Deciding to Adopt Requirements Traceability in Practice

  • Floris Blaauboer
  • Klaas Sikkel
  • Mehmet N. Aydin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4495)

Abstract

The use of requirements traceability for information systems development (ISD) projects is not very common in practice despite its often mentioned advantages in the literature. We conducted a case study in a large IT company to identify the factors that are relevant for the decision whether or not to adopt traceability in an ISD project. Five dominant factors emerged: development organization awareness, customer awareness, return on investment, stakeholder preferences, and process flow. It turned out that the majority of the software development project leaders we interviewed were not aware of the concept of traceability – with the obvious result that using traceability in software project is not even considered. This fact has possibly been underestimated in the present literature of requirements engineering.

Keywords

requirements traceability decision-making requirements engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Robertson, J., Robertson, S.: Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  2. Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: An Analysis of the Requirements Traceability Problem. In: Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering (ICRE’94), pp. 94–101 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. Arkley, P., Riddle, S.: Overcoming the Traceability Benefit Problem. In: 13th IEEE Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering (RE’05), pp. 385–389 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. Ramesh, B.: Factors influencing Requirements Traceability Practice. Communications of the ACM 41(12), 37–44 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ramesh, B., Jarke, M.: Towards Reference Models for Requirements Traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(1), 58–93 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hull, E., et al.: Requirements Engineering, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. INCOSE: INCOSE Requirements Management Tools Survey. International Council on Software Engineering (2006) Retrieved March 6th 2006, from http://www.paper-review.com/tools/rms/read.php
  8. Lindvall, M., Sandahl, K.: Practical Implications of Traceability. Software – Practice and Experience 26(10), 1161–1180 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stout, G.A.: Requirements Traceability and the Effect on the Systems Development Lifecycle. Revere Group whitepaper (2001)Google Scholar
  10. Dorfman, M., Chardon, R.: Early Experience with Requirements Traceability in an Industrial Environment. Industrial presentation. In: 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (ISRE’01) (2001)Google Scholar
  11. Daft, R.L.: Management, 5th edn. Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX (2000)Google Scholar
  12. Matheson, J.E., Howard, R.A.: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. In: Howard, R. A., Matheson, J. E. (eds.) Readings on the principles and applications of decision analysis I. Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 17–55 (1983)Google Scholar
  13. Aydin, M.N.: Decision-Making and Support for Method Adaptation, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2006)Google Scholar
  14. Howard, R.A.: The Evolution of Decision Analysis. In: Howard, R.A., Matheson, J.E. (eds.) Readings on the principles and applications of decision analysis. Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 5–16 (1983)Google Scholar
  15. Rational: Rational Unified Process, version 2003.06.15, IBM (2006)Google Scholar
  16. OGC Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2: The Stationary Office, London, 4th edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  17. ISO 9000-1: Quality systems – Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing. International Organization for Standardization (1994)Google Scholar
  18. Carnegie Mellon SEI: The Capability Maturity Model, Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1999)Google Scholar
  19. US Congress Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Washington, USA, Congress of the United States of America (2002)Google Scholar
  20. Antoniol, G.: Recovering Traceability Links between Code and Documentation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(10), 970–983 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarke, M.: Requirements Traceability. Comm. of the ACM 41(12), 32–36 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research; Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publciations, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  23. Lauesen, S.: Software Requirements: Styles and Technique. Pearson Education Ltd (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Floris Blaauboer
    • 1
  • Klaas Sikkel
    • 2
  • Mehmet N. Aydin
    • 3
  1. 1.Accenture, System Integration & TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of Twente, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, PO Box 217, 7500 AE EnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of Twente, School of Management and Governance, PO Box 217, 7500 AE EnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations