Applying the Incremental Commitment Model to Brownfield System Development

Keywords software-intensive systems engineering brownfield development Incremental Commitment Model legacy systems software re-engineering refactoring lifecycle models service-oriented architecture software process Applying the Incremental Commitment Model to Brownfield System Development
Standards groups

Figure 1 indicates that a great deal of concurrent activity occurs within and across the various ICM phases. To make this concurrency work, the anchor point milestone reviews are the mechanism by which the many concurrent activities
are synchronized, stabilized, and risk-assessed at the end of each phase [5,6].

Each of these anchor point milestone reviews, labeled at the top of Figure 1, is focused on developer-produced evidence, instead of PowerPoint charts and Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams, to help the key stakeholders
determine the next level of commitment. For example, the developer of a system with a requirement for a one-second real-time task completion for a safety-critical system should provide evidence based on prototyping, benchmarking,
modeling, or simulation using representative workloads that the system as designed will meet the task completion time requirement, rather than just promise to "build it now and tune it later," as is frequently the practice in ad-hoc
development or when using agile methods.

If the requirement had been for a 1-second desirable, 3-seconds acceptable user response time for a non-critical system, agile would generally be fine.

Date published
Document type
technical white paper
Defines standard
Replaced/Superseded by document(s)
Cancelled by
Amended by
File MIME type Size (KB) Language Download
usc-csse-2009-530.pdf application/pdf   236.24 KB English DOWNLOAD!
File attachments
Visit also