Advertisement

A Research Preview on TAICOS – Tailoring Stakeholder Interests to Task-Oriented Functional Requirements

  • Philipp HaindlEmail author
  • Reinhold Plösch
  • Christian Körner
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11412)

Abstract

[Context and Motivation] Without a concrete functional context, non-functional requirements can be approached only as cross-cutting concerns and treated uniformly across the feature set of an application. This neglects, however, the heterogeneity of non-functional requirements that arises from stakeholder interests and the distinct functional scopes of software systems. [Question/problem] Earlier studies have shown that the different types and pursued objectives of non-functional requirements result in either vague or unbalanced specification of non-functional requirements. [Principal ideas/results] We propose a task analytic approach for eliciting and modeling user tasks with the software product. Stakeholder interests are structurally related to these user tasks and refined individually as a constraint in the context of each concrete user task. This individual refinement provides DevOps teams with important guidance on how the respective constraint can be satisfied in the software lifecycle and thus how the interest of the stakeholder can be satisfied sufficiently. [Contribution] We provide a structured approach, intertwining task-centered functional requirements with non-functional stakeholder interests to specify constraints on the level of user tasks. The results of a preliminary interview study with domain experts reveal that our task-constraint tailoring method increases the comprehensibility of requirements, clarity and quality of specifications.

Keywords

Stakeholder interests Requirements negotiation Task modeling Constraint specification 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Annett, J.: Hierarchical task analysis. In: The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 67–82. Taylor & Francis, London (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berander, P., Andrews, A.: Requirements prioritization. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 69–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaine, J.D., Cleland-Huang, J.: Software quality requirements: how to balance competing priorities. IEEE Softw. 25(2), 22–24 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourque, P., Fairley, R.E.: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge, 3rd edn. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broy, M.: Rethinking nonfunctional software requirements. Computer 48(5), 96–99 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., do Prado Leite, J.C.S.: On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fotrousi, F., Fricker, S.A., Fiedler, M.: Quality requirements elicitation based on inquiry of quality-impact relationships. In: 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 303–312 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gehmeyr, A., Höfler, W., Kochseder, R., Rettner, J., Horn, S.: Computer-implemented product development method, US Patent no. 15/661,498 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamsweerde, A.V.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 249–262 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Regnell, B., Svensson, R.B., Olsson, T.: Supporting roadmapping of quality requirements. IEEE Softw. 25(2), 42–47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riegel, N., Doerr, J.: A systematic literature review of requirements prioritization criteria. In: Fricker, S.A., Schneider, K. (eds.) REFSQ 2015. LNCS, vol. 9013, pp. 300–317. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16101-3_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rolland, C., Salinesi, C.: Modeling goals and reasoning with them. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 189–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roman, G.C.: A taxonomy of current issues in requirements engineering. Computer 18(4), 14–23 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang, H., Zheng, S., Chu, W.C.C., Tsai, C.T.: Linking functions and quality attributes for software evolution. In: 2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, vol. 1, pp. 250–259 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zowghi, D., Coulin, C.: Requirements Elicitation: A Survey of Techniques, Approaches, and Tools. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 19–46. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Haindl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reinhold Plösch
    • 1
  • Christian Körner
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Business Informatics - Software EngineeringJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria
  2. 2.Siemens AG, Corporate TechnologyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options