Advertisement

Integrated Process Model for Systems Product Line Engineering of Physical Protection Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 391)

Abstract

A physical protection system (PPS) integrates people, procedures, and equipment for the protection of assets or facilities against theft, sabotage, or other malevolent intruder attacks. Designing effective PPSs is not trivial and requires the consideration of multiple different concerns. Hence, several PPS methods have been proposed in the literature to design and analyze PPSs to realize the envisioned objectives. These methods have mainly considered the design of a single PPS. Yet, despite the differences, PPSs also share a common design and set of features and likewise can be developed using a systematic large scale reuse approach. Product line engineering (PLE) has been used in various application domains to exploit the potential for large scale reuse, and with this reduce the time-to-market, reduce the cost, and the overall quality of the developed systems. In this paper, we first report on the results of our study to explicitly model the process for developing PPSs. Subsequently, we present the integration of the PPS method with the current PLE method. For modeling the processes, we adopt the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). The resulting method can be applied to the development of various PPSs while considering large-scale reuse.

Keywords

Physical protection systems Systems engineering Business process modeling Product line engineering 

References

  1. 1.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drago, A.: Methods and techniques for enhancing physical security of critical infrastructures, Ph.D. thesis, University of Naples, March 2015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garcia, M.L.: Vulnerability Assessment of Physical Protection Systems. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia, M.L.: The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems, 2nd edn. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), October 2016Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    IAEA: Handbook on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Facilities, IAEA-TECDOC-127, March 2000Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walden, D.D., Roedler, G.J., Forsberg, K.J., Hamelin, R.D., Shortell, T.M. (eds.): INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, 4th edn. Wiley, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    INCOSE Product Line Engineering International Working Group. http://www.incose.org/ChaptersGroups/WorkingGroups/analytic/product-lines. Accessed October 2017
  9. 9.
    International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, Ver. 3.2, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2, January 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fennelly, L.: Effective Physical Security, 5th edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering – Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28901-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmid, K., Verlage, M.: The economic impact of product line adoption and evolution. IEEE Softw. 19(4), 50–57 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tekinerdogan, B., Sozer, H., Aksit, M.: Software architecture reliability analysis using failure scenarios. Elsevier J. Syst. Softw. 81(4), 558–575 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tekinerdogan, B., Ozkose Erdogan, O., Aktug, O.: Supporting incremental product development using multiple product line architecture. Int. J. Knowl. Syst. Sci. (IJKSS) 5(4), 1–16 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tekinerdogan, B., Duman, S., Gümüşay, Ö., Durak, B.: Devising integrated process models for systems product line engineering. In: 2019 International Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), Edinburgh, United Kingdom (2019)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tekinerdogan, B., Duman, S., Caner, H., Durak, B.: Customizing a feature ontology for product line engineering within a system-of-systems context. In: 2019 International Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), Edinburgh, United Kingdom (2019)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tüzün, E., Tekinerdogan, B., Kalender, M.E., Bilgen, S.: Empirical evaluation of a decision support model for adopting software product line engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 60, 77–101 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tüzün, E., Giray, G., Tekinerdogan, B., Macit, Y.: Modeling software product line engineering with essence framework. Int. J. Inf. Technol. 11(1), 99–109 (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams, J.D.: Physical Protection System Design and Evaluation, IAEA-CN-68/29, Vienna, 10–12 November 1997Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research, Information TechnologyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Aselsan A.Ş.AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations