%&tex
\chapter{Conclusion}
\label{chap:conclusion}
% Intro: end goal

% Reflect Extend the RIDM with a preliminary design phase. This makes it possible develop a system for a given problem or idea, using this design method.
The first research objective is to extend the \ac{ridm} with a preliminary design phase. 
This makes it possible develop a system for a given problem or idea, using the \ac{ridm}.
Based on the waterfall model as described by \ac{se}, the steps for problem description, requirements, and initial design were prepended to the \ac{ridm}.

% Reflect: Refine the RIDM to make the execution of the different design steps explicit and unambiguous.
The second research objective is to refine the \ac{ridm} to make the execution of the different design steps explicit and unambiguous.
The \ac{ridm} specify the development cycle and the variable detail approach with enough detail, making them ready to use.
How to define features and tests for the development cycle, were not as clearly defined.
Two design steps are added in this thesis that describe a method to define the set of features and create a test protocol.
Furthermore, a feature selection step is added to aid with the development.

% Reflect: Develop and perform a case study that tests and evaluates the RIDM.
The third and last research objective is to develop and perform a case study that tests and evaluates the design plan.
The case study consists of a development that is performed according to the design plan.
A set of requirements is made to ensure the optimal system of design.
With this the \ac{Tweet on a Writeboard} system is chosen.
The progress of the case study is monitored according to a list of questions.


% Answer:  Which design techniques of the design method by Broenink and Broenink (2019) can be applied developing the physical part of CPS?
With three research objectives fulfilled, it is possible to answer the two research questions:\\
\emph{Which design techniques of the \ac{ridm} can be applied developing the physical part of CPS?}\\

To answer this question I must put emphasis on the difference between the design and the model.
The design is the specification of a system, it contains the plans, drawings, documentation, etc.
A model represent portions of that design, depending on the goal purpose of the model.
Both methods, from this thesis and the \ac{ridm}, make no adequate distinction between the design and the model.
As the case study by \autocite{broenink_rapid_2019} is performed with existing hardware, the design is already finished.
This highlights the shortcoming of the \ac{ridm} as it does model, and not design a system.

The method in this thesis introduces additional steps to implement the design process.
Although an initial design is produced, the design is implemented as a model.

The point is, the design and the model are two separate components of the design process.
The fact that this thesis starts with adding half a \ac{se} approach shows that the design aspect lacks in the current method.
However, both case studies suggest that the \ac{ridm} is a good approach for implementing that design.

This brings me to the last questions:\\
\emph{Which adaptations are required to make the design method by \ac{ridm} suitable for developing the computation and physical part of CPS?}\\
It is clear that there has to be a design process added, which must implement the different elements of a feature: component, function, requirement.

% Answer: Which adaptations are required to make the design method by Broenink and Broenink (2019) suitable for developing the computation and physical part of CPS?

\section{Recommendations}

