Artemis-2011-1 decision and platform support for model‐based eVolutionary development of Embedded systems Date of preparation
Download 469.39 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ETAS GmbH
- 5.3 Consortium as a whole
- 5.4 Resources to be committed
- Annex A – Funding calculation forms
ProdriveMain role in the project Staff members profile DaimlerMain role in the project Staff members profile ETAS GmbHMain role in the project Staff members profile Fondazione Bruno KesslerFondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK), formerly Istituto Trentino di Cultura, established by the government of Autonomous Province of Trento (PAT) in 1976, is a private non-profit research center, located in Trento, Italy. 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. The ES unit currently participates in the ARTEMIS project pSafeCer and in the IRONCAP and AUTOGEF projects funded by the European Space Agency. In the past, 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, and OMCARE (with the European Space Agency). Main role in the project FBK is a provider of tools, technology, and expertise in Reliability and Safety, using formal methods for model-based verification, safety and dependability analysis, failure monitoring and identification, requirements analysis and validation. FBK will contribute mainly to WP2, WP3, and WP5. FBK will also provide a link to the framework developed in the ARTEMIS project pSafeCer, which focuses on re-using safety cases of qualified components to improve the certification process. Staff members profile Dr. Alessandro Cimatti is a senior researcher at FBK and head of the ES unit. His main research interests concern formal verification, decision procedures, design and verification methodologies, safety analysis, diagnosis and diagnozability techniques for hardware/software systems. He published more than hundred papers in the Formal Methods and Artificial Intelligence fields. Cimatti has been member of the Program Committee of the major conferences in computer-aided verification, and has been the leader of several industrial research and technology transfer projects in the design and verification of safety critical systems. Dr. Marco Bozzano is a senior researcher at FBK. His research interests include model checking and formal safety analysis. He coauthored more than 30 journal and conference papers, and one book (with Adolfo Villafiorita) titled “Design and Safety Assessment of Critical Systems” (CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group, November 2010). He was the scientist in charge at FBK for the CALCULEMUS, ISAAC, and MISSA projects. Dr. Marco Roveri is a senior researcher at FBK. He got his PhD in Computer Science in 2002 from the University of Milano. He coauthored more than 50 journal and conference papers. He has a strong expertise in Formal Methods, Model Checking and in Formal Requirements validation. He is the project leader of the NuSMV and RAT tools. He was the scientist in charge at FBK for the PROSYD, S3MS, OMC-ARE and COCONUT projects. Dr. Stefano Tonetta is a junior researcher at FBK. He got his PhD in ICT in 2006 from the University of Trento. After a Post-Doc at the Faculty of Informatics of the University of Lugano, he won a Post-Doctoral fellowship funded by the PAT for a project on formal requirement analysis and verification. He is the scientist in charge at FBK for the ARTEMIS project pSafeCer and for the OthelloPlay project, winner of the 2010 Microsoft Research SEIF Award. 5.3 Consortium as a wholeDescribe 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 committedDescribe 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
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 formsAnnex 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).
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).
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. 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). 6 Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates. Please use the numbering convention 7 Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes: R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other 8 Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes: PU = Public PP = 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). 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. 12 http://www.designchain.com/column.asp?id=2&issue=summer02 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 used 14 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 Proposal Part B: Page of Directory: projects -> decisive -> lib -> exe projects -> Terminal Decision Support Tool Systems Engineering Graduate Capstone Course Aiman Al Gingihy Danielle Murray Sara Ataya projects -> Rajinder Sachar Committee projects -> Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource Study By projects -> Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource Study By projects -> Revolutionizing Climate Modeling – Project Athena: a multi-Institutional, International Collaboration projects -> What is a Hurricane? projects -> General Information projects -> Press Information projects -> 1 Introduction 3 2 Designing an Embedded System 4 exe -> 1 Beneficiaries (Partner Description) Download 469.39 Kb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||