Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Coordinating Stakeholders in the Consideration of Performance Indicators and Respective Interface Requirements for Automated Vehicles

Richard Schubert, Marvin Loba, Alexander Blödel, David Klüner, Alexandru Kampmann, Steven Peters

Abstract

This paper presents a process for coordinating stakeholders in their consideration of performance indicators and respective interface requirements for automated vehicles. These performance indicators are obtained and processed based on the system's self-perception and enable the realization of self-aware and self-adaptive vehicles. This is necessary to allow SAE Level 4 vehicles to handle external disturbances as well as internal degradations and failures at runtime. Without such a systematic process for stakeholder coordination, architectural decisions on realizing self-perception become untraceable and effective communication between stakeholders may be compromised. Our process-oriented approach includes necessary ingredients, steps, and artifacts that explicitly address stakeholder communication, traceability, and knowledge transfer through clear documentation. Our approach is based on the experience gained from applying the process in the autotech.agil project, from which we further present lessons learned, identified gaps, and steps for future work.

Coordinating Stakeholders in the Consideration of Performance Indicators and Respective Interface Requirements for Automated Vehicles

Abstract

This paper presents a process for coordinating stakeholders in their consideration of performance indicators and respective interface requirements for automated vehicles. These performance indicators are obtained and processed based on the system's self-perception and enable the realization of self-aware and self-adaptive vehicles. This is necessary to allow SAE Level 4 vehicles to handle external disturbances as well as internal degradations and failures at runtime. Without such a systematic process for stakeholder coordination, architectural decisions on realizing self-perception become untraceable and effective communication between stakeholders may be compromised. Our process-oriented approach includes necessary ingredients, steps, and artifacts that explicitly address stakeholder communication, traceability, and knowledge transfer through clear documentation. Our approach is based on the experience gained from applying the process in the autotech.agil project, from which we further present lessons learned, identified gaps, and steps for future work.
Paper Structure (15 sections, 2 figures)

This paper contains 15 sections, 2 figures.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Related Work
  3. Key Working Terminology
  4. Process Assumptions & Requirements
  5. Process Overview
  6. Process Roles
  7. Process Activities
  8. Top-Down Perspective
  9. Bottom-Up Perspective
  10. Harmonization of the Performance Indicator Log
  11. Definition & Documentation of Interfaces
  12. Lessons Learned, Conclusion, & Future Work
  13. Lessons Learned
  14. Conclusion & Future Work
  15. Acknowledgement

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: Scheme of an iterative, systematic design process for automated driving systems, taken from graubohm_systematic_2017, based on Maurer2002.
  • Figure 2: SysML-1.5-based Activity Diagram of the proposed process and relevant roles, created in EnterpriseArchitect. Start/end points are marked by big dots. Boxes indicate SysML activities, bars indicate forks/joins, and "diamonds" indicate decisions. Blue elements indicate early process objects ("ingredients"); orange elements indicate process artifacts, i.e., outcomes.