Skip to main content

The illusion of requirements in software development

Abstract

This viewpoint explores the possibility that many software development projects may have no useful requirements. Specifically, for problems (e.g., knowledge worker burnout) with two completely different solutions (e.g., better tool support or hire more employees), an analyst may state a goal (e.g., decrease work hours) but more specific desiderata are contingent on the chosen solution. Furthermore, without fully exploring the design space, the designer cannot be sure whether there exists another approach, which would achieve the goal without any commonality with known approaches. In these situations of sparse requirements, analysts may misrepresent design decisions as requirements, creating an illusion of requirements in software development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Boehm B (1991) Software risk management: principles and practices. IEEE Softw 8(1):32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J (1999) The unified software development process. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ewusi-Mensah K (2003) Software development failures. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Standish Group (2009) CHAOS summary 2009. Boston, MA, USA http://www.standishgroup.com/newsroom/chaos_2009.php

  5. 5.

    IEEE (1998) IEEE Standard 830-1998: recommended practice for software requirements specifications. http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/830-1998.html

  6. 6.

    Topi H, Valacich JS, Wright RT, Kaiser KM, Nunamaker JF, Sipior JC, Vreede GJd (2010) IS 2010: curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in information systems. Communications of association for information systems 26:Article 18. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol26/iss1/18/

  7. 7.

    Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula (2004) Software engineering 2004: curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in software engineering. In: Díaz-Herrera JL, Hilburn TB (eds). http://sites.computer.org/ccse/SE2004Volume.pdf

  8. 8.

    Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Brooks FP (2010) The design of design: essays from a computer scientist. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ralph P (2011) Introducing an empirical model of design. Paper presented at the 6th Mediterranean conference on information systems, Limassol, Cyprus, 3–5 Sep

  11. 11.

    Davis AM, Zowghi D (2006) Good requirements practices are neither necessary nor sufficient. Requir Eng 11(1):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Shenhar AJ, Dvir D, Levy O, Maltz AC (2001) Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plan 34(6):699–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    van Lamsweerde A (2001) A goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, Aug, pp 249–262

  14. 14.

    Sutcliffe A, Thew S, Jarvis P (2011) Experience with user-centred requirements engineering. Requir Eng 16(4):267–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer international series in software engineering, vol 5. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fuxman A, Liu L, Mylopoulos J, Pistore M, Roveri M, Traverso P (2004) Specifying and analyzing early requirements in tropos. Requir Eng 9(2):132–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ralph P, Wand Y (2009) A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. In: Lyytinen K, Loucopoulos P, Mylopoulos J, Robinson W (eds) Design requirements engineering: a ten-year perspective. Lecture notes on business information processing, vol 14. Springer, Berlin, pp 103–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bahill AT, Dean FF (2009) Discovering system requirements. In: Sage AP, Rouse WB (eds) Handbook of systems engineering and management, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 205–266

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bourque P, Dupuis R (eds) (2004) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK). IEEE Computer Society Press, Silver Spring

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yu E (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the third IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 226–235

  21. 21.

    Roman G-C (1985) A taxonomy of current issues in requirements engineering. Computer 18(4):14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gotel O, Finkelstein A (1994) An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: First international conference on requirements engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 94–101

  23. 23.

    Ramesh B, Jarke M (2001) Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(1):58–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q 30(3):611–642

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Parsons J, Saunders C (2004) Cognitive heuristics in software engineering: applying and extending anchoring and adjustment to artifact reuse. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30:873–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Oswald ME, Grosjean S (2004) Confirmation bias. In: Pohl RF (ed) Cognitive illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press, Hove, pp 79–96

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ralph P (2011) Toward a theory of debiasing software development. In: Wrycza S (ed) Research in systems analysis and design: models and methods: In 4th SIGSAND/PLAIS EuroSymposium 2011. LNBIP, vol 93. Springer, Gdansk, Poland. pp 92–105

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Ralph.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ralph, P. The illusion of requirements in software development. Requirements Eng 18, 293–296 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0161-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Requirement
  • Goal
  • Design
  • Fundamentals
  • Philosophy
  • Ontology
  • Epistemology