small or medium-scale focused research projects … web viewsupporting evolutionary design will...

ARTEMIS-2011-1 Full Project Proposal Decisive

ARTEMIS Call 2011ARTEMIS-2011-1

DECISIon and platform support for model‐based eVolutionary development of Embedded systems

Date of preparation: June 29, 2011Version number (optional): 0.4

ARTEMIS Sub-programme addressed (see Annual Work Programme 2011 section 3.2)Major: ASP1: Methods and processes for safety‐relevant embedded systemsMinor: ASP5: Computing platforms for embedded systems

Industrial Priority addressed see Annual Work Programme 2011 section 3.1)Major: Design methods and toolsMinor: Reference designs and architectures

Name of the coordinating person: Frank van der Lindene-mail: [email protected]

Proposal Part B: of 72


List of participants:

Participant no. (1)

Participant organisation name

Part. short name

Country ARTEMIS Member State

(Y/N)

Other EU Member or State/Ass.

country(Y/N)

National eligibility

checked by applicant (Y/N) (2)

1 (Coordinator)

Philips Medical Systems Nederland BV

PHILIPS NL Y N Y

2 AVL List GmbH AVL AT Y N Y

3 CISC Semiconductor Design+Consulting GmbH

CISC AT Y N Y

4 NXP Semiconductors Austria GmbH

NXP-A AT Y N Y

5 Technical University of Denmark

DTU DK Y N Y

6 PAJ Systemteknik PAJ DK Y N Y

7 Contribyte Oy COY FI Y N Y

8 Konecranes Heavy Lifting Corporation

Knr FI Y N Y

9 Mega Electronics Ltd MEGA FI Y N Y

10 Nokia Siemens Networks

NSN FI Y N Y

11 Convergens Oy CON FI Y N Y

12 University of Eastern Finland

UEF FI Y N Y

13 University of Oulu UoO FI Y N Y

14 Technical Research Center of Finland

VTT FI Y N Y

15 Atego SAS Atego FR Y N Y

16 Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives

CEA FR Y N Y

17 European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS France SAS

EADS FR Y N Y

18 Valeo Valeo FR Y N Y



19 Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V. BHL DE Y N Y

20 Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

CAU DE Y N Y

21 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.

FHG DE Y N Y

22 NXP Semiconductors Germany GmbH

NXP-D DE Y N Y

23 Centro Ricerche Fiat S.C.p.A

CRF IT Y N Y

24 Computers Guard CG LV Y N Y

25 Latvian Railway LDZ LV Y N Y

26 Riga Technical University

RTU LV Y N Y

27 Almende Almende NL Y N Y

28 Océ Technologies BV OCE NL Y N Y

29 Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

TUE NL Y N Y

30 Deimos Space Deimos ES Y N Y

31 Ikerlan-IK4 IKER ES Y N Y

32 Integrasys ISYS ES Y N Y

33 Mondragon Unibertsitatea

MU ES Y N Y

34 ULMA Embedded Solutions

UES ES Y N Y

35 Mälardalen University MDH SE Y N Y

36 Volvo Volvo SE Y N Y

37 EIS Semcon EIS SE Y N Y

38 Hoxville Oy HOX FI Y N Y

39 Technische Universiteit Delft

TUD NL Y N Y

40 ProDrive Prodrive NL Y N Y

41 Daimler Daimler DE Y N Y

42 ETAS GmbH ETAS DE Y N Y

43 Fondazione Bruno Kessler

FBKIT

Y N Y



(1) Please use the same participant numbering as that used in Proposal submission forms A2(2) For partners from ARTEMIS Member States, please indicate whether you consider that you comply with the national eligibility criteria for funding as stated in the document "Eligibility Criteria" published in the Call.

Proposal abstract(copied from Part A)The objective of the project is to develop a methodology and tool support for model-driven evolutionary development of complex embedded systems. Supporting evolutionary design will reduce the development time and time-to-market, reduce development and unit costs, increase the quality of the products and of the engineering processes and reduce re-certification costs. Today, most systems are engineered in an evolutionary fashion: introducing a new version of an existing product, introducing new features—possibly as part of an evolution of a product line, performing a design iteration, etc. The models of an embedded system will evolve at the same time with the system. However, none of the current state-of-the-art approaches to model-based engineering of embedded systems support evolutionary development.We will extend the state-of-the-art modelling frameworks to capture the knowledge learned during evolutions, such as, when and how can a component be reused, performance metrics recorded during the runtime, design rationale for a design decision, time and effort required for different development phases. We will develop non-intrusive analysis and monitoring techniques to systematically collect information during the evolutions, and link this information to the models.Often, embedded system architectures are derived with little concern for extensibility, rendering evolutions very costly. We will develop decision support methods and tools for the creation of system architectures that are extensible, but without compromising other objectives such as performance, cost, energy consumption, safety and dependability. The evolution of models is often done manually which is tedious and error prone, without any systematic model management. We will develop methods and tools for model management and visualization, to automate the management of models and improve comprehension during the system evolution.


Frank van der Linden, 05/02/82,

Responsible: Frank van der Linden


Table of Contents

Section 1 - Relevance and contributions to the content and objectives of the Call...............................61.1 Relevance...............................................................................................................................6

Section 2 - R&D innovation and technical excellence.............................................................................82.1 Concept and objectives..........................................................................................................82.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art.....................................................................................9

Section 3 - S&T approach and work plan..............................................................................................123.1 Quality and effectiveness of the S&T methodology and associated work plan....................12

Section 4 - Market innovation and market impact...............................................................................484.1 Impact...................................................................................................................................484.2 Dissemination and exploitation............................................................................................514.3 Contribution to standards and regulations...........................................................................534.4 Management of intellectual property..................................................................................53

Section 5 - Quality of consortium and management............................................................................545.1 Management structure and procedures...............................................................................545.2 Individual participants..........................................................................................................565.3 Consortium as a whole.........................................................................................................715.4 Resources to be committed..................................................................................................72

Annex A – Funding calculation forms...................................................................................................74



Section 1 - Relevance and contributions to the content and objectives of the Call (Weight Factor: 1) Please refer to the "Guide for applicants" for information on evaluation criteria

1.1 Relevance

o Show the relevance of your proposal in relation to at least one or more of the Industrial Priorities (see section 3.1 in Annual Work Programme (AWP) 2011) and one or more of the sub-programmes (section 3.2 in Annual Work Programme 2011). In addition please explain how your proposed work is relevant to the overall ARTEMIS targets listed in section 4 of the AWP. (Recommended length 2 pages)

Today, most systems are engineered in an evolutionary fashion, but none of the current model-based engineering solutions support evolutionary development. The objective of DECISIVE is to develop a methodology and tool support for model-driven evolutionary design of complex embedded systems. DECISIVE will contribute to the following industrial priorities of the AWP 2011:Design methods and tools: DECISIVE will provide model-based engineering methods and tools to overcome the current problems with evolutionary development by: (1) capturing in the models the knowledge gained by developing the previous product versions, (2) increase model reuse by improving the maintainability and comprehension of models (3) provide tool support for the design of extensible system architectures, and (4) support decision makers by improving the accuracy of information used to take decisions in the early stages.Reference designs and architectures: A further goal of DECISIVE is to provide resource-efficient, nonintrusive, and deterministic monitoring techniques to extract properties from executing systems during both test and deployment.DECISIVE will contribute to the priorities of the following sub-programmes:ASP1: Methods and processes for safety-relevant embedded systems: We aim at major technological breakthroughs in the areas of Requirement Management, and Architecture Modelling and Exploration, which will contribute to progress in the areas of Design for Reuse and Design for Safety.

• We will contribute to a European Standard Reference Technology platform, proposing metamodels, methods and tools for evolutionary development. The focus on evolutionary development will reduce the times needed for re-certification and re-qualification after change.

• There is a lot of knowledge gained from building a previous version of a product, and from the design flow used. Currently, this information is used informally, and is not systematically captured in the models. No solutions exist for back-annotation of information from previous product versions, gained over the whole previous development cycle: from simulations, analysis, runtime monitoring, testing, etc. We will propose (meta-) models dealing with model evolution and reuse.

• Model reuse can be supported by improved model comprehension and model management. We will propose (semi-) automated model transformations to support evolutionary development. Models will have to be updated based on the knowledge learned in the previous product development. In evolutionary development, handovers between teams could be significantly improved by automated generation of standardized model-views and semi-automated editing that prevent errors from being entered into the model.



Responsible: paul Pop


• “Architectural design decisions are largely based on experience of past designs and this is difficult to apply to new situations” (ARTEMIS Strategic Research Agenda). The accuracy of decisions will be improved through the use of information gained from previous product versions. We will develop decision support methods and tools for the synthesis of system architectures that are extensible, increase quality of the product, reducing the time and development cost of evolutions.

ASP5: Computing platforms for embedded systems: There is a strong connection between contributions by the DECISIVE project to ASP1 and ASP5. To support evolutionary design, we have to record information during the runtime of previous product versions. The information recorded in this way will be fed back to the high-level models to be used in designing the new product versions. The SRA identifies the challenge of “evolvability”. We will propose architectural design patterns that improve evolvability. DECISIVE will provide methods and tools that will allow trade-offs between evolvability and other properties such as cost and performance.

DECISIVE addresses the following overall ARTEMIS targets: Reduce the cost of system design by reusing models and knowledge from previous products. Achieve reduction in development cycles through decision support and trade-off analysis tools. Manage complexity increase by facilitating the reuse of models from previous product versions

and by (semi-) automatic model management to aid comprehension across evolutions. Reduce the effort required for re-validation and re-certification by capturing and reusing the

knowledge gained in the validation and certification of the previous product versions and by the reuse of artefacts for qualification and certification.



Section 2 - R&D innovation and technical excellence (Weight Factor: 1) Please refer to the "Guide for applicants" for information on evaluation criteria

2.1 Concept and objectives

Explain the concept of your project. What are the main ideas that led you to propose this work?Describe in detail the overall objectives as well as the underpinning S&T objectives. The objectives should be those to be achieved within the project, not through subsequent development. They should be stated in a measurable and verifiable form.

The main goal of DECISIVE is to develop a methodology and tool support for evolutionary development of complex embedded systems using a model-based design flow. Based on modelling languages that support both system design and analysis we will develop technology for annotation of system models with the results from verification and validation (V&V) activities and the empirical knowledge of the properties of the system and its components. These annotations will be used to guide decisions both on product-management level and for technical development during systems evolution, the annotation are also useful artefacts to support certification and qualification of safety related functions.The motivation for the project is that contemporary technologies for model-based engineering do not account for the fact that most systems are developed in an evolutionary fashion. Contemporary technology lack functionality and needs improvements in the following aspects:1. Methods to systematically and homogenously associate knowledge of system properties

obtained during various V&V activities and from deployed systems to the models used at various design stages. That is, current modelling techniques focus on describing what we want the system to do (as-specified), but not what it actually does (as-is).

2. Low- and non-intrusive monitoring methodologies with architecture independent APIs for system analysis, with the purpose both to extract run-time properties to be back-propagated to the model and to monitor and validate the system functionality.

3. Efficient and effective model and code management. Understanding and modification of models is often hindered by ad-hoc modelling techniques, bulky graphical presentations, non-intuitive model editors, and lack of adequate two-way synchronization between models and code.

4. Support for decision making based on quantitative and qualitative information about the product. That is, product management and architects have no effective tools or models to aid steering the product requirement and design during development projects and between releases.

To bridge these gaps DECISIVE will create innovative solutions by addressing the following objectives: • Extend existing modelling languages to support annotation of system properties obtained

during various V&V-activities (such as analysis, simulation, testing, and safety certification). These extensions will support product-line variability and versioning to fit the evolutionary system development process. Furthermore, the associated modelling tools will be enriched to support analysis and simulation of models at various abstraction levels, e.g., where part of the system exists in its final form and part of the system only exist as abstract models. This will allow early stage impact analysis of proposed evolutionary changes with respect to, quality attributes (e.g., safety).

• Develop model-to-model transformations and APIs that allow tracing of system properties through design stages and compilation phases. Also, transformations and APIs that allow mapping V&V-results back to the model needs to be provided.



Responsible:Mikael (editor) + inputs from Steffen, Paul, VTT, Mondragon


• Ensure availability of information from early verification and validation techniques, allowing business and architectural decisions to be based on solid technical data throughout the development process. Methods for defining and visualizing data from models and prototypes will improve the process for decision makers.

• Improve model-editing capabilities and easy model understanding. In evolutionary system development, handovers between teams will be significantly improved by automated generation of standardized model-views and semi-automated editing preventing errors from being introduced into the model. Also, in the context of model-to-model transformations, and code-to model synchronization, automated model-views will improve readability.

• Implement resource-efficient, non-intrusive, and deterministic monitoring techniques to extract properties from executing systems during both test and deployment.

Project resultsRelate to themes!

2.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art

Describe the state-of-the-art in the area concerned, and the advance that the proposed project would bring about. Explain the main technological or scientific innovations you aim to achieve and why they would be important.

(Recommended length for the whole of Section 2 –5 pages)The objective of DECISIVE is to deliver an integrated tool chain consolidating novel technology for evolutionary software development and run-time platform support for monitoring. As such a tool chain is not yet available; the project will set a new standard in this field. DECISIVE will extend state-of-the-art with respect to the above identified aspects as follows:1. Existing modelling languages, such as MARTE and SysML, lack a structure to model both

requirements and actual properties of the system. They all focus on modelling desired behaviours and properties, but methods to store properties obtained from the actual system are not supported. A modelling language, which allows storage of empirical properties, must be able to express that these properties may be attained at different stages during the development process, and with varying degree of quality and confidence. In fact, it is often the case that conflicting, or at least non-consistent, data is obtained during the life cycle of a product (e.g. the longest response-time for an event could be quite different when obtained through scheduling analysis, simulation, testing or observation of the final system). Also, modelling languages that support product-line variability, such as EAST-ADL2, lack possibility to trace system properties through the variation points. The DECISIVE project will add support to model which properties are preserved over a variation point (and conversely, which properties are affected by a variation). For early impact analysis, contemporary techniques lack the support to analyze subsystems of various abstraction levels. E.g. scheduling analysis and execution-time analysis typically depend on clock-cycle accurate representation of the final executable, whereas high-level analysis with e.g. Petri-nets and time-automata cannot accurately and safely model execution characteristics of modern hardware platforms. Thus, hybrid techniques are called for.

2. Existing model-to-model, and model-to-code, transformations focus on semantic preservation, and sometimes, also property-preservation (e.g. the CHESS modelling language, currently developed in an ARTEMIS-project ending in 2011). However, there is no support in the transformations that allow back-tracing of properties from the target to the source. E.g. there are no methods that allow the memory associated to a signal-queue to be traced back to a particular connection between two components, or more complex, to associate the execution time of a task to the response-time of a signal path in the model. In order to obtain such



traceability, we need both to associate meta-data to the target-models, indicating their sources, and provide for structured and automated insertions of probes in the target to allow tracing of interesting properties. Furthermore, processing of the probe-data in order to extract relevant properties and relate them back to the model needs new model-guided analysis technologies and text-to-model transformation techniques. While most operating systems for embedded and real-time systems provide some performance monitoring mechanisms, e.g. supporting memory-profiling and task-level execution monitoring, these mechanisms do not give detailed enough data to allow back-annotation of properties to models. Conversely, naïve instrumentation of code during model-to-code transformation will likely consume too many resources in terms of both execution time and memory. To remedy this situation, we will develop platform-level monitoring techniques both in hardware for nonintrusive monitoring, and in software for low-intrusive monitoring, that can be automatically customized with respect to the amount of resources required. These mechanisms can then be used by the model-to-code transformations. We will also implement optimization techniques to limit both the amount of probes that need to be generated and the amount of data that need to be stored for each probe in order to obtain a given quality of the observation.

