Center for Advanced Studies in Systems Engineering

  • Tomasz GórskiEmail author
  • Michał Stryga
Conference paper
Part of the Topics in Intelligent Engineering and Informatics book series (TIEI, volume 15)


The paper describes management of project POIS.13.01.00-00-007/12 establishing the Center for Advanced Studies in Systems Engineering (CASE) at Military University of Technology (MUT) in Warsaw, Poland. The project was financed from the European Union program, Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme 2007–2013, activity 13.1, Infrastructure of higher education. In order to complete the project it was necessary to deal with the following issues: short time of the project, innovation and complexity of implemented solutions, the need for the use of European Union procedures which are much more restrictive than university ones. The article presents a description of the scope of the project. The paper brings risks and project issues that arose during the project. On the other hand, the authors introduces best practices that have proven themselves as risk mitigation strategies or measures taken to solve project issues. Proper requirements specification is one of the most important practices. So, the paper describes the biggest tender intended to build a server room and launch the academic cloud for CASE. The authors recapitulates rules of the successful planning, preparation and conducting of the tender’s procedure. As a result of the tender and consecutive actions the Academic Cloud was implemented at the university. The paper presents three main elements of the Academic Cloud: project cloud, virtual desktops infrastructure and high performance computing solution. Moreover, the authors summarizes the paper and outlines directions for further work.


Requirements specification Project management Public tender Cloud computing Virtual desktops infrastructure High performance computing 



The project POIS.13.01.00-00-007/12 was funded by the National Center for Research and Development.


  1. 1.
    Act of 22 June 2016 on amending the Act, Public Procurement Law and certain other laws. J. Laws (2016). Position 1020Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bentley, C.: PRINCE2: a practical handbook, 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam (2009). ISBN: 978-1-85617-822-8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Chopra, R.K., Gupta, V., Chauhan, D.S.: Experimentation on accuracy of non functional requirement prioritization approaches for different complexity projects. Perspect. Sci. 8, 79–82 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Górski, T.: The use of enterprise service bus to transfer large volumes of data. J. Theor. Appl. Comput. Sci. 8(4), 72–81 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Irshad, M., Petersen, K., Poulding, S.: A systematic literature review of software requirements reuse approaches. Inf. Softw. Technol. 93, 223–245 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johansson, B., Lahtinen, M.: Requirement specification in government IT procurement. In: CENTERIS 2012—Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems. Proc. Technol. 5, 369–377 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kroll, P., MacIsaac, B.: Agility and discipline made easy. Practices from OpenUP and RUP. Pearson Education, Inc. (2006). ISBN: 0-321-32130-8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lianying, Z., Jing, H., Xinxing, Z.: The project management maturity model and application based on PRINCE2. In: 2012 International Workshop on Information and Electronics Engineering (IWIEE). Proc. Eng. 29, 3691–3697 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matos, S., Lopes, E.: Prince2 or PMBOK a question of choice. In: CENTERIS 2013—Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems. Proc. Technol. 9, 787–794 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matsumoto, Y., Shirai, S., Ohnishi, A.: A method for verifying non-functional requirements. In: 21th International Conference on Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, KES2017. Proc. Comput. Sci. 112, 157–166 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muriana, C., Vizzini, G.: Project risk management: a deterministic quantitative technique for assessment and mitigation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 320–340 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National guidelines regarding eligibility of expenditures within the structural funds and cohesion fund in the programming period 2007–2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pimchangthong, D., Boonjing V.: Effects of risk management practice on the success of IT project. In: 7th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management. Proc. Eng. 182, 579–586 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Radujković, M., Sjekavica, M.: Project management success factors. In: Creative Construction Conference 2017. Procedia Engineering 196, 607–615 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubin, K.S.: Essential Scrum: A Practical Guide to the Most Popular Agile Process. Addison-Wesley Professional (2012). ISBN: 0-137-04329-5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Os, A., Van Berkel, F., De Gilder, D., Van Dyck, C., Groenewegen, P.: Project risk as identity threat: explaining the development and consequences of risk discourse in an infrastructure project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 877–888 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Navigation and Naval Weapons, Institute of Naval Weapons and Computer SciencePolish Naval AcademyGdyniaPoland
  2. 2.IBM Polska Sp. z o.o.WarszawaPoland

Personalised recommendations