From fcbe8861e3e794f471040bd98dda8f63b5670680 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wouter Horlings <wouter@horlin.gs>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 12:33:15 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add fraction of features section

---
 content/reflection.tex           | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 graphics/functional_relation.tex | 21 +++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 graphics/functional_relation.tex

diff --git a/content/reflection.tex b/content/reflection.tex
index b74e9a7..60db0c2 100644
--- a/content/reflection.tex
+++ b/content/reflection.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,42 @@
 %&tex
-\chapter{Reflection}
-\label{chap:reflection}
+\chapter{Design Method Evaluation}
+    \label{chap:reflection}
+
+    \section{Factorizing features}
+        During the course of this study, the concepts of specifications, components and functions are added to the design method.
+        As explained in the background chapter, having an approach to determine specifications is a crucial concept of a design process.
+        Because \ac{ridm} did not include such an approach, a \ac{se} approach was added.
+        The aim of the \ac{se} approach is to deliver a set of features to be used in the \ac{ridm}.
+        To be more specific, the set of features was expected to be the result of the feature definition step.
+        Contrary to that expectation, multiple attempts for this step did not produce a satisfactory definition of features.
+        As explained in \autoref{sec:case_featuredefinition}, there was a clear discrepancy between the expected and resulting features.
+        It was expected to get features in the form of components that can be developed during the design process.
+        However, the resulting features came off as functions of the system.
+        In the end, a solution was found in the RobMoSys approach.
+        Even though the RobMoSys approach was too comprehensive for this case study, it provided the basis for the split between functions and components.
+        Furthermore, it resulted in the hierarchical structure of functions and sub-functions as shown in \autoref{fig:robmosys}.
+
+        \begin{figure}
+            \centering
+            \includegraphics[width=85mm]{graphics/functional_relation.pdf}
+            \caption{Relations and elements within a feature. \autocite{kordon_model-based_2007}}
+            \label{fig:functional_relation}
+        \end{figure}
+
+        Creating a hierarchy for the functions and a separate set of components allowed for the continuation of the case study.
+        There were still a number of challenges with this approach.
+        For example, it was almost impossible to divide the specifications between components and functions.
+        Furthermore, the roll of electronics did not fit in the current approach either.
+        In reviewing the literature, the approach used in this case study shows clear resemblances with \ac{mbed} \autocite{kordon_model-based_2007}.
+        \ac{mbed} introduces explicit relations between the requirements, components and functions, as shown in \autoref{fig:functional_relation}.
+        Additionally, the paper includes a layout for the hierarchy of requirements, functions and components.
+        Based on this, the approach by \textcite{kordon_model-based_2007} further supports the idea of dividing features into specifications or requirements, functions, and components.
+
+        What is interesting about this new insight is that it helps to understand the difference with the case study performed by \textcite{broenink_rapid_2019}.
+        The hardware components used by Broenink and Broenink was a mini-segway, which was designed for a student project.
+        The requirement of this mini-segway is that has to balance, drive, and steer.
+        Causing the requirements and components to be implicitly defined in their case study.
+        Therefore, the function that needs to be implemented, fits very well within the definition of a feature.
 
     \section{Information Flow}
         %% Aanknopen op het vorige verhaal?
diff --git a/graphics/functional_relation.tex b/graphics/functional_relation.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d836e18
--- /dev/null
+++ b/graphics/functional_relation.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+%&tex
+\documentclass{standalone}
+\usepackage{tikz}
+\usepackage{siltex}
+\usetikzlibrary {arrows.meta,positioning}
+\tikzset{nodes={text height=.7em, text width=2.5cm, align=center,
+draw=black!50, thick, font=\footnotesize},
+>={Stealth[round,sep]}, rounded corners, semithick}
+
+\begin{document}
+\begin{tikzpicture}[on grid,y=2.2cm,x=5.7cm]
+    \node (re) {Requirement};
+    \node (fu)[right=1 of re]  {Function};
+    \node (co)[above=1 of fu]  {Component};
+    \begin{scope}[nodes={draw=none, auto, fill=none, midway,text width={},text height={}}]
+        \path[->] (re) edge node[below] {Specifies} (fu)
+                  (co) edge node {Performs} (fu)
+                  (re) edge node {Specifies} (co);
+    \end{scope}
+\end{tikzpicture}
+\end{document}