3. An advantage of graphical models is their intuitiveness. However, the graphical modelling of realistic applications often results in very large and unmanageable graphics, severely compromising their readability and practical use. The DECISIVE Project will provide a methodology, which seeks to support a system developer in modelling, simulation and comprehending complex system models and their analysis results.Graphical system models for embedded systems are commonly created using some “What You See Is What You Get” (WYSIWYG) editor. Even for novices WYSIWYG editors are very easy to use due to their intuitiveness. However, WYSIWYG editors can also be a limiting factor in the practical usability. The system developer often spends a lot of time with rearranging graphical elements instead of modifying the system. We will develop model editing techniques that are rather oriented on the underlying model structure to enable fast and efficient model creation and modification. These proposals permit a design flow, where the designer efficiently develops the structure of a system, but uses a graphical browser and simulator to inspect and validate the system under development (SUD). Different views on the SUD will allow exploring and editing the system from different perspectives. Central to our approach will be style guides and layout mechanisms which make the models easy readable at each stage of the development.The classical paradigm to animate a simulated system is to highlight active components, e.g., by marking them in a particular colour. When the total number of graphical elements goes significantly beyond what can be visible on a screen simultaneously, keeping track of the active objects of a system becomes a rather frustrating exercise. In the DECISIVE project we will develop methods to simulate a system, which allows keeping track of the system simulation state. These methods will allow observing the simulation and analysis results simultaneously and with respect to their meaning for a better system comprehension.

When decisions are made for product portfolios, the best available information must be used. The same is true for architectural and design decisions. Decision-making can be improved through better ways to extract, collect, and present information that is requested for well-informed decisions. The technical information available in models and through simulations can improve the decision-making in early phases. Several aspects need to be further developed to improve the situation. Firstly, the needs from decision-makers should be made clear in the light of available and emerging modelling techniques, i.e. decision-makers are not always aware of what information actually is available early in the development process. Secondly, the extraction of the information must to be automated based on the specified needs from the decision-makers. Finally, the collection and presentation of the information must be made easily retrievable when required.Relate following table to themes!



Topic State of the art Decisive target

Modelling languages

Model transformations

Modelling methodology

Design decisions



Section 3 - S&T approach and work plan (Weight Factor: 1) Please refer to the "Guide for applicants" for information on evaluation criteria

3.1 Quality and effectiveness of the S&T methodology and associated work plan

A detailed work plan should be presented, broken down into work packages1 (WPs) which should follow the logical phases of the implementation of the project, and include consortium management and assessment of progress and results.

Please present your plans as follows:i) Describe the overall strategy of the work plan (Maximum length – one page)ii) Show the timing of the different WPs and their components (Gantt chart or similar). iii) Provide a detailed work description broken down into work packages:

Work package list (please use table 3a); Deliverables list (please use table 3b); List of milestones (please use table 3c) Description of each work package (please use table 3d) Summary effort table (3e)

iv) Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar)

v) Describe any significant risks, and associated contingency plans

Note: The number of work packages used must be appropriate to the complexity of the work and the overall value of the proposed project. The planning should be sufficiently detailed to justify the proposed effort and allow progress monitoring.

(Recommended length for the whole of Section 3 –15 pages not including the Gantt chart, Pert diagram or tables 3a-e)The objective of the project is to develop a methodology and tool support for model based ‐evolutionary development of complex embedded systems, ensuring comprehensibility of models by human designers and decision makers. This objective defines the decomposition of the project into seven work packages shown in Figure 1 completed by a project management package (WP0, not shown).

Figure 1: Overall project workflow (interactions between technology packages are omitted)

The work packages can be separated in three groups: organizational work packages (WP0, WP7), business case work packages (WP1, WP6), and technology work packages (WP2–5). The project

1 A work package is a major sub-division of the proposed project with a verifiable end-point - normally a deliverable or a milestone in the overall project.



Responsible:Simon (editor) + WP leaders


organization has been set up in such a way as to maximize modularity among the work packages, whilst allowing a clear definition of the individual contributions and the collaboration among partners. The interfaces between the different models and tools will be clearly defined in the beginning of the project. Compliance will be monitored throughout the project duration at biannual board meetings. In order to measure the achievements of the DECISIVE approach, metrics and evaluation techniques will be defined. The DECISIVE approach will be validated in terms of usability of the solution, efficiency in resource usage, and benefits for the developed products. Finally, it should be noted that the validation use-case development in the business case packages will be guided by a selection of themes relevant to the societal and industrial priorities. These themes allow the consortium to better structure the validation tasks, relate them with corresponding activities in the technology work packages and define a coherent industrial exploitation strategy. The selection of themes is presented in the detailed WP6 description below. /Simon Bliudze: Is this correct? Do we present themes in WP6, or should we rather write a separate sub-section for this?/

WP summaries and interconnections

Figure 1, above, explicits the work package organisation as related to the project work-flow. In this section, we provide short summaries of work packages and explain the functional interconnections among them, reflecting the intended DECISIVE product design work-flow. Detailed presentation of individual work packages is provided below.

Organizational work packagesThe role of the organizational work packages is to ensure that the project correctly follows its course; establish and maintain communication links with relevant administration, standardization, industrial and academic bodies.WP0 Project management: This work-package will contain all tasks related to the management of the project, i.e. monitoring and reporting. Central to the success of the project will be the establishment of a good quality plan, risk management plan and communication plans to ensure good information flow between the partners. Moreover this work-package will also include knowledge and IPR management in the project.WP7 Dissemination & exploitation: Among the tasks of this work package will be setting up a project web site and publishing the latest project news and results there, publishing newsletters, conference and journal papers, organization of workshops, etc. An important component will also be to work towards a new European standard reference technology and interact with existing standardization organizations.

Business case work packagesThe business case packages encompass the functional link between real-life industrial requirements and the technology to be developed in the project.WP1 Requirements: WP1 covers the work on the specification of the business requirements and needs that the project is looking to answer. Commercial existing tools and European Patents will be analyzed in order to evaluate the needs about: learning from previous versions of the product, hand-over of models to new engineering teams, supporting product-management in steering the product requirements. Precise and testable requirements will be identified in order to cover these main areas: DECISIVE application monitoring, interfaces between DECISIVE models, DECISIVE human-centric tools interfaces, and decision-support to product management during the decision phase. A



appropriated test methodology will be defined in order to verify the requirements fulfilling during the verification and validation phases.WP6 Industrial validation: This package covers the definition, development and evaluation of use cases for the validation of the DECISIVE approach in terms of usability of the solution, efficiency, and benefits for the developed products. Metrics and evaluation techniques will be defined allowing one to quantify the benefit of the DECISIVE approach. Feedback to technology packages will be provided.

Technology work packagesTechnology packages will work on the models and techniques to be used at all stages of the DECISIVE design work-flow in order to produce a coherent approach for evolutionary design and understandability of models by human designers and decision makers.WP2 Modelling and design frameworks: This work package will realize extensions to the current modelling and design frameworks to back-annotate the information learned and gathered during earlier system evolutions; it will provide model-transformations that use this information to improve the quality of decisions, increase reuse, reduce the development time, increase the quality of the final implementation, improve the overall engineering process and support the creation of safety-cases. WP3 Monitoring and analysis infrastructure: Within this work package the necessary evaluation, simulation and profiling techniques will be developed to generate data for the characterization of software/hardware components in respect to their runtime behaviour, memory footprint, power consumption, etc. Non-intrusive hardware- and low-impact software-monitoring techniques will be aimed at. The obtained information will be back-annotated to the high-level model description for reuse during the evolution of components.WP4 Model management and visualization: This work package will develop methods and tools for model management automation and improved comprehension during the system evolution or handovers between teams, in particular, by automating the generation of standardized model-views and preventing errors from being introduced into the model. In addition, we will improve model management capabilities, e.g., editing, layout, and model comprehension, for analysis and maintenance.WP5 Design for evolvability: This work package will develop decision support methods and tools for the synthesis of system architectures that are extensible, thus greatly reducing time and engineering effort required for evolutions and product line variations. We will provide trade-off analysis tools that will allow a systems architect to decide the right amount of extensibility, without compromising other objectives such as performance, cost, energy consumption and safety.

Functional Interconnections among the work packages

One of the DECISIVE objectives is to cover the entire design workflow according to the current state of the practice. Beyond the classical V-cycle, such a workflow involves several iterations of the loop consisting of a design phase, followed by the analysis phase and an adaptation of the model based on the analysis results. This workflow is illustrated in Figure 2 below.



Figure 2: Target DECISIVE workflow (blue ovals represent artefacts, blue rectangles represent tools, dashed contours define the DECISIVE work package boundaries).

The workflow shown in Figure 2, provides also the functional dependencies between the work packages of the project (shown in dashed grey contours). Indeed, WP2 and WP3 are devoted to collection and storage of the information about the system under development, whereas WP4 and WP5 – as their names suggest – concern mainly visualisation, editing and decision support for the process. As such WP4 and WP5 are rather independent one from another and from WP2 and WP3. Hence these two packages benefit from increased modularity, thus reducing the associated risk for the project.

Work packages 2 and 3 are connected stronger due to their shared influence over the execution platform. Furthermore, clear interfaces have to be established between the modelling formalisms and monitoring and analysis techniques (that is between WP2 and WP3) in order to build flexible back-annotation mechanisms.

Project time-line The chart below (Figure 3) shows the proposed time-line for the project. In order to enable the coherent industrial validation of the models and tools developed in the project, the technology packages and validation are split in two phases. First prototypes of the industrial validators based on the results of Phase 1 of the technology packages will provide the feedback necessary for the refinement of the models and tools in Phase 2. The work in the technology packages does not start immediately but only after the specifications of the business requirements have been completed. This will ensure that the business requirements effectively influence the technology to be developed in the project. Furthermore, the work in the technology packages must be completed in advance with respect to the overall project termination in order to allow for the final validation to be effectuated on the obtained results.


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/projects/decisive/lib/exe/detail.php?id=start%3Afpp%3Asection3&media=start:fpp:decisive-target-workflow.png


Figure 3: Time line for the DECISIVE project.‐



Table 3 a: Template - Work package list

Work package list

Work package

No2

Work package title Lead particno.3

Lead partic. short name

Person-month

s4

Startmonth5

Endmonth5

0 Project management 1 Philips

1 Requirements 23 CRF

2 Modelling and design frameworks

3 CISC

3 Monitoring and analysis infrastructure

22 NXP-D

4 Model management and visualization

19 BHL

5 Design for evolvability 5 DTU

6 Industrial validation 32 ISYS

7 Dissemination & exploitation 14 VTT

TOTAL

2 Workpackage number: WP 1 – WP n.3 Number of the participant leading the work in this work package.4 The total number of person-months allocated to each work package.5 Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).



Table 3 b: Template - Deliverables List

List of Deliverables

Del. no. 6

Deliverable name WP no. Nature7 Dissemi-nation level8

Delivery date9

(proj.

month)

6 Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates. Please use the numbering convention <WP number>.<number of deliverable within that WP>. For example, deliverable 4.2 would be the second deliverable from work package 4.7 Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes:

R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other8 Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes:

PU = PublicPP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the JU).RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the JU).CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the JU).

9 Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).



Table 3c Template - List of milestones

MilestonesMilestones are control points where decisions are needed with regard to the next stage of the project. For example, a milestone may occur when a major result has been achieved, if its successful attainment is a required for the next phase of work. Another example would be a point when the consortium must decide which of several technologies to adopt for further development.

Milestone number

Milestone name

Work package(s) involved

Expected date 10 Means of verification11

10 Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).11 Show how you will confirm that the milestone has been attained. Refer to indicators if appropriate. For example: a laboratory prototype completed and running flawlessly; software released and validated by a user group; field survey complete and data quality validated.



Table 3 d: Template - Work package description

Work package description

Work package number 0 Start date or starting event: M1

Work package title Project management

Participant number 1

Participant short name Philips

Person-months per participant

Objectives Project management of DECISIVE will leverage on the vast experience in management structures and procedures of Philips in former EU-funded projects of similar size and impact. Due attention will be given in anticipating issues and maximizing the exploitation of foreground Intellectual Property rights originating from the project.

Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners

Task 0.1. Project managementTiming: M1-M36 Lead: PhilipsContributors: all partners In this task, the project coordinator and all the partners will perform the due project management activities, as described in Section 5 of this proposal. Such activities are comprehensive of technical, strategic, administrative and financial actions, all devoted to an efficient, on-time execution of the project work and the responsible delivery of the corresponding results. Key tool for project management will be the Internal Project Website. It will be used to manage the contact and distribution lists, as well as a repository for communication and documentation exchange among the partners. If possible it will be linked to or integrated in the external project website.

Task 0.2. Communication with the JU and PAsTiming: M1-M36 Lead: PhilipsContributors: country coordinators The project coordinator will be the primary contact point to the JU-Artemis and the reviewers for all matters, technical and administrative, concerning the execution, progress and management of all project activities. Any action concerning communication to the JU and the reviewers, as well as the exchange of technical, administrative and legal documents occurs in the context of this task. A specific section of the Internal Project Web Site will be dedicated to the interaction with the JU and the Project Officers, through secure connections and password protected folders and directories.



Responsible: Frank van der Linden


Deliverables (brief description) and month of delivery

D0.1.1 Internal Project Website M3

D0.2.1 First Periodic Project Report M12 Philips, All

D0.2.2 Second Periodic Project Report M24 Philips, All

D0.2.3 Third Periodic Project Report M36 Philips, All

D0.2.4 Final Publishable Summary Report M36 Philips, All




Work package title Requirements

Participant number

Participant short name


Objectives Purpose of WP1 is the definition of the requirements for tools and methodologies to be developed by the technology packages. Starting from the evaluation of the current state-of-the-art and state-of-practice approaches related to evolutionary development in the model-based engineering of embedded systems, requirements for tools and methodologies will be defined in order to provide: non-intrusive analysis and monitoring techniques to systematically collect information during the evolutions; decision support for the synthesis of system architectures; model management and visualization, to automate the management of models and improve comprehension during the system evolution. Safety and certification requirements will be also identified. WP1 is also responsible of the definition of test methodologies that will be applied during validation phase and the preliminary definition of candidate validation cases and scenarios.


T1.1 State of the artLead: IKER Contributors: Atego, IKER, NXP-A, NXP-D, UEF, UoOThis Task will accomplish the following activities:

• Evaluation of commercial existing tools and European Patents• Evaluation of the needs about:• Learning from previous versions of the product• Hand-over of models to new engineering teams• Supporting product-management in steering the product requirements• Collect relevant and significant industry control use cases

T1.2 Requirement identificationLead: AVL Contributors: Atego, AVL, BHL, CAU, CEA, CISC, CRF, FHG-HHI, IKER, ISYS, LDZ, NXP-D, RTU, UEF, UES, UoOThis Task will accomplish the following activities:

• Identification of the monitoring and analysis requirements for DECISIVE applications• Identification of the requirements for the definition of interfaces between DECISIVE models (high-

level and analysis models, computation models, and platform specific execution models)• Identification of the requirements for human-centric tools able to provide better understanding of

the systems• Requirements of a DECISIVE Human Interface Guideline able to define unambiguous systems

requirements • Requirements cover model development perspectives - model editing, simulation, and analysis

(with respect of model and result representation)• Identification of the requirements of indexes able to provide support to product management

during the decision phase of evolutionary systems



Responsible: Fiat – Andrea Ghiro


• Identification of requirement related to safety and certification features

T1.3 Test methodology definitionLead: Philips Contributors: Atego, CRF, IKER, MU, NXP-A, NXP-D, PHILIPS, UESThis Task will accomplish the following activities:

• Find commonalities to ensure the reusability and cross-domain applicability of the DECISIVE methodology and tools

• Preliminary definition of candidate validation cases and scenarios• Definition of test methodology to apply during the validation phase (WP6)


D1.1 State-of-the-art

D1.2 Business requirements and needs M6

D1.3 Preliminary validation case and test methodology M36


Work package title Modelling and design frameworks

Participant number



Objectives Based on the requirements identified in WP1, WP2 will select two-three state-of-the-art modelling and design frameworks that are applicable to the main application areas represented by the industrial partners in the project. The case studies provided by the industrial partners will be used to determine the most important data that has to be recorded during the system evolutions, to support evolutionary development. The low-intrusive monitoring infrastructure used to record this information is proposed in WP3. We will propose extensions to the current modelling and design frameworks to back-annotate the information learned during the system evolutions. We will provide model-transformations that use this information to improve the quality of decisions, increase reuse, reduce the development time, increase the quality of the final implementation, improve the overall engineering process and support the creation of safety-cases. WP2 covers the development of various modelling languages and the associated tools. These will include the following

• Models for back-annotation (e.g. extension of CHESS results?)• Models for structured and modular system development, ranging from early stage languages for

requirements elicitation to detailed design and implementation models (e.g. hierarchical extension of the CEA PsyC language for OASIS)

• Models for safety analysis with focus on safety analysis in the early phases of development• Techniques for model-driven design of user-interfaces, with a special focus on user interfaces for

safety-critical systems



Responsible: CISC – Markus Pistauer, Mikael starts


System safety must be considered from the very start of the project. It is thus important that all the formalisms and models used in the project are able to support safety analysis in an efficient way. The problems and challenges in this area are related both to modelling language – what can be expressed – and to the methods used for safety analysis – how can we use the information presented by the model in the most efficient way? In order to achieve an efficient safety analysis, it is also important to study the interplay between models and domain experts so that we can make tools (computers) and experts (humans) cooperate in the most efficient manner. This work should be based simple ideas like Fitts’ list and more advanced topics, such as research on human reliability This WP will also be responsible for the definition of the API's and data interfaces for provision of the monitoring and analysis results from WP3.


T2.1 Development of extensions to existing models and languages

Lead: ???

Contributors: CEA, RTU, ALM, TEC, NXP-A…

CEA:

1. Development of a hierarchical extension of the PsyC language (OASIS programming language) in order to allow compositional design directly in PsyC and in connection with higher-level models

2. Implementation of the mechanisms for model annotation and extraction of information to be back-annotated into higher-level models and provided to analysis and decision-aid tools

TEC:

1. Implementation of the mechanisms for semantic model annotation and extraction of information to be back-annotated into higher-level models and provided to analysis and decision-aid tools

T2.2 Development of modelling techniques for early-stage safety analysis

Lead:

Contributors: , …

T2.3 Techniques for specifying safety requirements

Lead: ??

Contributors: , …

This task is based on the output of T2.2, and will provide:

1. templates and techniques for specifying safety requirements. Here we will also build on and extend the work on requirements boilerplates from the ARTEMIS project CESAR

2. ontology-based support for analyzing completeness, consistency and standard compliance of safety



requirements<del>

TEC: In this task we would like to link variability management techniques to the safety related requirements. How can we manage at early safety requirements specification variability identification and management. This will provide information of decision making at early stages.

T2.4 Model-based development of user interfaces

Lead:

Contributors: CG, …



Work package title Monitoring and analysis infrastructure

Participant number 1 2 4 12 16 21 22

Participant short name PHILIPS AVL NXP-A UEF CEA FHG NXP-D


72 8 28 46 16 36 32

Participant number 28 29

Participant short name OCE TUE


6 ??

Objectives WP3 plays an important role in the overall workflow of DECISIVE represented by the technical work packages. Within this work package the needed evaluation, simulation and profiling techniques will be developed to generate data for the characterization of software/hardware components in respect to their runtime behavior, memory footprint, power consumption, etc. This data will be used at runtime and design time of a software component. For reusing this information during the evolution of components it will be back annotated to the high-level model description (cf. WP2). In that sense WP3 covers the development of techniques, which can be distinguished by the time when they will be applied:

Design Time Methodologies: At design time the developer of a software component typically uses simulation and profiling techniques to debug, validate and optimize a given component. Here it will be necessary to implement a framework for



Responsible:NXP-A – Michael Stark or NXP-D


the model-based analysis and design of distributed systems. This framework can also incorporate middleware architectures in respect to their RT behavior, which will be the high level simulation approach within the project. To support model-based analysis techniques with exact results it is needed to implement a low level profiling methodology. This methodology must be able to profile a complete system platform constructed of software and hardware components. The hardware components typically represent the execution platform of a software component. The methodology needs to be completely independent from the underlying architecture of the execution platform in order to support a wide variety of systems, e.g. simple single-processor embedded systems as well Network on Chip architectures.

Runtime Methodologies: To gather timing information of the runtime behavior of a software component it is needed to develop monitoring infrastructures, which are ideally integrated in the kernel of the underlying operating system/runtime system. This information can be used for example for optimizing RT scheduling mechanisms. For supporting software monitoring mechanisms integrated in the operating/runtime system hardware monitors are needed, which allow non-intrusively gathering of the profiling data. The monitoring infrastructures need to be as generic as possible in order to guarantee a unified approach across the different applications and measurements. In particular we want to achieve better usage of performance counters during execution, and simulation models to give detailed performance data about the dynamic behavior of the platform. Several different aspects of performance metrics will be important, both those traditionally focused on (e.g. speed and memory consumption) and also additional metrics such as power consumption, which have recently seen increasing interest in response to energy and climate challenges as well as in the field of mobile devices. Hence, it is interesting to look into the use of performance counters and other HW-assisted monitors to estimate energy consumption.

Analysis Methodologies: Design and runtime methodologies generate massive amounts of data, which need to be managed and processed in a way, that the designer can use the information in a fast and efficient way. For that purpose WP3 will not only focus on the generation of analysis information, but as well on post-processing and database concepts for that special purpose.


T3.1 Runtime and simulation monitoring

Lead: Philips

Contributors: CEA, Philips

CEA: will develop and implement the monitoring support for its safety-oriented real-time operating platform OASIS. This platform comprises the following elements

• A programming language PsyC – an extension of C – that allows to design applications with explicit parallel architecture, structured as a collection of agents communicating through dataflow and message passing. Furthermore, all elements of an OASIS application – agent behaviour and communication – have explicit temporal properties.

• Several implementations of the OASIS kernel responsible for managing temporal behavior of the application and communications between the agents.

• Kernel implementations exist for various environments: POSIX execution and simulation on Linux platforms, and native execution on several bare-bone architectures (IA32, ARM7, ARM9 and several others). Typical OASIS applications target embedded execution and, therefore, information such as execution time, power consumption, frequency of inter-core migrations or code-coverage is very



important for system sizing and optimization. We expect the DECISIVE results to allow collecting such information through application monitoring without considerable impact on system performance. System support for such monitoring will provide means (e.g. API, but could be something more complete to enable periodic – off-line? – information collection) to integrate the collected information into the models used at design time for analysis. This latter functionality provides a link with WP2.

Philips: Philips Healthcare iXR will contribute via the design of a diagnostic infrastructure. This infrastructure consists of monitoring software for both the X-ray acquisition hardware as well as the PC-based infrastructure that controls them. The infrastructure collects this information, provides mechanisms to draw conclusions, and makes it available remotely.

T3.2 Model based analysis and techniques

Lead: Philips

Contributors: Philips, NXP-D , OCE

Philips: Philips Healthcare iXR will define and implement models to analyze the data acquired by the diagnostics infrastructure to provide just-in-time support to products in the field and speed-up the diagnostics process. NXP-D: NXP-D will investigate novel work flows to advance automation in the validation of new developments in analog mixed-signal design. Different abstraction levels of digital and analog blocks, from functional to detailed back annotated behavior descriptions, shall be supported by a joint concept. Therefore NXP-D will define and implement regression test suites including automated pass/fail recognition, based on which novel work flows will be investigated to advance automation. NXP-D will standardize the extensions to be implemented in the models to support monitoring and automated pass/fail recognition. Further simulation and model based analysis for evolving systems will be accomplished, based on different hierarchy levels. This will require e.g. the proper interfacing of models from different domains (analog, digital, etc) as well as models with different parameter sets and depths. All model used will have to be compatible to the according test suite. Deliverable: Definition of regression test suite / simulation & analysis for evolving systems (out of task 3.2 and 3.3)OCE: will adapt the model based development and simulation environment for print systems to handle the product modularity. This means that multiple models can be combined.Further OCE will relate productivity modeling and runtime monitoring information. Suitable information written in log files will be used to check the realized productivity (like the time it takes to print a number of pages for specific jobs) with the models that have been used to design the system. Furthermore, runtime trace information will be used to relate the execution flow with the specification models, for example for diagnosis purposes.UEF will focus on the application of intelligent and learning methods mainly as segmentation and classification algorithms. The research will focus on analyzing run-time behavior using automatic classification methods which are able to extract the relevant information from the software processes using as little a priori information as possible. UEF will also utilize pattern recognition and neural networks techniques in the analysis of different models in the analysis of software behavior.Deliverables: D3.2.1 Use case analysis …D3.2.2 Tool chain …

T3.3 Profiling based analysis and simulation techniquesFocusing on the run-time characterization of system platforms in respect to power consumption,



processing performance and real-time behavior it is expected that conventional or state of the art profiling and simulation techniques cannot be used for the task of analyzing and profiling. Especially profiling memory accesses on a cycle accurate basis is not or not sufficiently supported by available profiling tools and methodologies due to the fact that in most cases only shared memory architectures were modeled at the time. With the emerging trend building embedded systems based upon multi core and many core architectures with completely different connection topologies it is foreseen that new profiling techniques will be required which take as well the actual connection topology into account. Based on the profiling methodologies it will be possible to get an in depth view of how programming models and runtime systems behave on enhanced embedded processor platforms, which can consist of more than one processor core. The results can be used to co-optimize the runtime system, programming model and the architecture of the computing platform.FHG-HHI: HHI will work on system level profiling methodologies using System C platform descriptions which can be used for run-time characterization of system platforms in respect to power consumption, processing performance and real-time behaviorTo achieve precise results in respect to the real-time behavior of a given system FHG-HHI will develop a non intrusive profiling and exploration methodology, which is suited for platform models implemented using the modeling language SystemC. Instead of manually instrumenting the SystemC code of a multi core platform or a similar architecture itself, the methodology relies on the architecture elaboration phase of a SystemC compilation run. After the specific elaboration phase the actual architecture under investigation will be visualized and can be prepared for a simulation run by adding probes for data types, busses, program counters, etc. which should be observed by the profiler. The methodology will support simple SystemC constructs as well as complex TLM2.0 based architectures. The data collected by the so called backend tool will be visualized by a corresponding frontend, which will be integrated into an existing state of the art design flow. The same frontend could also be able to collect and visualize data that has been gathered by the hardware monitoring service described in task T3.4.According to the given terminology the tool will be used during the design time of an embedded system for simulation, profiling and HW/SW co- exploration.NXP-A: NXP-A will define a laboratory test concept and equipment for automated verification supporting the integral concept and work on an automated data post-processing engine and report generators NXP-D: NXP-D will work on a database approach allowing storing regression test results on different abstraction levels. Data formats from different sources have to be adopted for automatic evaluation whereas eventual synergies between those formats have to be identified. Further a method has to be developed to allow probing of data during simulations as well as pre-processing and compression of such data.The design blocks used will represent data sources which will deliver data asynchronously to each other, so effective sampling of data will require smarter methods. This method should preferably allow the combination of analog (real values) and digital data ind the same step.Deliverables: D3.3.1 Use case analysis and specification of analysis and profiling methodologies The document will review state of the art profiling methodologies and will highlight missing features in respect to special use cases. Based on the results of the use case analysis a detailed specification will be defined, which will be the basis for the implementation of the tools delivered in D3.3.2. D3.3.2 Tool chain consisting of profiling and post processing tools (Type : Prototype)The deliverable will consist of running prototypes of the tools as defined in D3.3.1. including an appropriate written documentation.

T3.4 HW monitoring techniques



Lead: FHG-HHI

Contributors: FHG-HHI, NXP-A, NXP-D

For system wide tuning and observation of runtime metrics e.g. core clock frequency, memory allocation, heap size, real time -behavior and –violations it is essential to collect corresponding information of the system at runtime. Due to the fact, those e.g. monitoring memory access transactions can result in very high computational demands, it is needed to have specialized hardware monitoring features in the system architecture, which will be accessible by external debugging tools and the system itself for automatic runtime optimization.FHG-HHI: HHI will work on efficient concepts of hardware support for performance monitoring. Especially in the case of state of the art processor interconnection concepts like network on chip architectures it is needed to observe memory transactions and their parameters e.g. access time, latency, etc. To collect information regarding the behavior of these advanced hardware architectures FHG-HHI will develop a generic hardware concept for monitoring the performance of network oriented interconnection architectures. The system will consist of hardware components to gather (sniffer), transport (monitoring network) and process (monitoring service) monitoring information. In contrast to the methodology described in task T3.3 the monitoring system will be used at runtime, but will be compatible with the developed data visualization front end of task T3.3.NXP-D: will develop a concept for automated extraction of pass-fail information. Special focus will have to be on the handling of large amounts of test data (Tera Byte). The new concept will also be implemented in connection to an according test-case.



Work package title Model management and visualization

Participant number



Objectives WP4 covers the development of methods and tools for the model editing/visualization and analysis results representation. This WP will accomplish the following activities:

• Support a process of easy development and understanding of complex embedded systems. • Support for all model development stages providing techniques for

1. efficient system editing,2. traceable system simulation, and



Responsible: Bauhaus Luftfahrt – Steffen Prochnow


3. comprehensible system analysis representation• this contributes to maintaining consistency between various embedded systems specifications,

possibly related to different co-existing modeling paradigms.• Generate different Views that are needed as input for “WP5 Decision making support”


T4.1 Survey of Users

Lead: BHL

Main contributors: EADS, Daimler, DCAITI

Activities:

Based on some representative cases using platform such as SIMULINK, STATEFLOW, etc. EADS will provide current Human Machine Interface issues that Engineers are facing while designing and performing simulation of complex system models.

T4.2 View generation

Lead: MDH

Main contributors: CAU

Finkelstein et al.’s work on viewpoint oriented systems engineering (VOSE) makes explicit the aspects that need to be considered and managed to build an effective system. When it comes to embedded systems in particular, approaches such as STATECHARTS and software cost reduction focus on the functional aspects, while techniques such as Tropos and intent specifications focus more on the systems and safety aspects. We will take such results as basis for research on traceability across different specifications/models, and as a base for generating a set of viewpoints as input for “WP5 Decision making support”.

Acitivities:

• Develop a “unified generic model” by which the different specifications can be linked.• Based on the “unified generic model” different views will generated and given as input to the

“Decision making model in T5.x”

T4.3 Support for efficient Model Editing

Lead: CAU

Main contributors: CAU, DCAITI

Graphical System models for embedded systems are commonly created using some “What You See Is What You Get” (WYSIWYG) editor. Even for novices WYSIWYG editors are very easy to use due to their intuitiveness. However, WYSIWYG editors can also be a limiting factor in the practical usability. Especially the editing of complex embedded system models raises further problems. Here, one is quickly confronted with large and unmanageable graphics originating from a high number of components or from intricate interactions and inter-dependencies. In this task we intend to develop alternative editing approaches for



fast and effective modeling of complex systems models.

Acitivities:

This task benefits the model editing tasks (Task T2.1-T2.4) and will provide:

• Modeling style guides• Model layout• WYSIWYG improvements for modeling and editing of embedded system• Provide in-sync textual and graphical editors based on model-transformation• Support of editing syntactic model structure instead of graphical elements• Support of editing multivariate data tables • Support of editing hierarchical structures• Automated diagram generation as basis for T4.3 (view generation)

T4.4 Support for Understandable Model Simulation

Lead: DCAITI

Main contributors: CAU, DCAITI, BHL, RTU

Modeling tools generally support system model simulation, where the SUD is subjected to some input stimuli, and the system model is animated according to the current configuration of the SUD. These animation capabilities are so far rather limited; modeling tools often provide very restricted facilities to explore the structure and the behavior of complex system models. The paradigm generally offered is that the system model is shown as drawn by the user, and active states/components and transitions are marked in a specific color. This is fine if the model is small enough to be entirely visible on the screen; it becomes problematic for realistic, larger models.

Acitivities:

This task benefits the understanding of simulation results (Task 3.2) and will provide:

• Support for visualization of large amounts of simulation results• Visualization of relevant elements (focus+context)• “Dynamic” model simulation• Context-dependent exploration of Data and Dataflow• Visualization of system behaviour and data change over time• Integrated state-space and event/dataflow exploration • Enable user to understand relations between parameter settings and results

T4.5 Support for Analysis Results Representation

Lead: BHL

Main contributors: DCAITI, CAU, BHL, ALM, RTU, EADS?, NXP-A



Activities:

This task benefits the understanding of analysis results (Task T3.4 and Task T3.5) and will provide:

• techniques that enable users to understand relations between parameter settings and analysis results

• Large state space exploration • Cluster exploration for parametric analysis• Automatic isolation of meaningful analysis results• Associate automatically meaning with analysis results

T4.6 Experimental Evaluation of Support Tools

Lead: EADS

Main contributors: EADS, NXP-D, CAU, DCAITI, BHL, UC3M, RTU, LDZ

Activities:

This task will provide:

1. practical evaluation

o application on uses cases

2. “academic” evaluationo model and modelling measurements to justify metricso measure ease of creation and interactiono discover limits of techniqueso TBD



Work package title Design for evolvability

Participant number

Participant short name DTU COY KNR NSN UoO VTT BHL


20 12 6 18 20 28 10



Responsible:DTU – Paul Pop & VTT

http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/projects/decisive/doku.php?id=start:wps:tbd


Participant number

Participant short name NXP-D CG RTU LDZ Almende MU TEC


20 11 6 2 18 30 16

Participant number ISYS FHG-HHI IKER

Participant short name 24 6 10


ISYS FHG-HHI IKER

Notes Paul Pop (DTU): I have changed the WP5 title from “Design for Evolvability”, since the WP is not

only about design Paul Pop (DTU)—Question: who will be the WP5 leader? VTT Susanna Teppola – to be decided –

Paul will start working on WP description Paul Pop (DTU)—Question: Will Stig Larsson from MDH continue to be involved in WP5? Paul Pop (DTU)—Question: What has happened with MDH’s contribution? I have no details! Where

and what will they contribute? From telco minutes: WP5: responsible Paul & Susanna. Objectives are long. Task need descriptions From telco minutes: The present descriptions are just copies from the Wiki. WP writers should

provide new versions before the next telco. This is needed to improve the generic parts of the section descriptions. Descriptions should include the input from the partner questionnaires. Important update would be to change bullet lists into sentences.

From telco minutes: It was asked whether it is possible to describe each WP in a few words. This helps to explain the project better to industrial partners. The descriptions of a few lines in section 3.1 are not easy to understand.

Objectives The objective of this work package is to develop model-based decision support methods and tools (T5.1), to improve decision-making during product evolutions. The decisions are based on data collection and analysis from previous versions of a product (T5.2). In addition, this work package will propose guidelines and design patterns for building evolvable systems, i.e., systems that are easy to extend (T5.3).

Notes● From telco minutes: Deliverables should be identified. Preferable we have 1-2 deliverables per task.

Not more, as we should not overload ourselves with deliverables. One deliverable per task should suffice, but with regard to the two phases, two deliverables may sometimes be needed. Finally, do not give all deliverables the same deadline as they need time to be reviewed and accepted, by the same set of people. A task without deliverable should be integrated with another task.


T5.1 Investigation of needs from decision makers based on interviews and surveys Notes

● Paul Pop (DTU): I suggest merging this task with the next one. The task is quite small. The investigation of needs can be done as part of WP1 on requirements and part of the



methods and tools task.

T5.1 Decision support methods and tools Notes

● Paul Pop (DTU): I have changed the task name, from “Methods for utilizing available knowledge for project and portfolio decision”

● Paul Pop (DTU): DTU can be the lead of this task, if nobody else wants to lead it.Lead: DTUContributors: DTU (20), Contribyte (12), KONEKRANES (6), UoD (20), TEC (16), RTU (6), MDH?The state-of-the-art methods in model-based engineering of embedded systems concentrate on the design and implementation, from scratch, of a new system. However, such a situation is uncommon in practice. Typically, a new product is evolved from a previous version. This task will develop model-based decision support methods and tools. When a new product is developed, or a new version is introduced, the decisions taken in the very early stages are critical. The decisions can be on several levels, e.g., business-level, design-level and architecture-level. These decisions will influence the set of possible implementation, with an impact on everything from cost, performance, to energy consumption and reliability. We will improve the quality of decision-making, especially in the early phases.

TEC will work on providing techniques and tool support for handling decision making as well as automatic variability handling and decision resolution. MDH will develop methods for utilizing available knowledge for project and portfolio decision. Contribyte develop, prototype, and test a coherent and flexible tool support for evolutionary design and development of model based products over the life cycle and across related processes and systems. KONECRANES will develop tools for transforming and evolving existing embedded systems to and within the new evolvable model-driven framework. The focus of KONECRANES will be on mobile work machine control, where the developed tools will support the evolving existing embedded mobile work machine control systems, through faster design of embedded control systems and improved re-use of existing systems. RTU and Ldz are focused on the development of a prototype decision support tool, to be applied in the area of intelligent railway transport control, using WP2 models and modelling environment.Currently, the embedded system architectures are derived without any concern for extensibility. DTU will develop decision support methods and tools for the synthesis of system architectures that are extensible, thus greatly reducing the time and engineering effort required for evolutions. DTU will provide trade-off analysis tools that will allow a systems architect to decide the right amount of extensibility, without compromising other objectives such as performance, cost, energy consumption and dependability. MDH will focus on systems where with parts of the system are being replaced in each version/generation/variant of the product or system. The decision support methods will also include mechanism to separate concerns in complex systems allowing support for evolution (critical partition versus evolvable partitions)There are different mechanisms that can help ensuring extensibility on software development, e.g., modelling languages and extensions (UML and UML profiles), standardisation initiatives such as Autosar help in gaining extensibility, and validation and verification on models. MU will analyse and develop mechanisms that can be used in MDD in order to obtain extensibility. UoO will develop approaches for supporting a system architect to make appropriate decisions that will result in right amount of extensibility in evolutionary development. DTU will work with WP2 on how to capture the flexibility of a design into the current modelling framework.

T5.2 Data collection, analysis and interpretation for decision support Notes



● Paul Pop (DTU): I have changed the task name, from “Automation of result analysis and interpretation”

Lead: Almende? Contributors: VTT (28), BHL (10), NXP-D (10), CG (11), Almende (18), ISYS (24), FHG-HHI (6), MDH?When decisions are made (being product management decisions, or architectural and design decisions), the best available information must be used. Decision-making can be improved through better ways to extract, collect, and present information that is requested for well-informed decisions. The focus will be on data from previous versions of the product, previous design iterations, etc., which is currently not used by the existing approaches.The needs from decision-makers should be made clear in the light of available and emerging modelling techniques, i.e. decision-makers are not always aware of what information actually is available early in the development process. All partners, especially MDH will conduct interviews and surveys to understand what type of information would be needed and useful for decisions throughout development projects. VTT will perform data collection and analysis to understand what type of information would be needed and useful for decisions throughout development projects, to enable effective decision-making in company’s development projects. Often, the data collected presents uncertainties. ISYS will focus their work on providing modelling solution to express such uncertainties and variability. The characterization of uncertainty and variability is an essential input for decision-making support, since it is connected to the risk associated to a decision. Model-based decision-making is a collaborative process. BHL will contribute to the requirements regarding data acquisition in interactive collaboration, and will focus on incorporating, into the tool prototypes developed in this work-package, the information gained from developers’ collaboration.The extraction of the information must to be automated based on the specified needs from the decision-makers. FHG-HHI will work on post-processing of profiling results, such that the results can be applied and integrated easily in the decision making process. Also, the collection and presentation of the information must be made easily retrievable when required. Almende will focus on automated support for data aggregation and information extraction based on state-of-the-art data mining techniques. This is achieved through a reasoning and learning framework for embedded software systems evolution support, potentially using self-organizing principles. Almende and MDH will work on the derivation of high-level decision support information from low-level simulations with executable models or from run-time generated event traces. The focus of Almende will be on wireless applications for live updates of the analysis and control software for large-scale sensor devices.To support this data collection, information regarding possible data from WP2, 3 and 4 is needed. Once the data is available, prototypes of how to present data from WP4 can be used for pilots, in workshop formats, and in real development projects (performed in WP6). CG will contribute to the development of the software interface of decision support tools. Their focus will be on intelligent railway transport control system. BHL will work on generating different views (within the model-driven frameworks provided by the rest of the project) that are needed as input for decision-making. NXP-D will evaluate a compact visualization of the regression test results: automated post-procession engine for large data sizes, define report formats for an effective result analysis and interpretation and define decision criteria for result interpretation.

T5.3 Guidelines and patterns for building evolvable systemsNotes

● Paul Pop (DTU): I have changed the task name, from “Evolution of safety runtime frameworks”

● Paul Pop (DTU): I have moved here from T5.3 10 PM of NXP-D ● Paul Pop (DTU): LDZ’s contribution is quite small, only 2 PM



Lead: MUContributors: NSN (18), LDZ (2), MU (20), NXP-D (10), DTU (6), IKER (10)Often, embedded system architectures are derived with little concern for extensibility, rendering evolutions very costly. The methods and tools developed in task 5.1 will support in the creation of systems that are extensible. In this task we will propose guidelines and patterns for building evolvable systems. In addition, we will show (for selected methods and tools proposed in the previous two tasks) how they can be integrated in existing tool flows.

MU will analyse evolution patterns in MDD. Evolution will be considered in the following aspects: functional evolution, QoS evolution, platform evolution, etc. Based on this analysis, MU will propose evolvability guidelines on MDD, i.e., impact of evolution patterns on MDD, mechanisms vs. evolution patterns. MU will provide guidelines for facilitating evolution to meet new quality attribute requirements. This will result in modelling extensions, evolvability guidelines and design patterns. DTU will propose guidelines for developing evolvable safety-critical embedded systems. The focus is on improving the ability to perform upgrades for the non safety-critical components.The guidelines and patterns proposed in this task are focused on the offline (e.g., before runtime) development of systems. However, evolvability can also be achieved through online (at runtime) adaptation. IKER will deal with evolution of safety grade runtime frameworks for embedded with code generation, models and metamodels.NXP-D will evaluate the work-package results as part of a new working flow for the design of embedded systems. The plan is that all new product designs and future product platforms will be created making use of the advancements of the new flow. LDZ will evaluate and validate the developed frameworks in the area of railway transport. NSN is developing its process and practices towards evolutionary mode of operation, thus it participates in this task with the purpose to compare its current practices and identify future improvement efforts.



Work package title Industrial validation

Participant number



Objectives • Specification of candidate use-cases as reference models for the validation of DECISIVE techniques

in terms of usability of the solution, efficiency, and benefits for the developed products. • Definition of metrics and evaluation techniques• Use cases refinement and implementation running on the DECISIVE reference platform in order to



demonstrate the full power of the approach for these cases. • Benchmark of the overall system including methodologies, design tool, and platforms, with the aid

of the leading use-cases• Compile the results of the evaluation and provide feedback to technologic-enablers Work Packages

Description of work WP6 covers the definition of use cases for the validation of DECISIVE approach. Industrial use-cases will be provided for the validation of DECISIVE approach. Candidate use-cases as reference models for the validation of DECISIVE techniques in terms of usability of the solution, efficiency, and benefits for the developed products will be specified. Metrics and evaluation techniques will be defined. These preliminary use cases will be further refined and implemented running on the DECISIVE reference platform demonstrating the full power of the approach for these cases. Feedback to technology providers Work Packages will be provided. The overall system including the methodologies, design tool, and platforms, will be benchmarked with the aid of these leading use-cases.

Task 6.1 Industrial validation plan

Based on the requirements and initial definition of use case in WP1, we present a detailed design of the implementation of the use cases that are selected for the validation of the DECISIVE approach. For each use case, we will provide a detailed validation plan with rich information that will cover all aspects to evaluate both the functional and non functional behaviour of the solution. The plan will include a detailed sequence of actions to be fulfilled, as well as the hardware and software platforms needed for the evaluation.

In addition, and based on output of the Test Methodology defined on WP1, we also specify a detailed evaluation plan that provides customized metrics and methodology to perform the assessment of the solution for the different domains, while keeping the commonalities within the different use cases. The purpose is to provide common guidelines to drive the evaluation of the different use cases, with a flexible approach that allows to follow a common methodology that can be tailored to the different domains. The metrics will be mainly focused on parameters of the development process rather that the product, although we envisage that the potential benefits of final product will also be assessed.

Lead: ATEGO

Contributors: CEA?, LDZ , ISYS, PHILIPS

CEA:

• Definition of an OASIS meta-model for the generation of a graphical editor for PsyC for the validation of visualization techniques (TBC; in collaboration with Bauhaus-Luftfahrt)

• OASIS expert support for the industrial partners developing validators

Task 6.2.1 Application to a Safety Critical with Certification case-study

This task applies DECISIVE methodologies and tools to application fields with safety critical and certification requirements supported by appropriated modeling including testing. It is oriented to mixed criticality architectures and methodology to enable the co-existence of multiple applications of different levels of criticality on the same computational platform. The different envisage domains are:

- Railway?- Aerospace?



- Medical: Implementation of a use case, involving X-ray acquisition hardware as well as the PC-based infrastructure

- ???

Lead: PHILIPS

Contributors: LDZ, ATEGO RTU, PAJ, UES, IKER, AVL?

Task 6.2.2 Application to a Safety Critical without Certification case-study

This task applies DECISIVE methodologies and tools to application fields with safety critical requirements although no certification support is needed. The different envisage domains are:

- Automotive:- Wireless Telecommunication:- ???

Lead: CRF

Contributors: ATEGO, CEA, RTU, AVL?, ALM, TUE

Task 6.2.3 Application to a Non-Safety Critical case-study

Finally we also aim to provide demonstrators for non-safety critical applications. In this we envisage to set up the following demonstrators:

- Telecommunication Network Management: The purpose of this demonstrator is to apply model driven evolutionary development a family of product used for real time monitoring and management of telecommunications networks. This solution is currently applied to network of different nature, such as wireless infrastructure, satellite networks or TV infrastructures. The core technology could be extended to other type of networks and we need to continuously adapt our application to the different . Given the deployment of these products in critical infrastructures, which demand a high requirement of reliability, the customization of the technology for different customers and projects requires many resources . Many factors influence the evolution of such family of products, which strongly affect the production process: Telecom domain (satellite operators, TV operators...), type of network terminals (different equipment, different firmware versions), measurement equipment and interfaces, communications protocols, new standards involved in the infrastructure, Operating Systems at the customers site, mobile embedded client devices (Android, Windows Mobile, Symbian, IPhone...) or software platforms. Therefore we to evaluate the application of model-driven evolutionary development proposed by DECISIVE to improve the development of our products in the telecommunication field.

- Printers (OCE)- Integrated circuit (NXP-D) : - ...

Lead: OCE

Contributors: NXP-D, OCE, TUE, ISYS



Task 6.3 Validation of the three family of case-studies

Once we set up the demonstrator we perform the validation based on the evaluation plan and guidelines specified in Task 6.1 and therefore we may compare the results with the requirements in WP1. The result on this activity will serve as feedback to WP2-WP5, in order to refine DECISIVE methodology and tools.

Lead: ISYS

Contributors: ISYS, NXP-D, MU, UES, ???


D6.1 Industrial Validation and Evaluation Plan This deliverable will report the industrial validation plan and evaluation guidelines as a result of Task 6.1

M9 Lead:ATEGO

D6.2 Industrial Demonstrators Specification and Evaluation results (Draft)We report the design of demonstrators and trials that are used to validate the DECISIVE methodologies and tools. Finally we report the evaluation result derived from the trial that will serve as feedback to technology developer work packages (WP2-5)

M21 Lead: PHILIPS

D6.3 Industrial Demonstrators Specification and Evaluation results (Final)We report the design of demonstrators and trials that are used to validate the DECISIVE methodologies and tools. Finally we report the lessons learned derived from the trial that will serve for future improvements of DECISIVE solution.

M36 Lead: ISYS


Work package title Dissemination & exploitation

Participant number 4 19 14 1 33 22 32

Participant short name NXP-A BHL VTT Philips MU NXP-D ISYS


2 8 14 6 4 2 12

Participant number 2 29 10 13 15 16 ?

Participant short name AVL TUE NSN UoO Atego CEA Thales


2 3 36+36? 14 5 6 2

Participant number 3

Participant short name CISC


2

Objectives



Responsible: TDB or VTT – Susanna Teppola


WP7 has three main objectives which partially determine the success of the DECISIVE project. These are dissemination of the research results, training, exploitation of the project outcomes and standardization activities. More specifically, WP7 will accomplish the following activities:

• To create awareness for DECISIVE, and to spread the project outcomes in the industrial and scientific communities.

• To continuously disseminate the DECISIVE’s results to technical and scientific audience, as well as to appropriate press and public.

• To integrate and package the obtained research results in exploitative form to be used by interested partners, both inside and outside of the consortium.

• To aid creation and adoption of DECISIVE methods and tools in industrial product development pilots and environments.

• To promote consideration of project results on the respect of standardization activities.• To educate and train next generation researchers…

All the goals should support the ARTEMIS strategic goal to …

Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partnersDecisive targets at wide publicity and exploitation of project results. For that effective strategies will be deployed to gain interest from critical stakeholders. Creation of exploitative solutions and educational material to be used inside and outside the consortium is one of the DECISIVE’s top targets. Involvement in standardization bodies will take place with the project results appropriate to standardization work. Both industrial and research partners will contribute to the work package; research institutions acting more in supporting role while industrial partners provide the practical cases and lead for the work package. The work of the work package is broken down in three tasks. These are described below.

T7.1 DisseminationTiming: M1-M36

Lead: ???

Contributors: TEC, MU, NXP-D, VTT, ISYS, AVL, FADA-CATEC, UC3M, FHG-HHI, IKER, BHL, CAU

This task covers all the dissemination activities, such as creating awareness for the project, dissemination of the project goals, activities and results to all appropriate target groups.This Task will accomplish the following activities:

• Development of detailed dissemination plan and continuous dissemination actions according to the plan

• Creation of basic dissemination and communication material such as project repository, templates, flyers, newsletters, brochures and posters.

• Creation of awareness for the project such as visibility in appropriate social media and press, as well as establishing a public website for the latest DECISIVE news, reports and results.

• Participation in workshops and conferences addressing the research areas of DECISIVE.• Preparation of scientific publications and conference papers to international conferences and

journals (e.g. …).• Organising industrial and other exhibitions, workshops and seminars.



Training activities in the project:

• Creation of training material about DECISIVE research results• Creation of educational versions of the DECISIVE tools and methods• Education and training activities in university courses and in various affairs.

Descriptions of the partner contributions here…TECNALIA will focus on providing high quality and reference publications (IEEE, ACM, others) from the

results of the work in the project. MU will disseminate the results by means of publications in journals and international conferences. And

will exploit the results to enhance or develop courses in the context of teaching activities at the University, to enrich the basis of future and on-going research projects and as consultancy service to help companies in the introduction of the new techniques and methodologies developed in the Project.

NXP-D: The dissemination of results will take place within the consortium in regular workshops in order to exchange know-how, share best practices, and benchmark project deliverables between the academic and industrial communities. Scientifically relevant results will be reported by the academic and industrial research partners in public conferences and technical journals. Various other channels (press releases, PR) may be used to disseminate the project results and to promote awareness of its progress towards potential users and customers, as well as to the research community

VTT will disseminate the results of the project through publications, workshops, seminars, marketing events and industrial collaboration projects.

Integrasys will disseminate the results by the participation in International fairs related to aerospaces.AVL will disseminate DECISIVE results via publications and participation to industry conferences.

Furthermore, the DECISIVE results will be disseminated in industrial application.FADA-CATEC will disseminate DECISIVE results through papers, publications, participation in workshops,

seminars and international conferences. Press info and dissemination articles in professional journals will be prepared.

UC3M will disseminate DECISIVE results via publications, invited talks, seminars, PhD courses and participation to well-known conferences. UC3M is a very active and relevant participant in a number of important events (conferences, ARTISTDesign NoE, etc.) in the field of Real-Time and Networked Embedded Systems Design. Furhtermore, the DECISIVE results will be disseminated in industrial application.

FHG-HHI will disseminate the results by presentations on national and international conferences and workshops as well as by publications in distinguished journals, such as IEEE transactions.

IKERLAN-IK4 will disseminate DECISIVE evolution and results through papers, publications, workshops, seminars, conferences (national and international) and collaborative projects with industry.

NXP-A Specific activities regarding dissemination to be aligned within the consortium for the FPPUES will also disseminate the results through collaboration.BHL will disseminate the results of the project by publications on national and international

conferences and workshops, seminars, and industrial collaboration projects.CAU will disseminate the results of the project by publications on national and international

conferences, workshops, and seminars.NSN uses internal business line customer during the project. We use workshops, and seminars to

inform personnel about the topics and expected results and coaching is used for teaching new


Teppola Susanna, 28/06/11,

how the contributions should be listed? one bullet per a contributing organization or just a paragraph trying to combine everything together?


These contributions are taken from wiki. The exact contributions should be checked again from partners!


practices, new tools etc. NSN also participates external workshops and seminars and brings its contributions, and experiences for wider audience.

T7.2 ExploitationTiming: M1-M36

Lead: ???

Contributors: TEC, MU, ISYS, AVL, UC3M, FHG-HHI, NXP-A, UES, BHL, CAU

This task covers all the exploitation activities in the project, such as exploitation of the obtained results by industry, research organizations and university partners.This Task will accomplish the following activities:

• Development of detailed exploitation plan and exploitation actions according to the plan.• Integration and packaging of project results for exploitation• Exploitation of the project results mostly by the industry, but also by research organisations and

universities in their daily work and technology transfer.• Communicating about the exploitation of project results among the project partners.

Descriptions of the partner contributions here…TECNALIA will take the results of the project and put them into the market in order to improve its

customers competiveness.MUISYS will provide an exploitation plan based on the integration of DECISIVE achievements into the

internal processes and commercial products of the companyAVLUC3MFHG-HHI will developed methods and tools to be applied in industrial projects.NXP-A Specific activities regarding exploitation to be aligned within the consortium for the FPPUES will exploit Decisive results through the application of the developed methods and tools to

industrial projects. BHL CAU NSN works during the project in close contact of business lines thus having immediate interaction with

operative personnel. In practice this means that all development is done based actual everyday needs of business. On the other hand the results can be trialled, piloted and tested in a close loop.

T7.3 Standardisation

Timing: M1-M36

Lead: ???

Contributors: FADA-CATEC(?)

This task covers all the standardizations activities in the project. Participation to standardization work will take place when appropriate in respect of the project outcomes.





• Contributing in standardisation work with the results to relevant standardization bodies

Descriptions of the partner contributions here…FADA-CATEC will disseminate DECISIVE results through papers, publications, participation in workshops,

seminars and international conferences. Furthermore linking activities with public and standardisation bodies will be established allowing new concepts to be recognised and further developed. Press info and dissemination articles in professional journals will be prepared.


D7.1.1 Project website M3

D7.1.2 Dissemination and communication plan M6

D7.1.3 Dissemination and communication report M36 All partners

D7.2.1 Market and competitor analysis M24 All industrial partners

D7.2.2 Exploitation strategy and plan M24 All industrial partners

D7.2.3 Exploitation report M36 All industrial partners

D7.3.3 Standardisation action plan M6

D7.3.2 Final standardisation action report M36 All partners





Table 3e Summary of effort

Summary of effortA summary of the effort is useful for the evaluators. Please indicate in the table number of person months over the whole duration of the planned work, for each work package by each participant.

Identify the work-package leader for each WP by showing the relevant person-month figure in bold.

Partic. no.

Partic. short name

WP1 WP2 WP3 … Total person months

1

2

3

Etc

Total



Section 4 - Market innovation and market impact (Weight Factor: 2) Please refer to the "Guide for applicants" for information on evaluation criteria

4.1 Impact

Describe the contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant sub-programme and to the general ARTEMIS targets. Also describe any additional contributions to the broader ARTEMIS goals of industrial competitiveness, sustainability (environmental, energy, use of raw materials etc.), and helping the emergence of new markets or of applications that address societal challenges.

Contribution to European LevelThe DECISIVE project facilitates the transition from a vertically structured market to a horizontally structured market by focusing on software engineering of complex embedded systems as a crosscutting system discipline that transverses many traditional product and service segments. DECISIVE does not focus on any single application domain; instead our results will have high impact on all application domains where embedded software is a driver for growth and increasing competitiveness. In these segments, complexity and size of software makes an evolutionary approach to software development paramount to master increasing demands on cost-efficient development, cost-quality balancing and time-to-market.

Contribution to Artemis targetsThe DECISIVE project contributes to the Artemis targets in the following way:

• The project addresses the reduction of the cost of system design by 10% by providing a model and tools that bridge the gap from abstract design models to advanced hardware platforms with e.g. multi-/many-core, DSPs and GPUs, while still allowing the performance characteristics from such hardware to be modelled and analysed at the abstract model level.

• The project addresses the reduction of the development cycles by 25% by improving the development throughput and productivity by automating collection of system properties to support evolvability and decision making.

• The project addresses the target of managing an increase of complexity of a factor 3 with an effort reduction by 10% by providing methods and tools that improve ever increasing product management and upgrade requirements. This will be possible thanks to educated and evolved decision support with respect to product management and system architecture.

As a tangible result of the investigations and developments in the DECISIVE project, companies expect to achieve a higher productivity throughout the workflow of IC development. Key enabler is the more flexible modelling and the extended validation features on system architecture level. This will shorten the design cycle of technical demands in the product generations to come. It will bring complex and expensive development closer to “first time right” results and accordingly improve time-to-market significantly. Early feedback on the verification coverage of new designs based on evolutionary capabilities of models and a homogeneous concept for the whole system will make this possible. The environment of, e.g., integrated circuits can be included in a simulation to a larger extent, which supports early detection of non-compliance or interoperability issues. Contact-less identification chips for instance have by default a very complex power management. Only thorough estimation over all elements continuously updated with evolutionary data will help to reach higher efficiency, thus better performance and save cost.



Responsible: Frank van der Linden) + UEF + industry inputs


To quantify the above statements exemplified for the semiconductors industry the following rule of thumb calculation can be made. A new chip design (new platform) in contemporary technologies will have development cost in the range of 50+ M€12, every re-design cycle requires a Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) of about 500k€, a simple correction cycle about 200k€, cost for test and verification after each cycle will be in the same magnitude. The time needed for another redesign, including production and test and verification afterwards will delay a new product for at least 9 months if not for a whole year. Furthermore, the commercial loss due to late delivery can be significantly higher.

Contribution to the degree of application innovationEmbedded systems are increasingly important within Europe. The DECISIVE project aims to improve the competitiveness of the European industry through the improvement of the development of embedded systems in many application areas, including (but not limited to) the areas represented by our industrial partners: healthcare, automotive, rail, aerospace, telecom and manufacturing.As a tangible result of the investigations and developments in the DECISIVE project companies expect to achieve a higher productivity throughout the workflow of embedded systems development. Key enabler is the more flexible modelling and the extended validation features on system architecture level. It will bring complex and expensive development closer to “first time right” results and accordingly improve time-to-market significantly. Early feedback on the verification coverage of new designs and a homogeneous concept for the whole system will make this possible. The environment of the embedded system can be included in the simulation to a larger extend, which supports early detection of non-compliance or interoperability issues.

Philips: The results of Decisive will be used to produce high reliable medical embedded systems for a lower development and maintenance cost. This reduces the cost-of-ownership of such systems. The first targeted systems will be used for the growing field of image guided intervention. Philips will raise its share in the interventional imaging market by offering integrated solutions. Through Decisive Philips will also be able to create a position in the expanding and profitable delivery system and therapy business areas. On basis of successful IGIT market propositions, Philips expects to generate €500M extra annual sales in 5 yearsGeneral the healthcare area:

• Global economic growth: increased spending on health related services, access to healthcare for a larger number of people and increased awareness of available healthcare options

• Dramatic changes in demographics; aging population:o By 2045 more people will be over 60 than under 15 years, rising from 600 million to 2

billion.o Rise in number of patients with age-specific, chronic and degenerative diseases

(cardiac, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s). The number of US patients with a chronic illness grows from 118 million in 1995 to 157 million in 2020. For Europe, a few key numbers are (Frost & Sullivan 2005):

o neurodegenerative diseases: 3,600,000 people affected with Alzheimero cardiovascular disease: 460,000 deaths of strokeo oncology: 240,000 deaths for breast cancer

• Healthcare professional staffing shortages rise, due to higher demand for patient attention• Efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare: need to further improve hospital work flow

efficiency, integration of diagnosis and treatment. E.g. the average length of stay for acute care has fallen in nearly all OECD countries - from 9 days in 1990 to 6 days in 2005

12 http://www.designchain.com/column.asp?id=2&issue=summer02



• Skyrocketing healthcare costs: global health care spending expected to grow from 9% of world wide gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006 to 15% by 2015

The global market for medical imaging (diagnostic and interventional imaging) is estimated to be $20B (2007 TriMark study). The European market is about a quarter of this total and the US market almost half. The medical imaging market records solid growth percentages. Depending on the modality, the average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is about 4% (for interventional imaging this is 8%). There a few specific areas where growth is markedly higher than average. Image-based software applications that support intervention processes in healthcare have these growth opportunities:

• The European market for 3D/4D imaging software has a CAGR of 14% from 2004-2014• The global CDSS market grows from €159M to €289M during 2006-2012 (Frost & Sullivan)

OCE: The results of DECISIVE will be used for capturing multidisciplinary design information, including formalisms to describe dynamic behaviour and to specify latitudes and tolerances for systems for document management and printing for professionals. Tools to generate executable models of the physical system and to generate control code from the dynamic behaviour descriptions taking into account for example specified tolerancesAlmende: The results of DECISIVE will be used to develop of self-organized critical agent-based solutions that sustain and improve the coordination of communication and collaboration across evolving networks of humans and ICT systems. These solutions will be applied to several application domains, including healthcare, logistics and crisis management.NXP Semiconductors: As a tangible result of the investigations and developments in the DECISIVE project NXP expects to achieve a higher productivity throughout the workflow of IC development. Key enabler is the more flexible modeling and the extended validation features on system architecture level. This will not only to improve the mixed signal flow for the next range of standard mixed signal designs, but also shorten the design cycle of these tough technical demands in the chip generations to come. It will bring complex and expensive development closer to “first time right” results and accordingly improve time-to-market significantly. Early feedback on the verification coverage of new designs and a homogeneous concept for the whole system will make this possible. The environment of the IC can be included in the simulation to a larger extend, which supports early detection of non-compliance or interoperability issues. Contact-less identification chips for instance have by default a very complex power management. Only thorough estimation over all elements will help to reach higher efficiency, thus better performance and save cost.

To quantify the above statements for the semiconductors industry the following calculation can be made. A new chip design (new platform) in contemporary technologies will have development cost in the range of 50+ Million EU, every re-design cycle requires a NRE of about 500k EU, a simple correction cycle about 200k EU, cost for test and verification after each cycle will be in the same range. The time needed for another redesign, including production and test and verification afterwards will delay a new product for at least 9 months if not for a whole year. Despite the additional cost, the commercial loss according to late time to market can be much higher. Production time and cost can hardly be cut down, but the amount of money to be saved by more effective validation and verification, faster design flow and a reduced need for correction cycles, would certainly be significant. Faster time to market will not only allow a bigger share of the market and better prices, but also strengthen the position of European companies against strong competition from Asia.



4.2 Dissemination and exploitation

Describe the plans and measures for the dissemination and exploitation of project results. Show how the project results would be used to produce innovative products, processes or services that have a significant market potential. Include if relevant a market analysis section including competitor descriptions and market opportunities.

To make the project objectives, key technological innovations and project results of DECISIVE visible to the world, a broad range of dissemination channels are needed. Academic and industrial partners will effectively organise these channels. This ensures synchronisation of publications and conference presentations in the relevant fields; presence on the Internet and at embedded systems events; press releases, workshops and on-site demo installations.

Project disseminationProject identity: The development of a common public identity for all public communication, including logo, presentation template and a general information brochure. Internet: The Internet is an important dissemination channel for DECISIVE. A public project website will be set-up and maintained. The partners are encouraged to incorporate a page presenting the project into their academic or corporate websites. Social media like Linked-In and Twitter will be used to create public information channels to stakeholders inside and outside the consortium. Workshops: DECISIVE project will organize basically three kinds of workshops:

• Workshops for brainstorming and bringing in new ideas during the research period of the project. This involves inviting experts from industry and academic partners to give input via discussions and presentations.

• Workshops inside the project will take place at 6-month intervals, in order to assure the most efficient communication and project development. In these workshops, results obtained in the project will be communicated out via papers and presentations.

• External workshops with potential interested parties will be organised to bring together research teams and end-users to show potentials like prototype demos and get buy-in from the public. Two of these workshops will be organised in collaboration with other projects working on relevant fields to improve mutual dissemination.

Demo installation: Running demos at the sites of industrial partners and at domain specific and fair events will interactively show the status of developments and the potential for applications. The DECISIVE consortium will cooperate with the EC and ARTEMIS JU to disseminate information through the EU supported R&D initiatives: ARTEMIS events, scientific and public events of the EC, international conferences, workshops and synopsis. This will be useful for increasing awareness about the project within the EU and identifying and promptly seizing any possibility for cooperation with other JU and Eureka funded projects.

Partner dissemination and exploitationEvents: The target audience for DECISIVE will be engaged at national, international, and EU congresses, fairs, and exhibitions. Participants in these events will be targeted to promote both uptake of specific developments and a wider interest in the project as a whole. Several conferences are accompanied by exhibitor presentations, where partners present and inform the visitors about advances in the field of embedded systems etc. Relevant participants will integrate this commercially driven dissemination with academic presentations.Scientific publications and conferences: Independent studies based on the findings and conclusions produced during the development phase will be produced by project experts and be published in relevant peer-reviewed journals and international conferences. The multi-disciplinary nature of the project means we will ensure that the project results will be published in the relevant journals to fully disseminate project advances. Articles for the wider and more general audiences will be published in



connection with conferences and lectures and sent to relevant online and print magazines. The most relevant conferences and meetings are summarized in the following list:

• ACM Conference on Embedded Network Sensor Systems• IEEE International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and

Applications• IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium• International Conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing and Communication

Systems• ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED Conference on Languages, Compilers, Tools and Theory for Embedded

Systems• Embedded Systems Week

The technology and products to be developed in the DECISIVE project are planned to be exploited in various ways by the various partners, as summarised briefly below. Research and academic: The academic partners will exploit the project results by integrating them into the educational curriculum, and hence train and educate MSc and PhD students in the field of the project topics. They will participate in relevant academic events like conferences, workshops and organisation of national and local events on the project results.Intellectual property: Exploitation will also be undertaken by the generation of patents when critical and innovative results are obtained in the fields of technology or in case of new openings for applications. The DECISIVE consortium is well aware of the importance of Intellectual Property Rights issues to develop common and individual dissemination and exploitation strategies and its policy in this regard is in accordance with the Commission’s recommendation on the management of IPR and knowledge transfer, in order to “facilitate and promote the optimal use of intellectual property created in public research organisations to increase both knowledge transfer to industry and the socio-economic benefits resulting from publicly funded research”. In this respect, an agreement will be developed during the project execution taking into account the following preliminary agreements:

• Concerning exploitation of the project results, it is the intention that the partners’ preexisting know-how will be made available to the consortium members on favourable conditions if this should be necessary in order to perform the research in this project.

• Foreground knowledge is owned by the partner generating such information or result. Each partner shall make its foreground knowledge available to other partners on a royalty-free basis, to the extent that such information is necessary for the production of their own foreground knowledge.

• Throughout the execution of the project, all partners will continuously contribute to the identification of project results that may qualify for IPR protection. In case certain IP is identified to be essential for the future business opportunities of the involved partners, the necessary steps are taken to protect that IP. The patenting procedure will be in line with the regulations described in the Consortium Agreement (CA).

New activities: The increased level of knowledge, technology, and/or product portfolio will enable new customer projects and/or R&D projects; in the various fields related to embedded systems. Commercial products and services: The industrial partners will use the project results to leverage the development of their commercial products. This will require high integration of both digital and analogue components, low-cost, interoperability, standards compliance, convenience and quality. The commercial market for these applications is large and is growing fast. Furthermore, tools and methods developed in DECISIVE will also be applicable in a cross-domain fashion to tackle similar issues that exist beyond a particular sector such as certification, product upgrades and obsolescence management. Thus, a wide commercial service demand and adoption are to be expected.



4.3 Contribution to standards and regulations

Describe any contributions to standards which may arise from the proposed project and explain their importance as requested in section 4.6 of the Annual Work Programme 2011.

During the last few years, standardization has been identified both by the European Commission (EC) and by industry as a new issue of strategic importance for the creation of markets. It was one of the concerns of the EC, especially of the Embedded Systems Unit of the Directorate General 'Information Society and Media', that the results of funded research projects are having only a minimal impact on standardization. DECISIVE will work with the Standards Working Group of ARTEMIS, the European Technology Platform for Embedded Intelligence and Systems, which e.g. proposed an FP7 support action ProSE (Promotion of Standardization for Embedded Systems), to promote standardization in the (dependable) embedded systems field.The research and development in DECISIVE project will fulfil the regulations and recommendations written in the ARTEMIS Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for standardization. With respect to standardization, the key objectives for DECISIVE are:

• Disseminating knowledge of existing standards within the various embedded systems domains.

• Providing a set of good candidates for standardization in a systematic and selective manner.• Proposing a practicable methodology for the candidate’s maturation towards their eventual

acceptance, so as to enable or facilitate cross-domain compatibility and a higher degree of reusability of project results.

DECISIVE project will utilize and establish links between the embedded systems industry (facilitating the engagement of SMEs), EU standardization bodies (CEN, European Standardization Committee), CENELEC (European electrotechnical/electronic Standards Committee), ETSI (telecommunications industry), AUTOSAR (automotive system/software architecture, etc) and worldwide standardization bodies (ARINC (aircraft), ITU (transportation), ISO (International Standards Organization), IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission), etc), and the research community (particularly Networks of Excellence)

4.4 Management of intellectual property

Describe the arrangements made by the consortium for the management of intellectual property brought to the project by the participating partners, and arising from the joint work within the project.

(Recommended length for the whole of Section 4 – 10-15 pages)



Section 5 - Quality of consortium and management (Weight Factor: 1) Please refer to the "Guide for applicants" for information on evaluation criteria

5.1 Management structure and procedures

Describe the organisational structure and decision-making mechanisms of the project. Show how they are matched to the complexity and scale of the project.(Recommended length 5 pages)

The DECISIVE consortium contains 35 partners from 10 countries, each of them having a very clear role in the project and all sharing a strong commitment towards its achievement. For each country the partners of that particular country have appointed a Country Coordinator (CC) (See Annex B), who is responsible to coordinate the national proposal, project progress, and reporting and communication with national authorities.This section presents the main organization principles. The Project Leader (PL) will be responsible for the coordination and day-to-day management of the project throughout its whole lifecycle. PL is the primary interface to contacts and organizations external to the project. In this role, PL is supported by the Work Package Leaders (WPL) and Country Coordinators (CC) who, on a regular basis, will provide PL with all necessary technical and organizational information. Each CC will send a biannual status update (with, e.g., the expended effort, technical achievements, etc.) to the PL. When recognizing major problems, PL has the possibility to call for an extraordinary meeting of the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) or Project Management Team (PMT) or a full meeting of the partners depending on the type or severity of the problem.The Project Coordination Committee (PCC) is responsible for all strategic and financial decisions; the PCC will be composed of one representative from each partner; each representative should be in a position (inside his/her own organization) which allows him/her to make decisions and to take corrective actions if needed, for all matters regarding effort allocation and priorities, and will be responsible for the partner's involvement in the project.

PMTProject coordinator

Project management

WP0

Technical manager

WP1 WP2 WP4 WP6

Generalassembly

Project manager

WP3 WP5 WP7

Exploitation manager

Figure 4: project management

The Project Management Team (PMT) is responsible for the daily operation of the project and consists of a Project Leader (PL), Technical Coordinator (TC), Exploitation Manager (EM), Work Package Leaders (WPL) and Country Coordinators (CC) who together will be in charge of the



Responsible: Frank van der Linden + all partners


technical decisions as well as the quality check of the deliverables. PMT will identify problems and risks and coordinate technical risk mitigation action plans with the approval of the PCC.PCC and PMT will meet face-to-face or via video-conferencing, every three months. In the mean-time, other meetings will be arranged if needed, including audio-conferences when appropriate. It is assumed that most (not to say all) decisions will be made by consensus. However, in case this is not achievable, the controversial decision will be voted at the majority; in case of equality, the project leader will make the decision. Technical meetings, focused on specific technical topics, will be encouraged. Biannually, PL will send a short update to the project officer, by email, to report on status. A project internal file repository/web site and mailing lists will be set up at the beginning of the project, to facilitate sharing of information amongst partners.

Work Organization The project has been organized in eight work packages, themselves composed of tasks. Work tasks will be named “Tx.y”, where “x” is the work package number, and “y” is the number of the task. Deliverables will be assigned to tasks and will therefore be named “Dx.y.n”, where “x.y” is the task number and “n” is the number of the deliverable inside the work task. Each work package is under the responsibility of a Work Package Leader (WPL) who is in charge of the overall quality of the work achieved in this area. Each work task has itself a Work Task Leader (WTL), who is responsible for the quality of the work done within the work task, including the timely delivery of deliverables.

Decision making mechanisms and conflicts resolution In DECISIVE, the quite detailed project planning makes it possible to let most of the detailed technical decisions to be taken in a decentralized and bottom-up manner. First, partners working together in a work package identify and solve open issues on their own. Next, these findings are contemplated in the PCC on a regular basis with respect to the other work package’s concerns. In some cases the PCC may get to a point where a very fundamental decision has to be taken, having a great impact on the general direction of the entire project or gravely influencing one of its major objectives. Then, this decision is forwarded to the PCC. In contrast, management issues are handled by the PCC in the first place. On all levels, conflicts should primarily be resolved by finding a solution that is well acceptable for all partners. Only if this is not achievable, the issue is put to the vote. Equal votes are resolved by the WP Leader or Project Leader respectively.

Information FlowExchange of information will mainly occur via an internal wiki work area. The basis of the project communication lies upon the adoption of mailing lists, one for technical and business development matters and a closed one for administration and evaluation purposes. A global mailing list will be used for project management announcements. Sub-lists will be used to support country and WP specific communication. Partners will be individually responsible for communication by mail and organising technical meetings within tasks.

Quality proceduresFor each Project Deliverable, each partner has to provide a specific contribution according to the project Work Plan and the Action Item List, provided by the WP Leader at the start of each Work Package and agreed by the partners participating in the work package and the PCC. Each partner will apply its individual Quality Procedures in order to self-assess his/her own contribution. For the Major Deliverables of public dissemination type, a review procedure with the following steps will be adopted: release by the Work Package Leader to the Technical Coordinator (TC), two-week review period for comments by PCC, two-week amendment period to incorporate PCC recommendations, one-week balloting period for final approval by the PCC. For other deliverables, the following review procedure will be adopted: release by the Work Package Leader, one-week balloting period for comments by all PCC members. In any case, the comments of each partner are communicated by



email addressing all other involved partners in the deliverable (mainly by using mailing lists). The responsible partner is responsible to forward guidelines for the incorporation of comments to all other related partners according to a specific time schedule.

5.2 Individual participants

For each participant in the proposed project, provide a brief description of the legal entity, the main tasks they have been attributed, and the previous experience relevant to those tasks. Provide also CVs of the individuals who will be undertaking the work.(Recommended length: one page per participant + CVs)

Philips Medical Systems Nederland BV

Royal Philips Electronics is a leading healthcare and well-being company. In healthcare, Philips’ innovation revolves around improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare through a focus on care cycles. Central to care cycle thinking is a patient-centric approach that optimizes healthcare delivery for all the major diseases. In the Philips Healthcare (PH) sector, over 12% of systems sales are invested in R&D. The last 3 years PH strengthened its global leadership position by market share gains, margin expansion and enhancement of its competitive position with key acquisitions and partnerships. Underlying this leadership position is that Philips combines its expertise in medical technology with the clinical know-how of its customers to produce innovative solutions that meet not just the needs of individual patients, but which also enable healthcare professionals to work faster, more easily and more cost-effectively. While PH has a large global organization, in the Netherlands 3500 people work at PH, of which 1000 in R&D. Sales of PH’s total sector amounted to 7.8B€ in 2009. Philips is globally number one in medical diagnostic imaging and patient monitoring. More information on PH can be found at: http://www.medical.philips.com.

Main role in the projectPhilips Healthcare is project coordinator. Philips Healthcare is involved in the various tasks related to model base simulation and run-time assessment of quality.

Staff members profileDr. Frank van der Linden works at Philips Healthcare CTO Office. He received his Ph.D. in Mathematics in 1984 at the University of Amsterdam. His main topics of interest are software architecture and processes, emphasizing software product line engineering. He was involved in Esprit-projects (FP1, FP2 and FP4) and project leader of the three successive ITEA projects on product line engineering: (ESAPS, CAFÉ, FAMILIES – 1999-2005), and successively on distributed development, including open source development (COSI 2005-2008). As part of these projects he was member of the organizing committee of a series of workshops on conferences in product lines (PFE & SPLC). In the last years he has organised several workshops on open source and product lines.He is editor of many proceedings of SWAPF (Software Architectures for product Families), PFE (Product Family Engineering) workshops and SPLC (Software product lien conference. He is co-author of several books on Software product lines.Robert Huis in ’t Veld Studied computer science at the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. In 1994 he did his PhD at this university on “Developing a design framework for communication systems”. Between 1992 and 1996 he was working at the Technische Universiteit Twente and connected to the Race Project Cassiopeia en the Dutch national project Platinum. In 1996 he moved to Philips. He has been working as system architect for Philips Digital Transmission Systems, as programme manager at Philips Semiconductors, aand as technical product manager at Philips Consumer Electronics and finally as system architect bij Philips iXR.



