Advertisement

Discovering System Requirements

  • A. Terry Bahill
  • Azad M. Madni
Chapter

Abstract

Customer dissatisfaction, cost overruns, and schedule slippage are often caused by poor requirements that are produced by people who do not understand the requirements process. This section provides an overview of the system requirements process, and explains types, sources, and characteristics of good requirements. System requirements, however, are seldom stated by the customer. Therefore, this section shows ways to help you work with your customer to discover requirements. In addition, it explains terminology commonly used in the requirements development field, such as verification, validation, technical performance measures, and different types of design reviews. Finally, it shows how requirements can be derived directly from the use cases.

Keywords

Stakeholders Volatility Discover Clarify Revise Develop Decompose Allocate Derive Verify Validate Manage Mandatory requirements Trade-off requirements 

References

  1. 1.
    Grady RB (1992) Practical software metrics for project management and process improvement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bahill AT, Dean F (2009) Discovering system requirement. In: Sage AP, Rouse WB (eds) Handbook of systems engineering and management. Wiley, New York, pp 205–266Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahill AT, Karnavas WJ (1992) Bat selector. U.S. Patent Number 5,118,102Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gause DC, Weinberg GM (1990) Are your lights on?: how to figure out what the problem really is. Dorset House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deming WE (1986) Out of the crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Study, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Latzko WJ, Saunders DM (1996) Four days with Dr. Deming: a strategy for modern methods of management. Long Range Plann 29(4):594–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wymore AW (1993) Model-based systems engineering. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neches R, Madni AM (2012) Towards affordably adaptable and effective systems. Syst Eng 16(2):224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madni AM, Jackson S (2009) Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering. IEEE Syst J 3(2):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CMMI for Development (2015) ver 1.3 [cited 2015 December]. http://cmmiinstitute.com/cmmi-models
  12. 12.
    Sommerville I (1989) Software engineering. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Young RR (2001) Effective requirements practices. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young R (2004) Criteria of a good requirement. The requirements engineering handbook. Artech House, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hooks IF, Farry KA (2001) Customer-centered products: creating successful products through smart requirements management. AMACOM Division of American Management Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sneed H (2014) Automated quality assurance of software requirements. Requirements Engineering Magazine, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bahill AT, Botta R (2008) Fundamental principles of good system design. Eng Manag J 20(4):9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hooks I (1994) Writing good requirements. INCOSE International Symposium. Wiley Online Library, pp 1247–1253Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis R, Buchanan BG (1984) Meta-level knowledge. In: Buchanan BG, Shortliffe E (eds) Rulebased expert systems. The MYCIN experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming project. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 507–530Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bahill AT, Botta R, Daniels J (2006) The Zachman framework populated with baseball models. J Enterprise Archit 2(4):50–68Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody JA, Voorhees F, Bahill AT, Chapman WL (1997) Metrics and case studies for evaluating engineering designs. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    NASA (2000) Mars program independent assessment team summary reportGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Botta R, Bahill Z, Bahill AT (2006) When are observable states necessary? Syst Eng 9(3):228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith ED, Son YJ, Piattelli-Palmarini M, Bahill AT (2007) Ameliorating mental mistakes in tradeoff studies. Syst Eng 10(3):222–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daniels J, Werner PW, Bahill AT (2001) Quantitative methods for tradeoff analyses. Syst Eng 4(3):190–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berger C, Blauth R, Boger D, Bolster C, Burchill G, DuMouchel W et al (1993) Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center Quality Manag J 2(4):3–35Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kerzner H (2015) Project management. Wiley-Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chapman WL, Bahill AT, Wymore AW (1992) Engineering modeling and design. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Botta R, Bahill AT (2007) A Prioritization Process. Eng Manag J 19(4):20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karnavas WJ, Sanchez PJ, Bahill AT (1993) Sensitivity analyses of continuous and discrete systems in the time and frequency domains. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23(2):488–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith ED, Szidarovszky F, Karnavas WJ, Bahill AT (2007) Sensitivity analysis, a powerful system validation technique. Open Cybernet Syst J 2(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bahill AT, Szidarovszky F (2009) Comparison of dynamic system modeling methods. Syst Eng 12(3):183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Madni AM, Sievers M (2016) Model based systems engineering: motivation, current status and needed advances systems engineeringGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Madni AM (1988) HUMANE: a knowledge-based simulation environment for human-machine function allocation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 national aerospace and electronics conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shand RM (1994) User manuals as project management tools. II. Practical applications. IEEE Trans Professional Commun 37(3):123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Madni AM (2014) Expanding stakeholder participation in upfront system engineering through storytelling in virtual worlds. Syst Eng 18(1):16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Madni AM, Nance M, Richey M, Hubbard W, Hanneman L (2014) Toward an experiential design language: augmenting model-based systems engineering with technical storytelling in virtual worlds. Procedia Comput Sci 28:848–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    OMG (2015) Documents associated with the unified modeling language (UML). Version 2.5. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/
  39. 39.
    Feynman RP (1949) Space-time approach to quantum electrodynamics. Phys Rev 76(6):769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anderson C, Vanek C, Freeman H, Furlong D, Kirschbaum A, Roy R, et al (1998) Lewis Spacecraft Mission Failure Investigation Board final reportGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bahill AT, Chapman WL (1993) A tutorial on quality function deployment. Eng Manag J 5(3):24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bickness BA, Bicknell KD (1995) The road map to repeatable success: using QFD to implement change. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sage AP (1992) Systems engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shishko R, Aster R (1995) NASA systems engineering handbook. NASA Special PublicationGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jacobson I, Ericsson M, Jacobson A (1995) The object advantage: business process reengineering with object technology. Addison-Wesley, WokinghamGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bahill AT, Daniels J (2003) Using objected-oriented and UML tools for hardware design: a case study. Syst Eng 6(1):28–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Booch G, Henderson-Sellers B, Jacobson I, Mellor S, Rumbaugh J, Wirfs-Brock R (1994) Methodology standards. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 29(10):223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bahill AT, Karnavas WJ (2000) Risk analysis of a pinewood derby: a case study. Syst Eng 3(3):143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Smith ED, Bahill AT (2007) 7.5.2 Risk analysis. INCOSE Int Symp 17(1):1123–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bahill AT, Szidarovszky F, Botta R, Smith ED (2008) Valid models require defined levels. Int J Gen Syst 37(5):553–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chapman WL, Bahill AT (1996) Design modeling and production. In: Dorf RC (ed) The engineering handbook. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 1732–1737Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Martin J (1996) Systems engineering guideline. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rechtin E, Maier M (1996) Systems architecting. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Abadi CD, Bahill AT (2003) The difficulty in distinguishing product from process. Syst Eng 6(2):106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Peña M, Valerdi R (2010) Characterizing the impact of requirements volatility on systems engineering effort. Syst Eng 18(1):59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bahill AT (2012) Diogenes, a process for identifying unintended consequences. Syst Eng 15(3):287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    LaPlue L, Garcia R, Rhodes R (1995) A rigorous method for formal requirements definition. In: Systems engineering in the global market place. 22-6Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Daniels J, Bahill AT (2004) The hybrid process that combines traditional requirements and use cases. Syst Eng 7(4):303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bahill AT, Henderson SJ (2005) Requirements development, verification, and validation exhibited in famous failures. Syst Eng 8(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alistair C (2001) Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jacobson I (2000) Use cases in large-scale systems. Road to the unified process. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Booch G (2005) The unified modeling language user guide. Pearson Education, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gomaa H (2004) Designing software product lines with UML: from use cases to pattern-based software architectures. Addison-Wesley Professional, ReadingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Terry Bahill
    • 1
  • Azad M. Madni
    • 2
  1. 1.Systems and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Astronautical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations