(First of all, I’m sorry for my “bad” English, I’m just a french student
My mission during my internship it’s to use the Cesam Method on Capella (and not the Arcadia Method)
After many attempts I did not find the best way to use Capella with the Cesam method.
I tried several procedure:
Life cycle on MSM diagramm
Operational contexts with Operational capabilities diagram
Use case with Operational Architecture diagramm
Operational Scenario with Operational Entity Diagram
But I think that it is not optimal
So my question is:
Have you already tried to use Capella and the Cesam Method?
Which digramme did you use for each Cesam steps ? (only for the operational view)
I hope you understand my request
First of all, I invite you to read this post:
I’ve never tried applying the Cesames method (and I don’t know it very well), but the first thing to note is that Operational Analysis in Arcadia/Capella and in Cesames seem to be different. In the Cesames method, the Operational Architecture seems to be the environment around the system, meaning that the system boundary is already defined. In Arcadia, the boundary of the system in only defined in System Need Analysis. Operational Analysis in Arcadia is about capturing what the users of the system / the stakeholders want to achieve, what are their objectives, etc. It is a very different perspective.
In the only experiment I saw, the mapping was the following:
Cesames Operational Architecture = Capabilities and scenarios in System Need Analysis. Functional analysis was kept minimal at that stage, the primary goal being to identify interactions between the system and the environment. While the functional analysis was kept minimal, a significant amount of information was still (and only) captured in requirements, which is clearly not what Arcadia would recommend.
Functional architecture = Logical and/or Physical Architecture in Capella. With a refinement of all scenarios defined in System Need Analysis.
For information, a talk about this topic will be performed at CSDM 2020. See https://2020.csdm.fr/, the talk named “A contribution to the reconciliation of MBSE methods” with this summary :
Philippe Fiani - R&D Manager at SHERPA ENGINEERING
MBSE is increasingly being adopted in industries such as automotive and aeronautics. The challenge for any design center today is more in the appropriate choice of the method and tools and their instantiation to their specific issues and needs. This choice is constrained by corporate considerations and by the maturity of the available tools. Some large groups have chosen to develop their own tool-based methodology which is a very consuming process, but the majority of companies must deal with the existing one.
Two engineering methods coexist, that promoted by CESAM and that by Arcadia. The two methods have similarities, particularly in their purpose, but differ in their implementation, each one having its advantages. We are going to show you, on an industrial use-case, how these two methods can be aligned.
The talk presents the modeling of an aircraft electric green taxiing system using the Eclipse Capella comprehensive tool which is based on Arcadia system engineering method. In this work, the modeling method followed the precepts of CESAM framework and used the Papyrus-PhiSystem profile to ensure the link with the simulation models used by the designers.