Skip to main content

A study to support agile methods more effectively through traceability

Abstract

Traceability is recognized to be important for supporting agile development processes. However, after analyzing many of the existing traceability approaches it can be concluded that they strongly depend on traditional development process characteristics. Within this paper it is justified that this is a drawback to support adequately agile processes. As it is discussed, some concepts do not have the same semantics for traditional and agile methodologies. This paper proposes three features that traceability models should support to be less dependent on a specific development process: (1) user-definable traceability links, (2) roles, and (3) linkage rules. To present how these features can be applied, an emerging traceability metamodel (TmM) will be used within this paper. TmM supports the definition of traceability methodologies adapted to the needs of each project. As it is shown, after introducing these three features into traceability models, two main advantages are obtained: 1) the support they can provide to agile process stakeholders is significantly more extensive, and 2) it will be possible to achieve a higher degree of automation. In this sense it will be feasible to have a methodical trace acquisition and maintenance process adapted to agile processes.

References

  1. Abrahamsson P, Warsta J, Siponen MT, Ronkainen J (2003) New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering (ICSE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 244–254. ISBN:0-7695-1877-X

  2. Ahn S, Chong K (2006) A feature-oriented requirements tracing method: a study of cost-benefit analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on hybrid information technology (ICHIT). IEEE Computer Society, Washington. ISBN 0-7695-2674-8. doi:10.1109/ICHIT.2006.17

  3. Ahn S, Chong K (2007) Requirements change management on feature-oriented requirements tracing. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computational science and its applications (ICCSA), part II, pp 296–307

  4. Aizenbud-Reshef N, Nolan BT, Rubin J, Shaham-Gafni Y (2006) Model traceability. IBM Syst J 45(3): 515–526 ISSN:0018-8670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alexander I, Robertson S, Maiden N (2005) What influences the requirements process in industry? A report on industrial practice. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE05). IEEE CS, pp 411–415

  6. Antoniol G, Berenbach B, Egyed A, Ferguson S, Maletic J, Zisman A (2006) Problem statements and grand challenges in traceability. Technical report COET-GCT-06-01-0.9. Center of Excellence for Traceability, September 2006

  7. Asuncion HU, François F, Taylor RN (2007) An end-to-end industrial software traceability tool. In: ESEC-FSE 2007. ACM, New York, pp 115–124. ISBN:978-1-59593-811-4

  8. Beck (2002) Test driven development: by example. Addison-Wesley, Boston ISBN:0321146530

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beck K, Andres C (2004) Extreme programming explained: embrace change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley. ISBN:0321278658

  10. Berenbach B, Wolf T (2007) A unified requirements model; integrating features, use cases, requirements, requirements analysis and hazard analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on global software engineering (ICGSE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 197–203. ISBN:0-7695-2920-8

  11. Brown AW (2004) Model driven architecture: principles and practice. Softw Syst Model 3(4): 314–327

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cao L, Ramesh B (2008) Agile requirements engineering practices: an empirical study. IEEE Softw 25(1): 60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cerbah F, Euzenat J (2001) Using terminology extraction to improve traceability from formal models to textual requirements. Lect Notes Comput Sci 1959: 115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cleland-Huang J, Chang CK, Christensen M (2003) Event-based traceability for managing evolutionary change. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(9): 796–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cleland-Huang J, Settimi R, Duan C, Zou X (2005) Utilizing supporting evidence to improve dynamic requirements traceability. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (RE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 135–144. ISBN:0-7695-2425-7

  16. Cleland-Huang J, Berenbach B, Clark S, Settimi R, Romanova E (2007) Best practices for automated traceability. IEEE Comput 40(6): 27–35 ISSN:0018-9162

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cockburn A (2000) Selecting a project’s methodology. IEEE Softw 17(4): 64–71. doi:10.1109/52.854070 ISSN:0740-7459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cockburn AAR (1993) The impact of object-orientation on application development. IBM Syst J 32(3): 420–444 ISSN:0018-8670

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. IEEE Computer Society Professional Practices Committee (2004) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK). IEEE

  20. Cunningham W (2002) FIT: framework for integrated test. http://fit.c2.com

  21. Dahlstedt Å, Persson A (2005) Requirements interdependencies: state of the art and future challenges, chapter 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 95–116. ISBN:10-3-540-25043-3, 13-978-3-540-25043-2

  22. Dekhtyar A, Hayes JH, Larsen J (2007) Make the most of your time: how should the analyst work with automated traceability tools? In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on predictor models in software engineering (PROMISE). IEEE Computer Society, New Delhi, p 4. ISBN:0-7695-2954-2

  23. Duan C, Cleland-Huang J (2007) Clustering support for automated tracing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE). ACM, New York, pp 244–253. ISBN:978-1-59593-882-4

  24. Egyed A (2004) Resolving uncertainties during trace analysis. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering (SIGSOFT FSE). ACM Press, pp 3–12. ISBN:1-58113-855-5

  25. Egyed A, Grunbacher P (2002) Automating requirements traceability: beyond the record and replay paradigm. In: Proceedings of the international conference on automated software engineering (ASE). IEEE, pp 163–171

  26. Espinoza A (2009) An advanced traceability schema as a baseline to improve supporting life cycle processess. PhD thesis, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid. http://oa.upm.es/2557/

  27. Espinoza A, Garbajosa J (2008) Tackling traceability challenges through modeling principles in methodologies underpinned by metamodels. In: Proceedings of the CEE-SET WiP. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wroclawskiej, Brno, pp 41–54

  28. Espinoza A, Garbajosa J (2008) A proposal for defining a set of basic items for project-specific traceability methodologies. In: Proceeding of 32nd annual IEEE software engineering workshop (SEW). IEEE Computer Society, Kassandra, pp 175–185. ISBN:978-0-7695-3617-0

  29. Espinoza A, Alarcón PP, Garbajosa J (2006) Analyzing and systematizing current traceability schemas. In: O’Conner L (ed) Proceedings of the IEEE/NASA software engineering workshop (SEW). IEEE Computer Society, Columbia, pp 21–32 ISBN:0-7695-2624-1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Espinoza-Limon A, Garbajosa J (2005) The need for a unifying traceability scheme. In: Oldevik J, Aagedal J (eds) Proceedings: ECMDA traceability workshop (ECMDA-TW). SINTEF ICT, Nuremberg, pp 47–56 ISBN:82-14-03813-8

    Google Scholar 

  31. Evans MW (1989) The software factory. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fitzgerald B, Hartnett G, Conboy K (2006) Customising agile methods to software practices at intel shannon. Eur J Inf Syst 15(2): 200–213. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000605 ISSN:0960-085X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fletcher J, Cleland-Huang J (2006) Softgoal traceability patterns. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on software reliability engineering (ISSRE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 363–374. ISBN:0-7695-2684-5

  34. Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2006) A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Softw Syst Model 5(1): 72–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gonzalez-Perez C, Henderson-Sellers B (2007) Modelling software development methodologies: a conceptual foundation. J Syst Softw 80(11): 1778–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gotel OCZ, Finkelstein CW (1994) An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proceedings of the international conference on requirements engineering (RE). Colorado Springs. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 94–102

  37. Grünbacher P, Hofer C (2002) Complementing XP with requirements negotiation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on eXtreme programming and agile processes in software engineering (XP), Alghero, Sardinia, Italy, pp 105–108

  38. Hayes JH, Dekhtyar A, Osborne J (2003) Improving requirements tracing via information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (RE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, p 138. ISBN:0-7695-1980-6

  39. Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2005) The rationale of powertype-based metamodelling to underpin software development methodologies. In: Proceedings: Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modelling (APCCM’05). Australian Computer Society, Darlinghurst, pp 7–16. ISBN:1-920-68225-2

  40. IEEE (1990) IEEE Std 610.12-1990 IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York

  41. ISO/IEC (2008) ISO/IEC 12207:2008 systems and software engineering—software life cycle processes. ISO/IEC

  42. ISO/IEC 24744 (2007) ISO/IEC 24744:2007 software engineering—metamodel for development methodologies. ISO/IEC

  43. Jackson J (1991) A keyphrase based traceability scheme. In: IEE colloquium, computing and control division, professional group Cl., pp 2/1–2/4

  44. Jane C-H, Habrat R (2007) Visual support in automated tracing. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on requirements engineering visualization, 2007 (REV 2007). IEEE Computer Society, New Delhi, p 4. ISBN:978-0-7695-3248-6

  45. Kaindl H (1993) The missing link in requirements engineering. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 18(2): 30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lago P, Muccini H, van Vliet H (2009) A scoped approach to traceability management. J Syst Softw 82(1): 168–182. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.08.026 ISSN:0164-1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lefering M (1993) An incremental integration tool between requirements engineering and programming in the large. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, 4–6 Jan 1993. IEEE, San Diego, pp 82–89

  48. Lin J, Lin CC, Cleland-Huang J, Settimi R, Amaya J, Bedford G, Berenbach B, Ben Khadra O, Duan C, Zou X (2006) Poirot: a distributed tool supporting enterprise-wide automated traceability. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE’06). IEEE Computer Society, Washington. ISBN:0-7695-2555-5

  49. De Lucia A, Fasano F, Oliveto R, Tortora G (2007) Recovering traceability links in software artifact management systems using information retrieval methods. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 16(4): 13 ISSN:1049-331X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maeder P, Philippow I, Riebisch M (2007) A traceability link model for the unified process. In: Proceedings of the eighth ACIS international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking, and parallel/distributed computing (SNPD 2007). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 700–705. ISBN:0-7695-2909-7

  51. Marcus A, Xie X, Poshyvanyk D (2005) When and how to visualize traceability links? In: TEFSE ’05: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on traceability in emerging forms of software engineering. ACM, New York, pp 56–61. ISBN:1-59593-243-7. doi:10.1145/1107656.1107669

  52. Martin RC, Melnik G (2008) Tests and requirements, requirements and tests: a möbius strip. IEEE Softw 25(1): 54–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Merisalo-Rantanen H, Tuunanen T, Rossi M (2005) Is extreme programming just old wine in new bottles: a comparison of two cases. J Database Manag 16(4): 41–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Morris SJ, Gotel OCZ (2007) Model or mould? A challenge for better traceability. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on modeling in software engineering (MISE). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, p 1. ISBN:0-7695-2953-4

  55. Mugridge R (2008) Managing agile project requirements with storytest-driven development. IEEE Softw 25(1): 68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nawrocki JR, Jasiñski M, Walter B, Wojciechowski A (2002) Extreme programming modified: embrace requirements engineering practices. In: Proceedings: RE’02, pp 303–310

  57. Pikkarainen M, Passoja U (2005) An approach for assessing suitability of agile solutions: a case study. In: Proceedings: XP 2005, pp 171–179

  58. Pilgrim J, Vanhooff B, Schulz-Gerlach I, Berbers Y (2008) Constructing and visualizing transformation chains. In: ECMDA-FA ’08: Proceedings of the 4th European conference on model driven architecture. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–32. ISBN:978-3-540-69095-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69100-6_2

  59. Pinheiro FAC (2003) Requirements traceability. In: Perspectives on software requirements. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–113

  60. Pohl K (1996) PRO-ART: enabling requirements pre-traceability. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on requirements engineering. IEEE, pp 76–84

  61. Pohl K, Dömges R, Jarke M (1997) Towards method-driven trace capture. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE ’97). Springer, London, pp 103–116. ISBN:3-540-63107-0

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Richardson J, Green J (2004) Automating traceability for generated software artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering (ASE ’04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 24–33. ISBN:0-7695-2131-2

  64. Van Schooenderwoert N, Morsicato R (2004) Taming the embedded tiger—agile test techniques for embedded software. In: Proceedings of the agile development conference (ADC’04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 120–126. ISBN:0-7695-2248-3

  65. Schwaber K (2004) Agile project management with scrum. Microsoft Press, Redmond ISBN:073561993X

    Google Scholar 

  66. Spanoudakis G (2002) Plausible and adaptive requirement traceability structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE ’02). ACM Press, New York, pp 135–142. ISBN:1-58113-556-4

  67. Spanoudakis G, Zisman A, Pérez-Miñana E, Krause P (2004) Rule-based generation of requirements traceability relations. J Syst Softw 72(2): 105–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Tabares MS, Moreira A, Anaya R, Arango F, Araujo J (2007) A traceability method for crosscutting concerns with transformation rules. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on software engineering workshops (ICSEW ’07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington. ISBN:0-7695-2830-9

  69. Tekinerdogan B, Hofmann C, Aksit M (2007) Modeling traceability of concerns in architectural views. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on aspect-oriented modeling (AOM ’07). ACM, New York, pp 49–56. ISBN:978-1-59593-658-5

  70. Volzer H, MacDonald A, Hanlon A, Lindsay P (2004) (SubCM): a tool for improved visibility of software change in an industrial setting. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(10): 675–693 ISSN:0098-5589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. von Knethen A, Grund M (2003) Quatrace: a tool environment for (semi-) automatic impact analysis based on traces. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software maintenance (ICSM). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, p 246. ISBN:0-7695-1905-9

  72. Warden S, Shore J (2007) The art of agile development: with extreme programming. O’Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN:0596527675

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research work has been partially sponsored by the Spanish MITyC (FLEXI ITEA2 FIT-340005-2007-37), MICINN (INNOSEP TIN2009-13849, DSDM TIN2007-00889-E) and MEC (OVAL/PM TIN2006-14840). Special thanks to the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) for supporting this research as part of the Doctoral Studies Financing Program.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelina Espinoza.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Espinoza, A., Garbajosa, J. A study to support agile methods more effectively through traceability. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 7, 53–69 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-011-0144-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-011-0144-5

Keywords

  • Traceability methodology
  • Metamodeling
  • Agile methods
  • Test-Driven Development (TDD)
  • Storytest-Driven Development (SDD)
  • ISO-24744:2007 SEMDM