, M.: Requirements elicitation techniques: a systematic literature review based on the maturity of the techniques. IET Softw. 12, 365–378 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Génova, G., Fuentes, J.M., Llorens, J., Hurtado, O., Moreno, V.: A framework to measure and improve the quality of textual requirements. Requir. Eng. 18, 25–41 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0134-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alexandrovich, A., Igorevich, K.: INCOSE Guide for Writing Requirements. Translation experience, adaptation perspectives. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  16. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148-2018 Systems and software engineering - Life cycle processes - Requirements engineering (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dick, J., Hull, E., Jackson, K.: Requirements Engineering. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61073-3

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Sparx Systems: Requirement Models, technical report (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung, StVO (german road traffic regulations). www.stvo.de/strassenverkehrsordnung. Accessed 04 May 2021

  20. Glinz, M.: On non-functional requirements. In: 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007) (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2007.45

  21. ASPICE 3.1 GUIDE (2020). https://knuevenermackert.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KM-ASPICE-Guide-3rd-022020-002.pdf

  22. INCOSE - Requirements and architecture within modelling context. Presented at the (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mavin, A., Wilkinson, P., Harwood, A., Novak, M.: Easy approach to requirements syntax (EARS). In: 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2009.9

  24. Spork, G.: Efficient requirements management considering automotive standards: best practice sharing of mechatronic engineering within MAGNA groups (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. INCOSE: Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), version 2.2 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sharp, H., Finkelstein, A., Galal, G.: Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process (1999). https://doi.org/10.1109/DEXA.1999.795198

  27. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24748–1 Systems and software engineering - Life cycle management (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8526560

  28. Nomura, N., Aoyama, M., Kikushima, Y.: A continuous stakeholder management method throughout the system life cycle and its evaluation. In: 2015 IEEE 39th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2015.111

  29. UN-Regulation: R79 v4 - Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to steering equipment.pdf (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  30. NASA: NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., van der Werf, J.M.E.M., Brinkkemper, S.: Improving agile requirements: the quality user story framework and tool. Requirements Eng. 21(3), 383–403 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0250-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kasser, J.E.: Holistic thinking: creating innovative solutions to complex problems (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on The future of Software engineering (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/336512.336523

  34. NHSTA: A Framework for Automated Driving System Testable Cases and Scenarios. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  35. ISO2626-3-2018: ISO2626-3 Road vehicles-Functional safety-Part 3: Concept phase (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  36. ISO-PAS_21448-2019 SOTIF Road vehicles - Safety of the intended functionality (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  37. SAE-J3061-2016: SAE J3061 Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  38. ISO2626-4-2018: ISO2626-4 Road vehicles-Functional safety-Part 4: Product development at the system level (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  39. BS: IEC61882 HAZOP guide (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Robert Bosch GmbH: FTA fault-tree-analysis (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ford: FMEA Handbook (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nancy Leveson, JOHN THOMAS: STPA handbook (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pegasus Method. https://www.pegasusprojekt.de/en/pegasus-method. Accessed 13 July 2020

  44. Bock, F., Sippl, C., Heinzz, A., Lauerz, C., German, R.: Advantageous usage of textual domain-specific languages for scenario-driven development of automated driving functions. In: 2019 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSCON.2019.8836912

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

    Ahmad Abbadi & Vaclav Prenosil

Authors
  1. Ahmad Abbadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vaclav Prenosil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Abbadi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. NATO M&S COE, Rome, Italy

    Jan Mazal

  2. University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Adriano Fagiolini

  3. Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic

    Petr Vasik

  4. NATO M&S COE, Rome, Italy

    Michele Turi

  5. Savona Campus, University of Genoa, Savona, Italy

    Agostino Bruzzone

  6. Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, München, Germany

    Stefan Pickl

  7. University of Defence, Brno, Czech Republic

    Vlastimil Neumann

  8. University of Defence, Brno, Czech Republic

    Petr Stodola

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Abbadi, A., Prenosil, V. (2022). Enhancing Requirements Completeness of Automated Driving System in Concept Phase. In: Mazal, J., et al. Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems. MESAS 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13207. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98260-7_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98260-7_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98259-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-98260-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation