EVOLVABLE ADAS: H-GQM S.M.A.R.T.E.S.T. APPROACH
Abstract
The introduction to the mass market of vehicles with an ADAS 3+ level of automation is expected in the early 2020s. Currently, the vast majority of automakers conduct research in this field, a fairly large number of prototypes, pre-production and production systems have already been demonstrated. ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) are complex hardware & software systems, the feature of which is that the core hardware platform remains unchanged for one or even several generations of vehicles (5–7 years). At the same time, the system should be able to transform and evolve to correct errors and expand functionality, especially due to active development of sensory peripheral systems and software algorithms. The GQM methodology and its modifications are used to support the development process of complex systems and evaluate them. However, these methodologies are limited exclusively to software products. Also, authors of these methodologies are not addressing explicitly the issues of applying the GQM methodology for analyzing and tracking the process of evolution of complex technical systems. This paper presents HGQM (Hardware GQM) methodology for controllable evolution of complex automotive hardware & software systems. The H-GQM methodology is based on GQM and is aimed at hardwaresoftware systems with a monolithic hardware core, a modifiable software core and atomic peripherals. Entity harmonization process is described to prove the applicability of the GQM for software- and-hardware systems analysis. S.M.A.R.T.E.S.T goal-setting concept is proposed for choice of evolutionary goals. This concept is based on S.M.A.R.T. criteria for the setting objectives of business processes and extended with harmonization and evolvability restrictions. The formulation of the H-GQM plan framework is provided using ADAS as an example. Within the framework of the proposed methodology, an ADAS-specific scalable target template has been formed.
References
process, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2014, Vol. 61, No. 12,
pp. 7131-7140.
2. Heinecke H. Automotive system design-challenges and potential, Design, Automation and Test
in Europe. IEEE, 2005, pp. 656-657.
3. Jayasri K., Seetharamaiah P. A GQM Based Approach towards the Development of Metrics
for Software Safety, Journal of Computer Science, 2015, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 813.
4. Caldiera G, Basili V. R., Rombach H. D. The goal question metric approach, Encyclopedia of
software engineering, 1994, pp. 528-532.
5. Dow H. Goal Question Metric (GQM) and Software Quality, 2007.
6. Olsson T., Runeson P. V-GQM: A feed-back approach to validation of a GQM study, Proceedings
Seventh International Software Metrics Symposium. IEEE, 2001, pp. 236-245.
7. Differding C., Hoisl B., Lott C. M. Technology package for the goal question metric paradigm,
1996.
8. Lindstrom B. A software measurement case study using GQM, J. Lund Univ., USA, 2004.
9. Basili V. et al. GQM+ strategies--aligning business strategies with software measurement, First
international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM 2007).
IEEE, 2007, pp. 488-490.
10. Solingen, van R., Berghout E. W. The Goal/Question/Metric Method: a practical guide for
quality improvement of software development. McGraw-Hill, 1999.
11. Alberico D. et al. Software System Safety Handbook-A Technical Managerial Team Approach,
Joint Services Computer Resources Management Group, 1999.
12. Mako D., Mesarovich M., Takakhara I. Teoriya ierarkhicheskikh mnogourovnevykh system
[Theory of hierarchical multilevel systems]. Moscow: Mir, 1973.
13. Saar C., Safirstein M. Defining Goal-based Project Metrics. Allstate Insurance Company,
2009.
14. TOWES Goal Planning Essentials. Bow Valley College, 2015.
15. Doran G.T. There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives, Management
review, 1981, Vol. 70, No. 11, pp. 35-36.
16. Solingen, van R. et al. Application of software measurement at Schlumberger RPS: Towards
enhancing GQM, Proceedings of the 6th European Software Control and Metrics (ESCOM)
Conference, 1995, pp. 17-19.
17. Seidita V. et al. Simulation goals and metrics identification, 2016 Federated Conference on
Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1491-1494.
18. Babu P. C., Prasad A. N., Sudhakar D. Software Complexity Metrics: A Survey, International
Journal, 2013, Vol. 3, No. 8.
19. Stephens R. Beginning software engineering. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
20. Cardoso J. Quality Metrics for Business Processes. 2011.
