Hello all,
I’m a new member of the forum, nice to meet you all!
I’ve recently discovered the Arcadia modeling philosophy, and I think it’s great to define system behavior and structure.
The reason why I got to know it is because I was really struggling with the handling of system behavior using just textual requirements inside a Requirement Management Tool (Visure requirements).
But now I don’t know how to proceed: shall I start collecting requirements directly inside Capella? Or a better approach would be to export them from the RMT and import them into Capella? And what if, during the architecture design I define more requirements for the sub components? Should I send them back to the RMT?
Using Capella to augment textual requirements and validate that you have the right requirements (the most document based approach)
Using Capella to derive requirements, but keep a RMT as the authorities source of truth of the requirements. These would need to be exported using one of a number of methods (M2Doc, Python4Capella).
Have Capella as the RMT. Dont export anything from Capella and get people to use the models to look at the requirements (the most model based approach).
What approach you need will be dictated by the wider environment. Are you one of a larger team using an RMT? Is it just you or many other people working with the requirements? Who needs to see them? Are there external suppliers who want requirements in a certain format?
Note, your System Analysis will form the basis of your system requirements. The Physical Architecture will form the basis of your system definition. Your system definition could become requirements for a lower level sub-system through the system to sub-system transition.
Thank you Josh for your precious feedback!
At the current state, I’m the only one handling the requirements in the RMT, but I hope that sooner or later I’ll get some help. So I need a tool that can be accessed by multiple users, maybe simultaneously.
Now I’m working more on constraints (dealing especially with product standards) rather than functionalities, as detailing behavior is a bit difficult without any modeling tool (at least for me).
I like the idea of keeping the RMT as the “master” and feedback into it the outcome of the analysis done via Capella. Is this process feasible or it requires som special piece of software?
Using Capella to augment textual requirements and validate that you have the right requirements (the most document based approach)
Using Capella to derive requirements, but keep a RMT as the authorities source of truth of the requirements. These would need to be exported using one of a number of methods (M2Doc, Python4Capella).
Use Capella to derive requirement and be the RMT, but publish requirements to stakeholders as needed via a number of methods (M2Doc, Python4Capella)
Have Capella as the RMT. Dont export anything from Capella and get people to use the models to look at the requirements (the most model based approach).
TeamsForCapella will allow multiple users to work in the Capella model at once.
Using DevOps to store and publish the models will allows multiple users to view and publish the models.
Probably at your scale, if there is only 1 person doing the modelling at once, just having a DevOps site to publish the models too is probably the best option. This will allow version tracking, baselining etc. Teams 4 Capella could be an advantage if you want to have people doing parallel working in the same model. To keep the RMT as the authorative source, this doesnt require special software. Only M2Doc or Python4Capella set up in such a way to export what you need from Capella.
Wow, this M2Doc seems to automate the process quite good!
In general though, is there a book or some material I could read/see where this concept of using both a RMT and a modeling tool is further depicted?
I think I understood the philosophy, but moving to a practical implementation would require much more study from my side.
Thanks!