AVL List GmbH

AVL is the world's largest privately owned company for development, simulation and testing technology of power trains (hybrid, combustion engines, transmission, electric drive, batteries and software) for passenger cars, trucks and large engines. The company is acting global and has 4.570 employees (2.050 in Graz, and an additional 2.520 world-wide). Turn over in 2010 was 650 M€, where approx. 12.5 % of is invested in company-financed research.

Main role in the project

Staff members profile

CISC Semiconductor Design+Consulting GmbH



NXP Semiconductors Austria GmbH



Technical University of Denmark

DTU Informatics, at the Technical University of Denmark, is the largest IT department in Denmark and represents a unique combination of modern applied mathematics and computer science & engineering. DTU Informatics employs around 90 PhD students with an annual production of 30 PhDs. The section on Embedded Systems Engineering (ESE) is one of ten sections in DTU Informatics. ESE conducts research in a broad range of topics central for design of modern embedded systems, including real-time systems, fault-tolerant and safety-critical systems, hardware/software co-design, concurrent and parallel programming, heterogeneous distributed multi-core architectures and execution platforms, as well as a range of models, methods and tools for the analysis, design and verification of such systems. http://www.imm.dtu.dk/ Starting with early work on hardware/software partitioning within the Lycos system, ESE has a lot of experience on modelling, analysis and deign methods for software-intensive embedded systems. ESE has been involved in proposing a method for the incremental design of distributed embedded systems, “An Approach to Incremental Design of Distributed Embedded Systems”, which has been nominated to the best paper award at the Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2001. Since then, ESE has focused on the evolutionary design of embedded systems by incorporating knowledge about previous designs into the design decisions.

Main role in the projectThe main effort of DTU will be on “WP5— Design for evolvability”, where the focus will be on decision support methods and tools for evolutionary design. DTU will also work with WP2 on how to capture the flexibility of a design into the current modelling framework.



Staff members profileAssoc. Prof. Paul Pop ping University in 2003 and since 2006 he is an associate professor at DTU Informatics, Technical University of Denmark. His research is focused on developing methods and techniques for the analysis and optimization of dependable embedded systems. In this area, he has published 11 journal papers, 6 book chapters, one book and over 30 conference papers. He and has received the best paper award at DATE 2005, RTiS 2007 and CASES 2009. His research on models has been highlighted as “The Most Influential Papers of 10 Years DATE”. He has served as technical program committee member on several relevant conferences, such as DATE and ESWEEK.

PAJ Systemteknik

PAJ Systemteknik is a private owned SME situated in Sønderborg, Denmark, a single source supplier of mechatronics. PAJ was established by owner Poul Jessen in 1996 and employ today approximately 29 professional and engaged employees. PAJ Systemteknik produces safety critical mechatronical equipment for industries where reliability is the main criterion. Using platform technology PAJ is able to provide mechatronical development, sourcing, assembly and test in low volumes at competitive prices and with increased customer value in terms of increased reliability and reduced risk as a result of testing and traceability. The core competence is the creation of safety critical components. Marketing and distribution to end-user through OEMs who are monitoring market needs and specify them to the PAJ in the sales phase. PAJ Systemteknik is targeting customers who seek long term profitable collaboration. These customers are in the short term located in Denmark, Germany and Sweden. In the longer term, Europe is the market. The best customers are larger companies who market products where a part of or the entire product consists of complex safety critical mechatronical parts. PAJ Systemteknik has developed special resources within Medico and Traffic sectors.





Contribyte Oy



Konecranes Heavy Lifting Corporation



Mega Electronics Ltd



Nokia Siemens Networks



Convergens Oy



University of Eastern Finland



University of Oulu





Technical Research Centre of Finland

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland is a government organisation operating under the auspices of the Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy. VTT’s objective is to develop new technologies, create new innovations, and value added, thus increasing clients' competitiveness and competencies. With it’s know-how, and with it’s staff of 2900 VTT experts, VTT produces research, development, testing and information services to public sector and companies as well as international organizations. VTT has gained considerable experience in embedded systems and software from numerous research and industrial projects. These projects have been carried out in close co-operation with Finnish companies in multiple branches of industry. VTT’s research centers in ICT research area bring large expertise on software product quality, software process improvement and measurement, component based software engineering, software reuse, product information management, proof of concept methods, software security assurance, e.g. static analysis, security assurance of industrial automation systems and information security and safety testing, for example.

Main role in the project VTT is the leader in Dissemination and Exploitation Work package. As a Research Institute and having background of participating in many international research projects, VTT is experienced as an organizer and coordinator of dissemination and exploitation activities. In Decisive VTT is also involved in the various tasks related to how to support iterative, evolutionary SiS design and decision makers throughout development projects via visual and semantic models of systems. VTT has actively contributed in several international projects in which MDD have been studied both from technical, processes, and practices point of view. VTT is also a strong player in researching iterative and incremental development methods (i.e. Agile and Lean) in SiS (Software Intensive Systems) development, in which area VTT has published numerous scientific articles.

Staff members profile Lic.Sc. (Tech.) Tuomas Ihme is a Senior Research Scientist at VTT, the Technical Research Centre of Finland. His professional experience involves several years in the industry as a project manager as well as more than 20 years in research of embedded software and management of industrial development projects and national joint research projects. His areas of expertise are architectural design methods, modelling tools and software architectures in component software, product lines and agile software development. He has authored more than thirty scientific publications. M.Sc Susanna Teppola works as a Research Scientist in Software Technologies research area at VTT. Susanna has a Master of Science degree from University of Oulu from the department of Information Processing Sciences, and she has worked at VTT since 1999. Susanna’s main interests are in the field of product management, software development methods and process improvement. Susanna has participated in the ITEA2-MoSiS and in the ITEA2-Evolve projects, in which MDD processes and practices have been her main research topics. In that area Susanna has authored several conference articles.

Atego SAS

Atego Systems Ltd is a leading independent supplier of industrial-grade, collaborative development tools and runtime environments for engineering complex, mission- and safety-critical architectures, systems, software and hardware. Atego delivers a stable, robust working environment to thousands of users across an extensive range of complex applications in demanding engineering sectors such as



aerospace, defence, automotive, transportation, telecommunications, electronics, and medical. Founded in 2010 in a merger between Artisan Software Tools™ and Aonix®, Atego is headquartered in Cheltenham, UK and Paris, France with offices in the U.S., Germany and Italy, and is supported by a global distributor network. Atego is committed to the support of standards and is an active member of the Object Management Group (OMG). Atego also provides professional services including training, consultancy and customisation that cover the whole of the system and software engineering life cycle. These services are delivered by our team of world-class systems professionals. Atego are thought-leaders in systems thinking through our many publications, for which we have won several awards.

Main role in the project Atego is an industrial partner that carry to the project its expertise in modelling safety critical systems and certification, the Artisan Studio tool, and support the DECISIVE results by developing a prototype. Atego is involved in tasks that are related to modelling the safety (critical) system.

Staff members profile Sébastien Rocher received a Ph.D. in Robotics at the Laboratoire de Robotique de Paris , Université Pierre et Marie Curie (paris VI). Sébastien has ten years of expertise in the industrial development of critical systems (that should be certified). Sébastien distinguishes himself as the responsible for the verification process of the CBTC system (railway application domain). Since 2009, he is certifier for railway systems. Since 2010, Sébastien is the responsible for all Atego France research projects.

Daniela Cancila received a Ph.D. in Theoretical Computer Science from the University of Udine, Italy. From 2008 to 2010, she is a Research Engineer at the “Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives” (CEA), France. She has been teaching computer science at Italian and French universities. She has a strong record of publications in the main international workshops, conferences and journal in the field of computer science. Her research interests include methodologies, design and tools for model-based engineering of critical systems; safety issues and their integration in model-based engineering approaches.

Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives



European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS France SAS

EADS is a leading global aerospace and defence company, whose business depends heavily on the development and integration of state-of-the-art technologies in its products to provide the necessary competitive edge in its markets. A global network of Technical Capability Centers, collectively known as EADS Innovation Works, is operating the corporate Research and Technology (R&T) laboratories that guarantee the company’s technical innovation potential with a focus on the long-term. The structure of the network is consistent with the EADS R&T strategy and covers the skills and technology fields that are of critical importance to EADS. The teams within EADS Innovation Works are therefore organized into seven transnational Technical Capability Centers. Supporting all the EADS Business Units, they have the mission to identify new value-creating technologies and to develop technological skills and resources.



EADS Innovation Works fosters technological excellence and business orientation through the sharing of competences and means between the various partners of the EADS Group and develops and maintains partnerships with world-famous schools, universities and research centers. Within this organization, the “Intelligent & Semantic Systems” team will be responsible for the work done within Decisive project. This team focuses on themes such as semantic technologies, innovation management, knowledge engineering, artificial intelligence (machine learning) and user-UI interactions. As such, members of the team involved in the Decisive project will be researchers working with EADS business units on problems regarding Model Based Development platforms usability.

Main role in the project EADS is involved in the various tasks related to model management and visualization.

Staff members profile Romaric Redon is an experienced engineer in the field of knowledge engineering. He was graduated in mechanical engineering in 1999 and started straightforwardly to work in the knowledge engineering field with AIRBUS. He started with operational projects aiming at the development of Knowledge Based Engineering (KBE) applications in the structural domains. Then he joined the information technologies for engineering department in EADS Corporate Research Center in 2001. There he developed research activities linked to the use of innovative Knowledge based system to assist or automate engineering processes and facilitate knowledge sharing and retrieval. In 2009 he took the leadership of the Intelligent and Semantic system research team in EADS Innovation Works. The objective of this research team are to develop innovative capabilities based on AI data mining, semantic technologies and knowledge engineering to support engineering and maintenance activities in EADS Richard Leblond is an experienced engineer in the field of knowledge engineering. He obtained a DEA in Oceanography in 1979 and was graduated in industrial computer sciences in 1984 started to work in the CAD/CAM field in the Technical Center of Aerospatiale then Aerospatiale-Matra. He followed with projects aiming at introducing knowledge based systems applications in design and engineering activities for several Bus in particular for the design office of AIRBUS. Within the EADS Corporate Research Center he developed and contributed to research activities in Knowledge Engineering. He was graduated in 1996 with a DEA in Ergonomics. He participated during the last years in several EU projects (VIVACE, APOSDLE) for EADS Innovation Works. He was nominated as EADS Knowledge Engineering expert and is in charge of projects concerning Human Factors and Innovation.

Valeo



Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V.

Bauhaus Luftfahrt was created in November 2005 by the three aerospace companies EADS, Liebherr-Aerospace and MTU Aero Engines as well as the Bavarian Ministry for Economic Affairs. The non-profit association is an internationally-oriented think tank. The team of around 35 scientists deals with the future of mobility in general and with the future of air travel in particular. The goal of the research work is to consider the complex system of aviation from different points of view. In every project, the technical, economic, social and ecological aspects are considered holistically. More information on Bauhaus Luftfahrt can be found at: http://www.bauhaus-luftfahrt.net.



Main role in the project Bauhaus Luftfahrt is WP4 leader. Bauhaus is involved in various tasks related to tools and methods for easy editing, comprehension and maintainability of complex embedded systems and decision support. We will focus on

• efficient model editing, • understandable system simulation, and • meaningful representation of analysis results.

Staff members profile Dr. Steffen Prochnow received a Diploma degree in computer science from the Technische Universität of Braunschweig/Germany in 2003 and a doctorate in software engineering from the University of Kiel/Germany in 2007. His research in Kiel focused on the human-centric Statechart modeling process. He has worked as a research engineer in the field of component-based system modeling and system analysis at the VERIMAG research Labs in Grenoble/France. During the time at VERIMAG he contributed to the EU SPEEDS project with an analysis of hierarchical system components. He joined the computer science group at Bauhaus Luftfahrt in October 2010.

Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

The RTSYS group at CAU (http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/rtsys) has explored pragmatics-aware modelling with various facets, including novel visualisation, version-management, editing and browsing paradigms. These efforts have been evaluated and validated with experimental design environments and cognitive studies. To that end, KIEL (Kiel Integrated Environment for Layout) and its successor, KIELER (KIEL Eclipse Rich Client), have been used extensively as experimental platforms for numerous projects, including about 25 publications and 40 theses.

Main role in project CAU will mainly be involved in developing pragmatics-aware modelling that aims to increase designer productivity when designing complex systems. This includes novel view-management methods (Task 4.2), support for efficient editing (Task 4.3), and support for model simulation (Task 4.4).

Staff Members Profile Reinhard von Hanxleden ([email protected]) is full professor at CAU since 2001. He conducted his studies of Computer Science and Physics at CAU and the Pennsylvania State University (M.Sc., 1989), followed by dissertation work at Rice University (Ph.D., conferred 1995). He then joined DaimlerChrysler R&D, until 2000 in Berlin, then – with the Airbus A380 development – in Toulouse and Hamburg. At DaimlerChrysler (now Daimler), his research focus was model-based design of safety-critical systems. This – for realistic, complex systems rather frustrating – industrial experience with modelling tools motivates his continued interest in pragmatics-aware model-based design. Prof. von Hanxleden has been a research visitor to UC Berkeley (2007), is affiliated to the EU Artist2 Network of Excellence, and chairs the steering committee for the WCET Tool Challenge 2011 (WCC'11). Miro Spönemann ([email protected]), member of the scientific staff of the RTSYS group, has studied Computer Science at CAU from 2003 until 2009 (diploma with distinction). His diploma thesis was on the automatic layout of data flow diagrams, which also has been covered in a publication at the International Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD) 2009.



Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.



NXP Semiconductors Germany GmbH



Centro Ricerche Fiat S.C.p.A



Computers Guard



Latvian Railway



Riga Technical University



Almende

Almende is a research company specializing in information and communication technologies aimed at supporting self-organization. At the core of all Almende research are hybrid agent networks: humans and computers working together in one system. In 2006 Almende BV has been awarded the European Eureka status for Innovative ``market oriented R&D''. Almende is member of the European Agentlink network bringing together knowledge and expertise on multi-agent systems. Almende is



also member of the Dutch DevLab initiative, in which SME's have bundled their innovative strength in the fields of embedded systems and WSN. Almende BV researches and develops self-organized critical agent-based solutions to sustain and improve the coordination of communication and collaboration across evolving networks of humans and ICT systems. Almende applies these solutions to several application domains, including healthcare, logistics and crisis management, through commercialization in spin-off companies. Currently, Almende BV has six daughter companies including ASK Community Systems, DEAL Services, Luna.nl, Sense Observation Systems, Regas and Rotterdam Community Solutions. Almende has substantial expertise on formal modeling approaches to embedded and non-embedded software. Its expertise lies currently in three areas: Semi-automatic verification of software based on high-level behavioral models possibly enriched with information about non-functional requirements; schedulability analysis based on automata extended with timings; and formal models of trust and trustworthiness for embedded software systems with complex feature interactions. Almende has been involved in the European FP6 Project CREDO about the modelling of evolvable software services. A vast experience with and expertise on (wireless) embedded systems has been built by participating in nationally funded projects, e.g., Containers At a Network (CAN), Ambient Living with Embedded Networks (ALwEN), and Sensor Technology on Radio Modules (STORM). Almende currently participates in the Artemis project SIMPLE (development of an intelligent, self-organizing embedded middleware platform) and the FP7 IP REPLICATOR project on evolutionary self-programming and self-assembling micro-robots, and the FP7 STREP Fit4Green on energy reduction technology for large data centers.


Staff members profileAndries Stam is a Senior Researcher at Almende. He has a Ph.D in Computer Science from Leiden University on the modeling of interaction in evolving distributed systems. He worked as a consultant for various companies in The Netherlands. He participated in the Dutch research project ArchiMate on Enterprise Architecture, the ITEA project Trust4all on trust principles for embedded systems, and the European CREDO project on the modeling and analysis of evolutionary structures for distributed services. Andries' research interests include model-driven software development, distributed systems, and coordination principles for evolving software systems. He has published in the areas of software engineering, coordination languages, and enterprise architecture. Alfons H. Salden has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Utrecht University on computer vision. He has over 15 years of research experience in cognitive science, computer vision, multimedia system theory and applications, multi-scale physics, ambient intelligence, mobile computing to communication and system research. Before joining Almende, he worked at the Telematica Institute, Enschede, the Netherlands (2000-2006) on (mobile) system access and categorization of complex systems. Currently, he is Senior Researcher at Almende, responsible for project acquisition, development, management and scientific research. He has been involved in the Credo project and is currently involved in the FP7 Projects Replicator and Fit4Green. Peet van Tooren is one of the founders and the technical director of Almende. He has a master's degree in computer science from Delft Technical University. He has worked at AND Software as a system architect, project leader, R&D manager and CTO on embedded systems, component-, object- and agent-oriented programming, interface design, next generation car navigation, a component based type-sensitive object compression library, and a vehicle routing application for car transportation.



Océ Technologies BV

Océ is one of the world’s leading providers of document management and printing for professionals. The broad Océ offering includes office printing and copying systems, high-speed digital production printers and wide format printing systems for technical documentation and color display graphics. Océ is also a foremost supplier of document management outsourcing. Many of the world’s Fortune 500 companies and leading commercial printers are Océ customers. With headquarters in Venlo, the Netherlands, Océ is active in around 100 countries and employs some 21,000 people worldwide. Total revenues in 2009 amounted to € 2.6 billion.The company has its own research and manufacturing facilities in Europe, the United States, Canada and Singapore. Through its own Research & Development (R&D) Océ develops core technologies and the majority of its own product concepts.

Main role in the projectDevelop a framework for capturing multidisciplinary design information, including formalisms to describe dynamic behaviour and to specify latitudes and tolerances. Tools to generate executable models of the physical system and to generate control code from the dynamic behaviour descriptions taking into account for example specified tolerances. Validation / application in the printer context.Océ has participated or still participates in the ITEA projects MOOSE and TWINS, FP7 project CON4COORD, and the Dutch national projects Boderc and Octopus, all of which address relevant aspects of model driven design of embedded systems.

Staff members profileLou Somers received his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Radboud University Nijmegen (1984). He has been active both in software industry and academia. He holds a part time position as associate professor industrial software architecting at Eindhoven University of Technology. At Océ-Technologies, he currently leads the embedded software development for a new printer platform.

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Eindhoven University of Technology is a leading international university, specializing in engineering science & technology, and contributing through its high-quality teaching and research to progress in the technical sciences, to the development of technological innovations and as a result to growth, prosperity and welfare in the immediate region (technology & innovation hotspot Eindhoven) and beyond. TU/e is among the world’s ten best-performing research universities in terms of research cooperation with industry according to the UIRC Scoreboard university ranking in 2011. The Department of Mathematics and Computer Science of Eindhoven University of Technology strives to be leading in the science and engineering of software systems. It focuses on generic aspects of the design of software systems. In particular, focus is on the following two related and complementary themes: Design methods for large-scale, reliable software systems and Analysis of software systems. The Model Driven Software Engineering (MDSE) section contributes to this high quality research by combining model based software engineering and formal modeling and verification techniques to improve the efficiency and the quality of the software development process. LaQuSo (Laboratory for Quality Software) provides access to a wide range of research groups and their social and technical infrastructure, in particular on various aspects of model driven software engineering, secure and embedded networked systems, and algorithms and visualization.



Main role in project TUE is involved in the tasks related to the development of the modeling and design frameworks, in particular those related to definition of model-to-model transformation. In addition, TUE will take an active role in the validation of the project approach.

Staff Members Profile Prof. dr. Mark van den Brand is a full professor of Software Engineering and Technology at TU/e in the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. He is scientific director of the research laboratory LaQuSo. His current research activities are on generic language technology, model driven engineering and reverse engineering. Five of his PhD students are working on the application of generic language technology to the field of model driven engineering. Mark van den Brand has outstanding publications in the field of generic language technology and he has an H-index of 19 (based on Google Scholar). He was keynote speaker at the Software Language Engineering (SLE2008) conference which combines the research fields of model driven engineering and language technology. He was three times guest editor (2007, 2008, 2009) of special issues of Science of Computer Programming devoted to academic software development (Experimental Software and Toolkits (EST). Since May 2009 he is visiting professor at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is invited to the editorial board of the journal of Science of Computer Programming. ir. Harold Weffers PDEng is director of LaQuSo, the Laboratory for Quality Software at the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. For more than 13 years he has been involved in various projects related to the design and development of software for high tech systems and technical applications. He holds an M.Sc. degree in Computer Science and a PDEng degree in Software Technology. Dr. Suzana Andova is an assistant professor at Software Engineering and Technology group. Her research interests include semantics of modeling languages, and analysis of requirements for complex software systems. She is active in several industry-university interactive research projects with the goal to connect the academic research with industry and there relevant problems.

Deimos Space



Ikerlan-IK4

IKERLAN-IK4 (www.Ikerlan-K4.es) is a Spanish private not-for-profit Technology Centre set up in 1974. It is the key technological R&D actor within the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) (www.mcc.es), Spain’s sixth-largest industrial corporation. With a staff of more than 200 qualified researchers and engineers IKERLAN-IK4 is a reference for innovation to advanced technology transfer to industry, and comprehensive product development for a wide variety of domains: transportation, automation, industrial, medical, etc. It has 30+ years of expertise in systems, software, new methodologies, standardisation or software to make new products, where dependability, modeling and evolution are key points. The Embedded Systems Group at IKERLAN-K4 has a track record of proven R&D projects for national/international R&D programs and projects under contract from different companies that have required embedded intelligence in their new products. (InHoMNet, Robocop, Space4u, Trust4All, Teaha, Amigo, Genesys, TECOM, TERESA, MultiPARTES, eDIANA). The group has also a



proven experience in the model-driven development of safety-critical / safety–related embedded systems, and certification based on the IEC-61508 standard. This knowledge has been applied in the development of some dependable system(s) for some of our most important customers such as Orona (lift and escalators), CAF (railway systems) and Alstom Wind (Wind turbines).

Main role in the projectInterest and capabilities to cooperate in some of the WPs: Requirements (WP 1), Modeling and design frameworks (WP 2), Analysis techniques (WP 3) and Industrial validators (WP 6). We could contribute developing mixed criticality architectures and methodology to enable the co-existence and evolution of multiple systems of different levels of criticality on the same computational platform. Since IKERLAN-IK4 works close to the industry, we could contribute with real demonstrators for industrial control or transportation: development of some prototype of the envisioned architectures and the methodology for complex industrial control, supported by appropriated modeling (for example using sysML, Simulink, SCADE or DSL-based tools), configuration and validation tools

Staff members profileDr. Jon Pérez is Embedded Systems Research Coordinator and Electronics Area Manager at IKERLAN research centre. He is also leading a project on the design and development of a SIL4 safety-critical embedded system for railway signalling (ERTMS/ETCS). Research interests focus on distributed real-time and safety-critical embedded systems.He has received a B. Eng in Industrial and Robotics at Mondragon University, a M.Sc. in Electronics & Electrical Engineering at the University of Glasgow and completed his PhD in Computer Sciences at TU WIEN in the field of safety-critical embedded systems. He has previously worked for Motorola Semiconductor in the field of multicore DSPs.Dr. Salvador Trujillo is currently leading a research team on embedded systems methodologies within the embedded group where advanced systems and software engineering paradigms (such as Model-Driven Development, Model-Based Systems Engineering and Product Lines) are applied to dependable embedded systems. He is leading green energy and railway control system projects applying these paradigms in practice, also with publications on the topic. He is currently project coordinator of FP7 MultiPARTES and also participating within FP7 TERESA on safety, MDD and product-lines. He is author of several peer-reviewed scientific publications in systems and software engineering conferences like ICSE, SPLC, ECMFA, etc. He also holds an Executive MBA degree from ESEUNE Business School.



Integrasys



Mondragon Unibertsitatea



ULMA Embedded Solutions



Mälardalen University



Volvo



EIS Semcon



Hoxville Oy





Technische Universiteit Delft

The TU-Delft Algorithmics groups is experienced in designing algorithms as well as the computational analysis and empirical evaluation of such algorithms in several application domains.

Main role in the projectTUD is involved in research on the development of automated fault diagnosis techniques for embedded systems based on both SFL (Spectrum based Fault Localization) and MBD (Model Based Diagnosis). TUD will contribute to the Monitoring and Analysis Framework by developing adaptive fault localization methods that by combining SFL and MBD techniques and creating rules based on previous fault localizations will result in a self-improving fault localization method significantly enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of existing techniques.

Staff members profileProf.Dr. Cees Witteveen he is a full professor in Algorithmics at the Faculty of Department of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science of TU Delft. He has been visiting professor at both Utrecht University and the Center for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI) in Amsterdam.His current research interests are the design, analysis and evaluation of coordination algorithms in distributed systems with self-interested actors. He has published more than 180 refereed papers and journal articles in these fields. He has been project leader of more than 15 externally funded research projects on plan coordination in multi-agent systems, diagnosis, incident management, hybrid computing and obtained research grants from the Dutch National Science foundation (NWO and STW) and national BSIK programs.

Prodrive



Daimler



ETAS GmbH



Fondazione Bruno Kessler

Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK) is a private non-profit research centre.The FBK's Centre for Scientific and Technological Research (FBK-irst) has been conducting research in ICT for nearly three decades and is a fundamental part of the Trento RISE organization (associate and candidate affiliate partner of the EIT ICT Labs).



This project would be carried out by the Embedded Systems (ES) unit whose competences revolve around several areas among which:

• formal verification and model checking,• software and requirements engineering,• safety and dependability analysis.

Besides the ARTEMIS project pSafeCer, the ES Unit has been involved in several FP6 and FP7 projects, such as ESACS, ISAAC, MISSA, PROSYD, COCONUT, and in technology transfers projects with major companies and industrial agencies in Europe, such as Eurailcheck (with the European Railway Agency), COMPASS, OMCARE, IRONCAP, AUTOGEF (with the European Space Agency).

Main role in the projectFBK can participate in the DECISIVE project as provider of tools and techniques for different tasks that are essential to the realization of the project's goals.In particular, FBK can provide technologies:

1. to perform model-based verification and safety and dependability analysis, 2. to monitor the system for failure detection and identification, 3. to re-validate properties after model changes along the evolution of the system, 4. to automatically check the consistency among requirements and empirical properties 5. to automatically provide the user with analysis artifacts such as execution traces, fault trees, FMEA tables.

Staff members profile2.

5.3 Consortium as a whole

Describe how the participants collectively constitute a consortium capable of achieving the project objectives, and how they are suited and committed to the tasks assigned to them. Show the complementarity between participants. Explain how the composition of the consortium is well-balanced in relation to the objectives of the project and in order to ensure exploitation of the results and to achieve the desired impacts. Show how the opportunity of involving SMEs has been addressed.

This should be related to the themes!DECISIVE brings together leading companies and SMEs across Europe together with selected universities and research institutes providing the required leading edge competence across a number of important domains. At the moment, 35 partners from 10 different European countries constitute the DECISIVE consortium. Special emphasis will, before FPP, be put on balancing the consortium between technology users and technology providers on the one side, and the partner types (large enterprises, SMEs, and researchers) on the other side. A good balance in both dimensions will enable the transfer of model-based evolutionary system development techniques and tools for complex embedded systems into industrial practice.The multi-domain setup in DECISIVE – Health care, Transportation (including Automotive, Rail, Aerospace), Telecom, and Manufacturing – all focused on model-based evolutionary engineering, is a strength for the consortium as a whole. This setup will be instrumental in ensuring that innovative decision making, improved modelling techniques and tools, and both technical and process support for evolvable development, will reduce time to market, increase competiveness, and pave the way for the cross-domain market for complex embedded systems.Besides the partners named in the table on page 2, there are some further industrial partners who are interested in joining, but who came too late to join already in the PO phase. These are Volvo CE



(Enterprise, SE), Bombardier (Enterprise, SE), and Daimler (Enterprise, DE). In addition, we are in a dialog with tool vendors, already working in close relation to some of the DECISIVE partners, to join the project. A figure depicting the current DECISIVE consortium can be found in Annex C.For the preparation of the FPP special emphasis will be put on including SMEs with special world leading competences in tooling and infrastructure for model-based system development into the consortium.

If any part of the work is to be sub-contracted by the participant responsible for it, describe the work involved and explain why a sub-contract approach has been chosen for it.(No recommended length for this section – depends on the size and complexity of the consortium)

5.4 Resources to be committed

Describe how the necessary resources will be mobilised. Show how the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.

In addition to the personnel effort indicated elsewhere in the proposal, please identify any other major costs (e.g. personnel, equipment, travel, etc.) (please use table 5a).

(Recommended length – 2 pages)



Table 5a Summary of effort and costs

Indicative breakdown of costs

This should be a breakdown table with common items of expenditure and, if necessary, additional customised columns (e.g. Category X in the table below) in case your corresponding national cost categories do not fit the common ones

Partic. no.

Partic. short name

Personnel Travel Durable Equipment

Consumables (Category X)

Indirect costs

Subcontrating

Total costs

1

2

3

etc

Total

The figures indicated in the column "Total costs" must match the figures of the "Total eligible costs" of the funding calculation forms (Annex A).



Annex A – Funding calculation forms

Annex A.1 (for partners established in ARTEMIS Member States)

For each participant from an ARTEMIS Member State please fill in the standard form underneath and include it in this Annex A.1 (see Guide for Applicants for further explanations).

Partner x

Total eligible costs according to national rules

(in €)

National Contribution

requested (in €)

Percentage of the national subsidy

to the beneficiaries

applied for the calculation

Fundamental/Basic Research

Industrial/Applied Research

Experimental development

Total

Total requested from the JU (16.7%

of total above)

National eligibility criteria information

Please also provide in this Annex any additional necessary information, which does not fit in any other section of the proposal that will allow the national funding authorities to verify the corresponding eligibility criteria for national funding.



Annex A.2 (for partners established in other Member States and Associated Countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, FYR Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey), the JRC13 and international organisations14 (i.e. ESA) having a seat in EU Member States or Associated Countries to the Seventh Framework Programme

For each participant from the above countries, for JRC or for each international organisation, fill in the standard form underneath and include it in this Annex A.2 (see Guide for Applicants for further explanations).

Partner x Total eligible costs (in €)

Direct costs (in €)

Indirect costs 20% (in €)

Total

Total requested from the JU

(16.7% of total above)

13 Unless the JRC applies in the proposal for national funding from an ARTEMIS Member State. In that case, the Annex A.1 should be used14 Unless the international organisation applies in the proposal for national funding from an ARTEMIS Member State. In that case, the Annex A.1 should be used


small or medium-scale focused research projects … web viewsupporting evolutionary design will...

Documents