Towards a deeper understanding of quality in requirements engineering

  • John Krogstie
  • Odd Ivar Lindland
  • Guttorm Sindre
Requirements Engineering
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 932)


The notion of quality in requirements specifications is poorly understood, and in most literature only bread and butter lists of useful properties have been provided. However, the recent frameworks of Lindland et al. and Pohl have tried to take a more systematic approach. In this paper, these two frameworks are reviewed and compared. Although they have different outlook, their deeper structures are not contradictory.

The paper also discusses shortcomings of the two frameworks and proposes extensions to the framework of Lindland et al. The extensions build on social construction theory and the resulting framework should contribute to understanding quality in requirements engineering and conceptual modelling.


Requirements engineering conceptual modelling quality social construction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Berger and T. Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin, 1966.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. W. Boehm. Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Software, 1:75–88, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bråten. Dialogens vilkår i datasamfunnet (In Norwegian). Universitetsforlaget, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Conklin and M. J. Begeman. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(4):303–331, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Dahlbom. The idea that reality is socialy constructed. In Floyd et al. [8], pages 101–126.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. M. Davis. Software Requirements Analysis & Specification. Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. E. Fenton, editor. Software Metrics — A Rigorous Approach. Chapman & Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Floyd, H. Züllighoven, R. Budde, and R. Keil-Slawik, editors. Software Development and Reality Construction. Springer Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Gjersvik. The Construction of Information Systems in Organization: An Action Research Project on Technology, Organizational Closure, Reflection, and Change. PhD thesis, ORAL, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Goguen. Requirements engineering: Reconciliation of technical and social issues. Technical report, Centre for Requirementss and Foundations, Oxford University, Cambridge, England, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    U. Hahn, M. Jarke, and T. Rose. Group work in software projects: Integrated conceptual models and collaboration tools. In S. Gibbs and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart, editors, Multi-User Interfaces and Applications: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.4 Conference on Multi-User Interfaces and Applications, pages 83–102. North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Jarke, J. Bubenko, C. Rolland, A. Sutcliffe, and Y. Vassiliou. Theories underlying requirements engineering: An overview of NATURE at genesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'93), pages 19–31, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Krogstie, O. I. Lindland, and G. Sindre. Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In E. D. Falkenberg et al., editor, Information Systems Concepts, Proc. ISCO3, Marburg, Germany. North-Holland, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. H. Kung. An analysis of three conceptual models with time perspective. In Olle et al., editor, Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature Analysis, pages 141–168. North-Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. C. S. P. Leite and P. A. Freeman. Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(12):1253–1269, December 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Lindgren ed. A framework of information systems concepts. Technical Report Interrim report, FRISCO, May 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O. I. Lindland, G. Sindre, and A. Sølvberg. Understanding quality in conceptual modelling. IEEE Software, pages 42–49, April 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. D. McGregor and T. D. Korson. Integrated object-oriented testing and development processes. Communications of the ACM, 37(9), 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. W. Orlikowski and D. C. Gash. Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2):174–207, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Pohl. The three dimensions of requirements engineering: A framework and its applications. Information Systems, 19(3):243–258, April 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Rittel. On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Bedriftsøkonomen, (8), 1972.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. C. Roman. A taxonomy of current issues in requirements engineering. IEEE Computer, pages 14–22, April 1985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. H. Seltveit. An abstraction-based rule approach to large-scale information systems development. In C. Rolland, F. Bodart, and C. Cauvet, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'93), pages 328–351, Paris, France, June 8–11 1993. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Siddiqi. Challenging universal truths of requirements engineering. IEEE Software, pages 18–19, March 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. T. Yeh, P. Zave, A. P. Conn, and G. E. Cole Jr. Software requirements: New directions and perspectives. In C. Vick and C. Ramamoorthy, editors, Handbook of Software Engineering, pages 519–543. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  • Odd Ivar Lindland
    • 1
  • Guttorm Sindre
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations