Data processing: structural design – modeling – simulation – and em – Structural design
Reexamination Certificate
1995-05-08
2001-12-04
Stamber, Eric B. (Department: 2163)
Data processing: structural design, modeling, simulation, and em
Structural design
C703S017000, C716S030000, C700S097000, C700S098000, C706S045000, C706S046000, C705S007380
Reexamination Certificate
active
06327551
ABSTRACT:
The invention relates to a method of designing, systems, products and services, particularly information systems used in the design of new telecommunications services, and a design engine for implementing the method.
There are few design processes suitable for the systematic design of information systems. Those design techniques which are known all employ prototyping, as does the method of the present invention. For the purposes of this patent specification prototyping should be regarded as the same as emulation. The four principal approaches to information systems design are:—the waterfall life-cycle model, prototyping, operational specification and transformational implementation.
The waterfall life-cycle model comprises a series of process steps, as illustrated in FIG.
1
and is an analytic approach which is sometimes referred to as such. It starts with a set of requirements and proceeds via implementation and other process steps to an operations and maintenance process. Feedback is possible between adjacent processes in the design sequence and the following processes may be included sequentially:
System feasibility
Software requirements
Preliminary design
Detailed design
Code and debug
Test and pre-operation
Operations maintenance
It should be noted that the earlier in the process that an error occurs the greater the cost of correction. It is therefore critical to avoid errors in the early process steps.
Prototyping requires the implementation of a simple version of the system under design (target design) which is then revised in a number of ensuing prototyping cycles, each cycle resulting in a prototype. The number of prototypes may vary from a few to several hundreds or even thousands, and may be followed by reimplementation of a final prototype in some delivery environment.
The operational specification technique requires that the system specification, or representation is written in a language or has a form that allows it to function as a prototype of the system under design. This facilitates evaluation, modification and maintenance of the system. At the present time, this approach is, for the most part, limited to research applications and its industrial application has usually been limited to “toy systems”. However there are a number of powerful operational specification systems which are industrially applicable in the field of user interface design.
Transformational implementation entails the automatic generation of a program from a specification. It is in many ways similar to the waterfall approach in that it starts with a specification and ends with a program. However in the transformational approach the transformation from specification to program is automatic and therefore eliminates the introduction of errors. The transformational approach is primarily a research tool, although it has been successfully applied to the production of prototypes.
The design method of the present invention is an analytic technique which builds on and improves the waterfall approach and uses prototyping. In the initial two steps of the design method of the present invention system feasibility and software requirements are documented in the form of a usage requirement specification. This specification is an expression of the market opportunity in terms of the expected users goals, constraints imposed by users, economic and technical factors and desired performance. The goals are decomposed and by performing a functional requirement analysis on the results from this process the main input to the preliminary design is produced, together with service states, which are states of the system allowing users to reach their goals, and service tasks, which are tasks that change the system into corresponding service states. This process is illustrated in FIG.
4
.
The next step in the design procedure is a process of top down interface design which entails decomposing service states and tasks and the design of system objects and functions. This process is structured with the aid of a user interface reference model illustrated in FIG.
5
. The user model is an important aspect of the present invention. In the description of the invention in this specification the phases of preliminary and detailed design have been replaced by the sequential activities of design and formalization. This dichotomy does not necessarily reflect any real structure in the process but is used as a means of clarifying the description of the invention.
In today's markets it is frequently necessary to produce extremely complex custom-tailored systems with great expedition. This requires the use of efficient methods for the design of systems and products. The present invention fully satisfies these requirements and has many other advantages.
The present invention has a number of novel aspects which contribute to its value and which are not employed in other design processes. These are described below.
1. The method offers a way of structuring requirement specifications through the use of a state approach.
2. The method offers a novel way of structuring specifications or representations through a layered approach.
3. The method is generic and can be implemented in a number of problem specific ways.
4. The method is formal or if so desired semi-formal, in all process steps from the start of the design process to the final result. This is achieved in a manner that facilitates participation by customers, users and other parties interested in the design.
5. The method uses a structured approach. This makes it possible to produce a number of products or final deliverables from the design work. For example the deliverables could include the final (target) system, specifications at several levels of abstraction and prototypes of the final system at several levels of abstraction.
6. The method's approach supports the production of what may be referred to as equivalence classes of products, e.g. computer systems of equivalent functionality but with different user interfaces or computer systems of equivalent functionality running on different hardware.
7. The method is table supported which increases its power through the check list properties of tables and increased participation of customers, users and other interested parties.
8. The method has a structured approach to verification and validation. The use of layers gives structure to the validation and verification of specifications produced by the method.
9. The method supports usability evaluation of the results produced. (This is a validation activity). The method supports a variety of types of cognitive evaluation of results produced at the various levels created by the layered approach.
10. The method supports the reuse of design components. Components from lower layers can be reused in the transition between layers.
11. The method supports several implementation paradigms for example object orientated and functional implementations. Other implementation paradigms can also be used.
12. The method is orientated towards the design of what is sometimes referred to as IWS (Integrated Work System) which includes users and user organisations as well as the information system per se.
13. The method places a strong emphasis on all of the following three activities:
requirements capture and analysis
design
validation
whether prototyping is employed in the method or not. This gives a balanced approach in contrast to prior art techniques which focus on the design activity and do not employ usability analysis in the validation stage of the design process.
14. The method, structures design in the design of services, systems and products and works equally well on all types of design.
15. The method partially isolates the design of the user interface from the design of the rest of the system. This facilitates the design of more than one type of user interface which is of considerable importance when the system will be used in several different types of environment or by persons with widely differing skill levels.
It is an object of the present invention to provide an improved meth
Hedman Leif
Peterson Mats
Oblon & Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt P.C.
Stamber Eric B.
Televerket
LandOfFree
System design method does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with System design method, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and System design method will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2598183