Integrating an Improvement Model of Handling Capacity Requirements with the OpenUP/Basic Process

  • Andreas Borg
  • Mikael Patel
  • Kristian Sandahl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4542)

Abstract

Contemporary software processes and modeling languages have a strong focus on Functional Requirements (FRs), whereas information of Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) are managed with text-based documentation and individual skills of the personnel. In order to get a better understanding of how capacity requirements are handled, we carried out an interview series with various branches of Ericsson. The analysis of this material revealed 18 Capacity Sub-Processes (CSPs) that need to be attended to create a capacity-oriented development. In this paper we describe all these sub-processes and their mapping into an extension of the OpenUP/Basic software process. Such an extension will support a process engineer in realizing the sub-processes, and has at the same time shown that there are no internal inconsistencies of the CSPs. The extension provides a context for continued research in using UML to support negotiation between requirements and existing design.

Keywords

Capacity Requirements OpenUP/Basic Method Plug-in  Eclipse Process Framework Process Improvement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Borg, A., Patel, M., Sandahl, K.: Good Practice and Improvement Model of Handling Capacity Requirements of Large Telecommunication Systems. In: The proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’06), 11-15 September 2006, Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota, USA, pp. 245–250 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cysneiros, L.M., d. Leite, J.C.S.P.: Nonfunctional Requirements: From Elicitation to Conceptual Models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(5), 328–350 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, A.M.: Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eclipse Process Framework Project (EPF) Accessed 28 March 2007, http://www.eclipse.org/epf/
  5. 5.
    Goldkuhl, G., Cronholm, S.: Multi-grounded theory—Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory. In: The proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Research Methodology in Business and Management (ECRM’03), 20-21 March, Reading, UK (2003) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manzoni, L.V., Price, R.T.: Identifying Extensions Required by RUP (Rational Unified Process) to Comply with CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Levels 2 and 3. Transactions on Software Engineering 29(2), 181–192 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OpenUP Component, Accessed 28 March 2007, http://www.eclipse.org/epf/openup_component/openup_index.php
  9. 9.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, C.U., Williams, L.G.: Performance Solutions. A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scaleable Software. Addison-Wesley, London, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P.: Requirements Engineering A Good Practice Guide. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, Reprint June (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Borg
    • 1
  • Mikael Patel
    • 2
  • Kristian Sandahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping UniversitySweden
  2. 2.Ericsson AB, LinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations