Abstract
In a bid to improve requirement traceability techniques, a framework is presented which aims to clarify the link between artefacts, stakeholders who deal with the software, SDLC models, and their stages by providing definitions and classifications. Through finding the missing links using a semantic traceability approach, risk within software project is minimised and the process better understood. Identifying the links will also improve traceability and in doing so support the software development lifecycle. The links found between the artefacts, stakeholders, and SDLC will be stored in an ontology so that they can be put to use in a framework. This paper will discuss why a conceptual framework is a suitable choice for the clarification of the links found. It also discusses the design of this framework, including its features and process. A description of why, to whom, and how this framework will be of benefit is provided. The potential contribution of the framework and its usefulness are also explained, whereby interviews on a target company are carried out and highlight where the tool developed could be improved, as well as the great advantages it provides. This study thus provides an important asset applicable to all sectors of software development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abburu, S.: A survey on ontology reasoners and comparison. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 57(17) (2012)
Angelopoulos, K., Souza, V.E.S., Pimentel, J.: Requirements and architectural approaches to adaptive software systems: a comparative study. In: 2013 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (SEAMS), pp. 23–32. IEEE, May 2013
Bashir, M.F., Qadir, M.A.: Traceability techniques: a critical study. In: 2006 IEEE Multitopic Conference, INMIC 2006, pp. 265–268. IEEE, December 2006
Bourque, P., Fairley, R.E.: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), Version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC (2014)
Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2006)
Denney, E., Fischer, B.: Software certification and software certificate management systems. In: Proceedings of ASE Workshop on Software Certificate Management, SCM 2005, Long Beach, CA, November 2005, pp. 1–5 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/ase.2009.71
Elamin, R., Osman, R.: Towards requirements reuse by implementing traceability in agile development. In: 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), vol. 2, pp. 431–436. IEEE, July 2017
Ghazi, P., Glinz, M.: Challenges of working with artifacts in requirements engineering and software engineering. Requirements Eng. 22(3), 359–385 (2017)
Stout, G.A.: Requirements traceability and the effect on the system development lifecycle (SDLC). In: Systems Development Process Research Paper, pp. 3–17 (2001)
Harris, I.: What does “the discovery of grounded theory” have to say to medical education? Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 8(1), 49–61 (2003)
Horridge, M., Simon, J., Georgina, M., Alan, R., Robert, S., Chris, W.: A practical guide to building owl ontologies using protégé 4 and co-ode tools edition 1.3, p. 107. The University of Manchester (2011)
Helming, J., Maximilian, K., Helmut, N.: Towards traceability from project management to system models. In: 2009 ICSE Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/tefse.2009.5069576
Imenda, S.: Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks? J. Soc. Sci. 38(2), 185–195 (2014)
Jarke, M.: Requirements tracing. Commun. ACM 41(12), 32–36 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1145/290133.290145
Kannenberg, A., Hossein, S.: Why software requirements traceability remains a challenge. CrossTalk J. Defense Softw. Eng. 22(5), 14–19 (2009)
Neuendorf, K.A.: The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage, Los Angeles (2016)
Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology (2001)
Torkar, R., Gorschek, T., Feldt, R., Svahnberg, M., Raja, U.A., Kamran, K.: Requirements traceability: a systematic review and industry case study. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 22(03), 385–433 (2012)
Trieloff, L.: Feature function benefit vs. feature advantage benefit (2014). https://medium.com/@trieloff/feature-function-benefit-vs-feature-advantage-benefit-4d7f29d5a70b. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
Flynt, J.P., Salem, O.: Software Engineering for Game Developers. Software Engineering Series. Course Technology PTR (2004)
Liskin, O.: How artifacts support and impede requirements communication. In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 132–147 (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gazzawe, F., Lock, R., Dawson, C. (2020). Traceability Framework for Requirement Artefacts. In: Arai, K., Kapoor, S., Bhatia, R. (eds) Intelligent Computing. SAI 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1228. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52249-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52249-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52248-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52249-0
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)