Requirements Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Scenario inspections

  • Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado LeiteEmail author
  • Jorge Horacio Doorn
  • Graciela D. S. Hadad
  • Gladys N. Kaplan
Original Article


Scenarios help practitioners to better understand the requirements of a software system as well as its interface with the environment. However, despite their widespread use both by object-oriented development teams and human–computer interface designers, scenarios are being built in a very ad-hoc way. Departing from the requirements engineering viewpoint, this article shows how inspections help software developers to better manage the production of scenarios. We used Fagan’s inspections as the main paradigm in the design of our proposed process. The process was applied to case studies and data were collected regarding the types of problems as well as the effort to find them.


Inspections Requirements verification Scenarios Scenario quality 


  1. 1.
    Leite JCSP, Rossi G, Balaguer F, Maiorana V, Kaplan G, Hadad G, Oliveros A (1997) Enhancing a requirements baseline with scenarios. Req Eng J 2(4):184–198Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rolland C, Ben Achour C, Cauvet C, Ralyté J, Sutcliffe A, Maiden M, Jarke M, Haumer P, Pohl K, Dubois E, Heymans P (1998) A proposal for a scenario classification framework. Req Eng J 3(1):23–47Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobson I, Christerson M, Jonsson P, Overgaard G (1992) Object-oriented software engineering—a use case driven approach. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wirfs-Brock R (1995) Designing objects and their interactions: a brief look at responsibility-driven design. In: Carroll J (ed) Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, New York, pp 337–360Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rolland C, Ben Achour C (1998) Guiding the construction of textual use case specifications. Data Knowledge Eng 25:125–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weidenhaupt K, Pohl K, Jarke M, Haumer P (1998) Scenarios in system development: current practice. IEEE Softw 15(2):34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leite JCSP, Hadad GDS, Doorn JH, Kaplan GN (2000) A scenario construction process. Req Eng J 5(1):38–61Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ross D, Schoman A (1977) Structured analysis for requirements definition. IEEE Trans Softw Eng (Special issue on requirements analysis) 3(1):6–15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gilb T (1987) The principles of software-engineering management. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yourdon E (1989) Structured walkthroughs, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parnas DL, Weiss D (1985) Active design reviews: principles and practices. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on software engineering, pp 132–136Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fagan ME (1976) Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Syst J 15(3):182–211Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fagan ME (1986) Advances in software inspections. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 12(7):744–751Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ackerman AF, Buchwald LS, Lewsky FH (1993) Software inspections: an effective verification process. IEEE Softw 6(3):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilb T, Graham D (1993) Software inspection. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laitenberger O, DeBaud JM (2000) An encompassing life-cycle centric survey of software inspection. J Syst Softw 50(1):5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Regnell B, Runesom P, Thelin T (1999) Are the perspectives really different? Further experimentation on scenario-based reading of requirements. Requirements engineering with use cases – a basis for software development. Technical Report 132, Paper V, Department of Communication Systems, Lund University, pp 141–180Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gough PA, Fodemski FT, Higgins SA, Ray SJ (1995) Scenarios—an industrial case study and hypermedia enhancements. In: RE95: proceedings of the international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., pp 10–17Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Porter AA, Votta LG Jr, Basili VR (1995) Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replicated experiment. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(6):563–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leite JCSP, Doorn JH, Hadad GDS, Kaplan GN (2003) Using scenario inspections on different scenarios representations. Monografias em Ciência da Computação, Departamento de Informática, PUC-Rio, N33/03Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zorman L (1995) Requirements envisaging by utilizing scenarios (rebus). PhD dissertation, University of Southern CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carroll J (1995) Introduction: the scenario perspective on system development. In: Carroll J (ed) Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, New York, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Booch G (1991) Object oriented design with applications. Benjamin Cumming, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Potts C (1995) Using schematic scenarios to understand user needs. In: Proceedings of DIS’95 - symposium on designing interactive systems: processes, practices and techniques. ACM Press, University of Michigan, pp 247–256Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mauco V, Ridao M, del Fresno M, Rivero L, Doorn J (1997) Ingeniería de requisitos, proyecto: sistema de planes de ahorro. Technical Report, ISISTAN, UNCPBA, Tandil, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leite JCSP, Franco APM (1990) O uso de hipertexto na elicitaçao de linguagens da aplicaçao. In: Anais de IV Simpósio Brasilero de Engenharia de Software. SBC, Brazil, pp 134–149Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin J, Tsai WT (1990) N-fold inspection: a requirements analysis technique. Commun ACM 33(2):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schneider G, Martin J, Tsai WT (1992) An experimental study of fault detection in user requirements documents. ACM Trans Softw Eng Method 1(2):188–204CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kantorowitz E, Guttman A, Arzi L (1997) The performance of the N-fold inspection method. Req Eng J 2:152–164Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Basili V, Green S, Laitenberger O, Lanubile F, Shull F, Sorumgard S, Zelkowitz M (1996) The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. J Empirical Softw Eng 2(1):133–164Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheng B, Jeffrey R (1996) Comparing inspection strategies for software requirements specifications. In: Proceedings of the 1996 Australian software engineering conference, pp 203–211Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parnas DL (1987) Active design reviews: principles and practice. J Syst Softw 7:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dyer M (1992) Verification-based inspection. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 418–427Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ciolkowski M, Differding C, Laitenberger O, Münch J (1997) Empirical investigation of perspective-based reading: a replicated experiment. ISERN report no. 97-13Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fusaro P, Lanubile F, Visaggio G (1997) A replicated experiment to assess requirements inspection techniques. Empirical Softw Eng 2(1):30–57Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miller J, Wood M, Roper M (1998) Further experiences with scenarios and checklists. Empirical Softw Eng 3(1):37–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Porter AA, Votta LG Jr (1998) Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replication using professional subjects. Empirical Softw Eng 3(4):355–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sandall K, Blomkvist O, Karlsson J, Krysander C, Lindvall M, Ohlsson N (1998) An extended replication of an experiment for assessing methods for software requirements. Empirical Softw Eng 3(4):381–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shull F (1998) Developing techniques for using software documents: a series of empirical studies. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Doorn J, Kaplan G, Hadad G, Leite JCSP (1998) Inspección de Escenarios. In: Proceedings of WER’98, workshop en engenharia do requisitos, Maringá, Brazil, pp 57–69Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parnas DL, Clements PC (1996) A rational design process: how and why fake it. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 12(2):251–257Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hadad G, Kaplan G, Leite JCSP (1998) Léxico extendido del lenguaje y escenarios del meeting scheduler. Technical Report no. 13, Departamento de Investigación, Universidad de Belgrano, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Massonet P (1993)The meeting scheduler system—preliminary definition. Internal Report, Université Catholique de LouvainGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jorge Horacio Doorn
    • 2
  • Graciela D. S. Hadad
    • 3
  • Gladys N. Kaplan
    • 4
  1. 1.Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro – PUC-RioRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.INTIA, Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, FRBA, Universidad Tecnológica NacionalTandilArgentina
  3. 3.FRBA, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, LINTI, Universidad Nacional de La Plata Buenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.FRBAUniversidad Tecnológica NacionalArgentina

Personalised recommendations