5 Systems Engineering Plan
5.1 Project Overview
5.1.1 Objectives
Per [1, Sec. 2.3.4.1], the project planning process establishes plans for accomplishing project objectives within project constraints. This section defines the project’s technical and programmatic objectives.
Technical Objectives:
- Develop an open source MCP server that bridges AI assistants with SysML v2 models
- Integrate with GitLab for model storage and version control
- Integrate with SysML v2 API for model validation and querying
- Support both stdio and HTTP transport for flexible deployment
Programmatic Objectives:
- Demonstrate INCOSE systems engineering principles for academic capstone
- Produce NDIA GVSETS paper on AI-augmented MBSE
- Establish open source project with community contribution potential
5.1.2 Scope
In Scope:
- MCP protocol implementation (tools, resources)
- GitLab API integration (read, list, commit, MR)
- SysML v2 API client (projects, elements, queries, validation)
- Basic SysML v2 textual parsing
- Container deployment support
- SE documentation (SEP, SyRS, ADD, VVP, RTM)
Out of Scope:
- Full SysML v2 parser implementation (deferred to JVM-based solution)
- Multi-agent architectures
- GitHub/Gitea integration (future work)
- AI benchmarking framework (future work)
5.1.3 Constraints
| Constraint | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| 15-week timeline | Limits feature scope | Prioritized phased delivery |
| No local container builds (macOS) | CI-only container testing | Document in VVP, test in CI |
| SysML v2 API server complexity | Optional dependency | Basic parsing works offline |
| Academic deliverables parallel | Shared effort required | Clear RACI, integrated schedule |
5.2 Lifecycle Model
We adopt a hybrid approach: Agile sprints for implementation velocity with formal SE gates (SRR, PDR, CDR) for academic rigor.
Pre-work: Early January 2026 - Initial research into SysML v2 specifications and prior art.
Week: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
├────┴────┼────┴────┼────┴────┴────┴────┴────┴────┼────┴────┴────┴────┤
│ Concept │ Design │ Implementation │ Validation │
│ │ │ │ & Delivery │
│ │ │ │ │
SRR PDR ─────── Sprints ─────── CDR Final
(Wk2) (Wk4) (Wk12) (Wk15)5.3 Technical Reviews
| Review | Week | Purpose | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRR (System Requirements Review) | 2 | Baseline requirements, approve SEP | Andrew Dunn, Greg Pappas, Dr. Rapp |
| PDR (Preliminary Design Review) | 4 | Approve architecture, confirm build plan | Andrew Dunn, Greg Pappas, Dr. Rapp |
| CDR (Critical Design Review) | 12 | Verify implementation, approve for delivery | Andrew Dunn, Greg Pappas, Dr. Rapp |
5.4 Review Entry/Exit Criteria
5.4.1 SRR
- Entry: Problem statement defined, stakeholders identified, draft SEP
- Exit: SyRS baselined, SEP approved, risks identified, PDR scheduled
5.4.2 PDR
- Entry: Requirements stable, architecture concepts documented
- Exit: ADD approved, interfaces defined, implementation plan confirmed
5.4.3 CDR
- Entry: Implementation complete, V&V executed
- Exit: All acceptance criteria met, ready for delivery
5.5 Schedule
| Week | Dates | Phase | Key Activities | Deliverables |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jan 1-11 | Pre-work | Research SysML v2 specs, prior art analysis | Research notes |
| 1 | Jan 12-18 | Concept | Finalize plan, set up repos, Quarto scaffold | This plan document |
| 2 | Jan 19-25 | Concept | Requirements elicitation, stakeholder analysis | SRR: SEP v1, SyRS v1 |
| 3 | Jan 26-Feb 1 | Design | Architecture development, interface definition | ADD draft |
| 4 | Feb 2-8 | Design | Design review, V&V planning | PDR: ADD v1, VVP v1 |
| 5 | Feb 9-15 | Impl | Phase 1: GitLab integration | gitlab_read_file, gitlab_list_models |
| 6 | Feb 16-22 | Impl | Phase 1 complete, Phase 2 start | GitLab tools working |
| 7 | Feb 23-Mar 1 | Impl | SysML API integration | API client |
| 8 | Mar 2-8 | Impl | GVSETS draft due (Mar 5), validation tools | Draft paper submitted |
| 9 | Mar 9-15 | Impl | Phase 2: validation, query tools | sysml_validate, sysml_query |
| 10 | Mar 16-22 | Impl | Phase 2 complete, HTTP transport | Full tool suite |
| 11 | Mar 23-29 | Impl | Integration testing, bug fixes | Stable release |
| 12 | Mar 30-Apr 5 | V&V | V&V execution, CDR prep | CDR: V&V results |
| 13 | Apr 6-12 | Delivery | Paper revision, demo prep | GVSETS final paper |
| 14 | Apr 13-19 | Delivery | Documentation finalization | Final docs |
| 15 | Apr 20-25 | Delivery | Capstone submission | Final documentation package |
5.6 Key Milestones
| Date | Milestone |
|---|---|
| Jan 12 | Concept phase begins (Week 1) |
| Jan 18 | Plan review with Greg Pappas and Dr. Rapp |
| Jan 25 | SRR complete |
| Feb 8 | PDR complete |
| Mar 5 | GVSETS draft paper submitted |
| Apr 5 | CDR complete |
| Apr 12 | GVSETS final paper submitted |
| Apr 25 | Capstone deliverables complete |
5.7 Configuration Management
5.7.1 Version Control
- Branching Model: GitLab Flow (main + feature branches, MRs required)
- Commit Convention: Conventional Commits (feat:, fix:, docs:, chore:)
- Protected Branches: main requires MR approval
5.7.2 Artifact Versioning
| Artifact | Versioning Scheme |
|---|---|
| Software | SemVer (v0.1.0, v0.2.0, …) |
| SE Documents | Date-based (SEP-2026-01-22) or revision (SyRS v1.0, v1.1) |
| Container Images | Git SHA + SemVer tags |
5.7.3 Baseline Management
| Baseline | Contents | Established At |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements Baseline | SyRS v1.0 | SRR (Week 2) |
| Design Baseline | ADD v1.0, VVP v1.0 | PDR (Week 4) |
| Product Baseline | Software v1.0, final docs | CDR (Week 12) |
5.8 Risk Management
Per [1, Sec. 2.3.4.4], the risk management process identifies, analyzes, treats, and monitors risks throughout the project lifecycle.
5.8.1 Risk Categories
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| Technical | Risks related to technology choices, implementation complexity |
| Schedule | Risks related to timeline, resource availability |
| External | Risks from external dependencies, stakeholder changes |
| Quality | Risks related to defects, compliance, acceptance |
5.8.2 Risk Scoring
Likelihood: Low (1) / Medium (2) / High (3)
Impact: Low (1) / Medium (2) / High (3)
Risk Score: Likelihood × Impact (1-9)
5.8.3 Risk Register
| ID | Risk Description | Category | L | I | Score | Treatment Strategy | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | SysML v2 API server difficult to deploy locally | Technical | 2 | 3 | 6 | Avoid: Implement GitLab-only tools first; API integration is Phase 2. Provide mock server for testing. | Andrew | Open |
| R2 | GVSETS paper deadline aggressive given parallel implementation | Schedule | 2 | 2 | 4 | Accept: Submit draft even if incomplete; iterate on final version. | Andrew | Open |
| R3 | Stakeholder availability for reviews limited | External | 1 | 2 | 2 | Mitigate: Schedule reviews early; use asynchronous review via MR comments. | Greg | Open |
| R4 | Go MCP SDK has undiscovered limitations | Technical | 1 | 3 | 3 | Accept: SDK is mature (Google co-maintained); fallback to TypeScript SDK if critical issue found. | Andrew | Open |
| R5 | Container testing blocked on local macOS development | Technical | 3 | 1 | 3 | Accept: CI-only container validation; document limitation in VVP. Local testing uses native Go binaries. | Andrew | Open |
| R6 | Scope creep from additional feature requests | Schedule | 2 | 2 | 4 | Avoid: Defer AI benchmarking, multi-agent features to future work. Strict change control after SRR. | Greg | Open |
| R7 | SysML v2 specification changes during project | External | 1 | 2 | 2 | Accept: Track upstream releases; design for extensibility. July 2025 OMG adoption provides stability. | Andrew | Open |
5.8.4 Risk Monitoring
Risks will be reviewed at each technical review (SRR, PDR, CDR) and during weekly sync meetings. New risks should be added to this register with initial assessment.
Escalation Criteria: Risks with Score ≥ 6 require immediate mitigation plan and advisor notification.
5.9 Review Status
This section tracks actual review completion status. Entry/exit criteria are defined in Section 5.3.
Attendees for all reviews:
- Andrew Dunn (Technical Lead, GitLab Public Sector)
- Greg Pappas (SE Lead, DoD Army AFC-DEVCOM)
- Dr. Stephen Rapp (Advisor, Wayne State University ISE)
5.9.1 Status Summary
| Review | Target Date | Entry Criteria | Exit Criteria | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRR | Jan 25, 2026 | Pending | Pending | Not Started |
| PDR | Feb 8, 2026 | Pending | Pending | Not Started |
| CDR | Apr 5, 2026 | Pending | Pending | Not Started |
5.9.2 Action Items
| Review | Item | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - | - |
Action items will be recorded during and after each review.