Advertisement

Requirements Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 45–62 | Cite as

An operational model for structuring the requirements generation process

  • James D. Arthur
  • Markus K. Gröner
Original Article

Abstract

Product quality is directly related to how well that product meets the customer’s needs and intents. Therefore, the ability to capture customer requirements correctly and succinctly is paramount. Unfortunately, within most software development frameworks requirements elicitation, recording and evaluation are some of the more ill-defined and least structured activities. To help address such inadequacies, we propose a requirements generation model (RGM) that (a) decomposes the conventional “requirements analysis” phase into sub-phases which focus and refine requirement generation activities, (b) bounds and structures those activities to promote a more effective generation process, and (c) implements a monitoring methodology to assist in detecting deviations from well-defined procedures intended to support the generation of requirements that meet the customer’s intent. The RGM incorporates “lessons learned” from a preliminary study that concentrated on identifying where and how miscommunication and requirements omission occur. An industry study (also reported in this paper) attests to the effectiveness of the RGM. The results of that study indicate that the RGM helps (a) reduce the late discovery of requirements, (b) reduce the slippage in milestone completion dates, and (c) increase customer and management satisfaction levels.

Keywords

Requirements identification Requirements generation Customer intent Requirements engineering Software engineering Software methodology 

References

  1. 1.
    Royce WW (1970) Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: Proceedings of the Western electronic show and convention (WesCon), Los Angeles, California, August 1970, pp 1–9 (Reprinted in: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on software engineering, Monterey, California, March 1987, pp 328–338)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm BW (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Comput 21(5):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agresti WW (1986) New paradigms for software development. In: IEEE tutorial series. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Connel JL, Shafer LB (1989) Structured rapid prototyping: an evolutionary approach to software development. Yourdon Press, Prentice Hall Building, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bravo E (1993) The hazards of leaving out the users. In: Schuler D, Namioka A (eds) Participatory design: principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 3–11Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freedman DP, Weinberg GM (1990) Handbook of walkthroughs, inspections, and technical reviews: evaluating programs, projects, and products, 3rd edn. Dorset House Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenbaum J (1993) A design of one’s own: towards participatory design in the United States. In: Schuler D, Namioka A (eds) Participatory design: principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 27–37Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis AM (1993) Software requirements: objects, functions, and states. 2nd revised edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis AM (2003) The art of requirements triage. IEEE Comput 36(3):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herlea DE, Jonker CM, Treur J, Wijngaards NJE (2002) A compositional knowledge level process model of requirements engineering. Int J Softw Eng Know 12(1):41–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ambler SW (2002) Agile modeling: effective practices for XP and RUP. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ambler SM (2002) An introduction to agile modeling (AM). White paper, Ronin International. http://www.ronin-intl.com/publications/agileModeling.pdf
  13. 13.
    Boehm B, Egyed A, Kwan J, Port D, Shah A, Madachy R (1998) Using the WinWin spiral model: a case study. IEEE Computer 31(7):33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bjerknes G, Tone Bratteteig (1995) User participation and democracy: a discussion of Scandinavian research on system development. Scand J Inf Syst 7(1):73–98Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wood J, Silver D (1995) Joint application development, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mullery G (1979) CORE: a method for controlled requirements specifications. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on software engineering, Munich, Germany, pp 126–135Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richards D (2003) Merging individual conceptual models of requirements. Requirements Eng J 8(4):195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Easterbrook S, Nuseibeh B (1996) Using viewpoints for inconsistency management. Software Eng J 11(1):31–43Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finkelstein A, Gabbay D, Hunter A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (1994) Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. IEEE Trans Software Eng 20(8):569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leite JCSP, Freeman PA (1991) Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans Software Eng 17(12):1253–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sommerville I, Sawyer P, Viller S (1998) Viewpoints for requirements elicitation: a practical approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (ICRE ’98), Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 1998, pp 74–81Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis AM, Hickey AM (2002) Requirements researchers: do we practice what we preach? Requirements Eng J 7(2):107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fagan ME (1976) Design and code inspection to reduce errors in program development. IBM Syst J 15(3):182–211Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewis RO (1992) Independent verification and validation: a life cycle engineering process for quality software. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ebenau RG, Strauss SH (1993) Software inspection process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grudin J (1994) Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Commun Assoc Comput Machinery (CACM) 37(1):92–105Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nunamaker JF, Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Vogel DR, George JF (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun Assoc Comput Machinery (CACM) 34(7):30–61Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Groener MK, Arthur JD (2002) Confirming the effectiveness of the requirements generation model: an industry-based empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual Pacific Northwest software quality conference, Portland, Oregon, pp 221–230Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arthur JD, Groener MK, Hayhurst KJ, Holloway CM (1999) Evaluating the effectiveness of independent verification and validation. IEEE Comput 32(10):79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Laeusen S, Vinter O (2001) Preventing requirements defects: an experiment in process improvement. Requirements Eng J 6(1):37–50Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rogers RA, McCaugherty D, Martin F (2001) A case study of IV&V return on investment (ROI). White paper, Titan Systems Corporation, Civil Government Services Group.http://titansystemscorp.com/groups/cgsg/techpapers/IVV_roi_case.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations