Advertisement

Abstract

Requirements evolution is a main driver for systems evolution. Traditionally, requirements evolution is associated to changes in the users’ needs and environments. In this paper, we explore another cause for requirements evolution: assumptions. Requirements engineers often make assumptions stating, for example, that satisfying certain sub-requirements and/or correctly executing certain system functionalities would lead to reach a certain requirement. However, assumptions might be, or eventually become, invalid. We outline an approach to monitor, at runtime, the assumptions in a requirements model and to evolve the model to reflect the validity level of such assumptions. We introduce two types of requirements evolution: autonomic (which evolves the priorities of system alternatives based on their success/failure in meeting requirements) and designer-supported (which detects loci in the requirements model containing invalid assumptions and recommends designers to take evolutionary actions).

Keywords

Requirements Engineering Requirements Evolution Contextual Requirements Requirements at Runtime 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lam, W., Loomes, M.: Requirements evolution in the midst of environmental change: a managed approach. In: Proceedings of CSMR 1998, pp. 121–127 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harker, S.D.P., Eason, K.D., Dobson, J.E.: The change and evolution of requirements as a challenge to the practice of software engineering. In: Proceedings of RE 2003, pp. 266–272 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finkelstein, A., Savigni, A.: A framework for requirements engineering for context-aware services. In: Proceedings of STRAW 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salifu, M., Yu, Y., Nuseibeh, B.: Specifying monitoring and switching problems in context. In: Proceedings of RE 2007, pp. 211–220 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: A goal modeling framework for self-contextualizable software. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 29, pp. 326–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartmann, H., Trew, T.: Using feature diagrams with context variability to model multiple product lines for software supply chains. In: Proceedings of SPLC 2008, pp. 12–21 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modeling and analysis. Requirements Engineering 15, 439–458 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu, E.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raian Ali
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fabiano Dalpiaz
    • 1
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 1
  • Vítor E. Silva Souza
    • 1
  1. 1.DISIUniversity of TrentoItaly
  2. 2.LEROThe Irish Software Engineering Research CentreItaly

Personalised recommendations