Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Requirements Negotiation Process Model that Integrates EasyWinWin with Quality Assurance and Multi-Criteria Preference Techniques

  • Research Article - Computer Engineering and Computer Science
  • Published:
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Requirements negotiation is performed to address conflicts over business requirements to achieve a shared vision of software to be developed. Examples of difficulties that can arise during requirements negotiation are: lack of clarity about requirements and expectations among stakeholders, hassle of detecting and removing requirements negotiation defects, and balancing of give-and-take in reaching an agreement. Although there are some models available to address some of the issues, an integrated approach is required to solve them in a single process. This paper proposes an all-in-one requirements negotiation process model called groupware requirements negotiation system (GRNS), which is capable of solving requirements negotiation difficulties by integrating EasyWinWin, quality assurance techniques, and multi-criteria preference techniques with Bayes theorem. Moreover, a system is developed to support the proposed GRNS process model; it was evaluated by two industrial companies using experimental evaluation, questionnaires and expert analysis. The results of the evaluation show that the proposed model is effective in eliciting clear requirements, providing structured communication among stakeholders, reducing defects and decreasing their severity level as well as assisting stakeholders to understand other stakeholders’ perspectives to achieve an agreement. Consequently, the proposed model overcomes the difficulties of the previous process models, provides controllability over negotiation sessions, and assists stakeholders to achieve negotiation goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elish K., Alshayeb M.: A classification of refactoring methods based on software quality attributes. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 36(7), 1253–1267 (2011). doi:10.1007/s13369-011-0117-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alshayeb M.: The impact of refactoring to patterns on software quality attributes. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 36(7), 1241–1251 (2011). doi:10.1007/s13369-011-0111-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Grunbacher, P.; Halling, M.; Biffl, S.; Kitapci, H.; Boehm, B.W.: Repeatable quality assurance techniques for requirements negotiations. In: 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA, USA 2003. 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, p. 9. IEEE Computer Society

  4. Boehm, B.; In, H.: Identifying quality-requirement conflicts. IEEE Softw. (Copyright 1996, IEE) 13, 25–35 (1996)

  5. Curtis B., Krasner H., Iscoe N.: Field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun. ACM 31, 1268–1287 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nissen H.W., Jeusfeld M.A., Jarke M., Zemanek G.V., Huber H.: Managing multiple requirements perspectives with metamodels. IEEE Softw. 13(2), 37–48 (1996). doi:10.1109/52.506461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nuseibeh B.: Conflicting requirements: when the customer is not always right. Requir. Eng. 1(1), 70–71 (1996). doi:10.1007/bf01235767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Easterbrook, S.: Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation. In: Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues, pp. 41–65. Academic Press Professional, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA (1994). ISBN: 0-12-385335-4. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=189996

  9. Ali R., Dalpiaz F., Giorgini P.: Reasoning with contextual requirements: detecting inconsistency and conflicts. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(1), 35–57 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2012.06.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Saberi S., Shahandeh Nookabadi A., Reza Hejazi S.: Applying agent-based system and negotiation mechanism in improvement of inventory management and customer order fulfilment in multi echelon supply chain. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 37(3), 851–861 (2012). doi:10.1007/s13369-012-0197-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boehm, B.; Bose, P.; Horowitz, E.; Lee, M.J.: Software requirements negotiation and renegotiation aids: a theory-W based spiral approach. In: Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, Seattle, WA, USA 1995. Proceedings—International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 243–253

  12. Calefato F., Damian D., Lanubile F.: Computer-mediated communication to support distributed requirements elicitations and negotiations tasks. Empir. Softw. Eng. 17(6), 640–674 (2012). doi:10.1007/s10664-011-9179-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grunbacher P., Halling M., Biffl S., Boehm B.W.: Integrating collaborative processes and quality assurance techniques: experiences from requirements negotiation. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 20(4), 10–30 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gruenbacher, P.; Briggs, R.: Surfacing tacit knowledge in requirements negotiation: experiences using easy win win. In: 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, United states 2001. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, p. 35

  15. Shahamiri S.R., Kadir W., Ibrahim S., Hashim S.Z.M.: An automated framework for software test oracle. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53(7), 774–788 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shahamiri S.R., Wan-Kadir W.N., Ibrahim S., Hashim S.: Artificial neural networks as multi-networks automated test oracle. Autom. Softw. Eng. 19(3), 303–334 (2012). doi:10.1007/s10515-011-0094-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wnuk K., Gorschek T., Zahda S.: Obsolete software requirements. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(6), 921–940 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2012.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keil M., Carmel E.: Customer-developer links in software development. Commun. ACM 38, 33–44 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. In, H.P.; Olson, D.: Requirements negotiation using multi-criteria preference analysis. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 10(4), 306–325 (2004)

  20. Boehm, B.; Ross, R.: Theory-W software project management principles and examples. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 15, 902–916 (1989) (Copyright 1989, IEE)

  21. Acuña S.T., Castro J.W., Juristo N.: A HCI technique for improving requirements elicitation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(12), 1357–1375 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Boehm, B.; Egyed, A.: Software requirements negotiation: some lessons learned. In: Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Software Engineering, Kyoto, Japan 1998. Proceedings—International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Comp Soc, pp. 503–506

  23. Kazman, R.; In, H.P.; Chen, H.-M.: From requirements negotiation to software architecture decisions. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(8), 511–520 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2004.10.001

  24. Tosun A., Bener A., Turhan B., Menzies T.: Practical considerations in deploying statistical methods for defect prediction: a case study within the Turkish telecommunications industry. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(11), 1242–1257 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coolen F.P.A., Goldstein M., Munro M.: Generalized partition testing via Bayes linear methods. Inf. Softw. Technol. 43(13), 783–793 (2001). doi:10.1016/s0950-5849(01)00185-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Damian, D.E.H.; Eberlein, A.; Woodward, B.; Shaw, M.L.G.; Gaines, B.R.: An empirical study of facilitation of computer-mediated distributed requirements negotiations. In: 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, Canada 2001. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 128–135

  27. Karlsson J., Wohlin C., Regnell B.: An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Inf. Softw. Technol. 39(14–15), 939–947 (1998). doi:10.1016/s0950-5849(97)00053-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mahmood S., Lai R., Soo Kim Y., Hong Kim J., Cheon Park S., Suk Oh H.: A survey of component based system quality assurance and assessment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(10), 693–707 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Linhares G.B.R., Borges M.R.S., Antunes P.: Collaboration and conflict in software review meetings. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 11(6), 1065–1085 (2012). doi:10.1142/s0219622012400159

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Hazrina Binti Sofian, Siti Salwah Binti Salim & Seyed Reza Shahamiri

Authors
  1. Hazrina Binti Sofian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siti Salwah Binti Salim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seyed Reza Shahamiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siti Salwah Binti Salim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sofian, H.B., Binti Salim, S.S. & Shahamiri, S.R. A Requirements Negotiation Process Model that Integrates EasyWinWin with Quality Assurance and Multi-Criteria Preference Techniques. Arab J Sci Eng 39, 4667–4681 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1150-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1150-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation