Advertisement

Analysis of Techniques for Documenting User Requirements

  • Michel dos Santos Soares
  • Daniel Souza Cioquetta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7336)

Abstract

A number of approaches were proposed in past years to document user requirements. Choosing the most suitable one is difficult, and frequently based on ad-hoc decision. In order to assist the way requirements engineers choose, an evaluation is necessary. The purpose of this paper is to analyze methods and languages used for user requirements documentation considering a number of criteria. This analysis was performed after extensive literature research and action research at companies that develop software-intensive systems. The objective is not to show how to find the best technique, the one that will perfectly suit all software projects. Instead, our purpose is to propose a critical view on a number of chosen techniques that might be useful for practitioners when choosing which technique to use on a specific project. The assumption is that stakeholders can benefit from knowing which techniques fit better a number of pre-determined evaluation criteria.

Keywords

User Requirements Technique Evaluation Requirements Documentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abran, A., Bourque, P., Dupuis, R., Moore, J.W., Tripp, L.L. (eds.): Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge - SWEBOK, 2004 version edn. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.R.: Formal Methods: Theory Becoming Practice. Journal of Universal Computer Science 13(5), 619–628 (2007)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anda, B., Hansen, K., Gullesen, I., Thorsen, H.K.: Experiences from Introducing UML-based Development in a Large Safety-Critical Project. Empirical Software Engineering 11(4), 555–581 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avison, D.E., Lau, F., Myers, M.D., Nielsen, P.A.: Action Research. Communications of the ACM 42(1), 94–97 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balmelli, L., Brown, D., Cantor, M., Mott, M.: Model-driven Systems Development. IBM Systems Journal 45(3), 569–586 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baskerville, R.: Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of the AIS 2(4), 1–32 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beneken, G., Hammerschall, U., Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., Schoenmakers, M.: Componentware - State of the Art 2003. In: Proceedings of the CUE Workshop Venedig (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berry, D.M.: The Inevitable Pain of Software Development: Why There Is No Silver Bullet. In: Wirsing, M., Knapp, A., Balsamo, S. (eds.) RISSEF 2002. LNCS, vol. 2941, pp. 50–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software and Its Impact: A Quantitative Assessment. Datamation 19(5), 48–59 (1973)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Booch, G.: The Economics of Architecture-First. IEEE Software 24, 18–20 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G.: Seven More Myths of Formal Methods. IEEE Software 12(4), 34–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooks, F.P.: No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Computer 20(4), 10–19 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Browne, G.J., Ramesh, V.: Improving Information Requirements Determination: A Cognitive Perspective. Information Management 39(8), 625–645 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broy, M.: From “Formal Methods” to System Modeling. In: Jones, C.B., Liu, Z., Woodcock, J. (eds.) Formal Methods and Hybrid Real-Time Systems. LNCS, vol. 4700, pp. 24–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Connor, A.M., Buchan, J., Petrova, K.: Bridging the Research-Practice Gap in Requirements Engineering through Effective Teaching and Peer Learning. In: ITNG 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, pp. 678–683. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper, K., Ito, M.: Formalizing a Structured Natural Language Requirements Specification Notation. In: Proceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineering Symposium, vol. CDROM index 1.6.2, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 1–8 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Damian, D., Zowghi, D., Vaidyanathasamy, L., Pal, Y.: An Industrial Case Study of Immediate Benefits of Requirements Engineering Process Improvement at the Australian Center for Unisys Software. Empirical Software Engineering 9(1-2), 45–75 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How Do Practitioners Use Conceptual Modelling in Practice? Data Knowledge Engineering 58(3), 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, A.M.: The Art of Requirements Triage. Computer 36(3), 42–49 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis, J.F.: The Affordable Application of Formal Methods to Software Engineering. ACM SIGAda Ada Letters XXV(4), 57–62 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is Used. Communications of the ACM 49(5), 109–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Easterbrook, S., Nuseibeh, B.: Using ViewPoints for inconsistency management. Software Engineering Journal 11(1), 31–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Easterbrrok, S., Nuseibeh, B.: Using ViewPoints for inconsistency management. Software Engineering Journal 11(1), 31–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Genuchten, M.: Why is Software Late? An Empirical Study of Reasons For Delay in Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(6), 582–590 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: UML - the Good, the Bad or the Ugly? Perspectives from a panel of experts. Software and System Modeling 4(1), 4–13 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hofmann, H.F., Lehner, F.: Requirements Engineering as a Success Factor in Software Projects. IEEE Software 18(4), 58–66 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hurley, R.B.: Decision Tables in Software Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1983)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    IEEE: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. Tech. rep. (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jacobson, I.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jacobson, I.: Use Cases - Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Software and System Modeling 3(3), 210–220 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jiang, L., Eberlein, A., Far, B., Mousavi, M.: A Methodology for the Selection of Requirements Engineering Techniques. Software and Systems Modeling 7, 303–328 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M., Silva, A.: Is the European Industry Moving Toward Solving Requirements Engineering Problems? IEEE Software 19(6), 70–77 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kamsties, E.: Understanding Ambiguity in Requirements Engineering. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 245–266. Springer, Berlin (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Komi-Sirviö, S., Tihinen, M.: Great Challenges and Opportunities of Distributed Software Development - An Industrial Survey. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2003), pp. 489–496 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Larsen, P.G., Fitzgerald, J., Brookes, T.: Applying Formal Specification in Industry. IEEE Software 13(3), 48–56 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luisa, M., Mariangela, F., Pierluigi, I.: Market Research for Requirements Analysis Using Linguistic Tools. Requirements Engineering 9(1), 40–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maiden, N., Rugg, G.: ACRE: Selecting Methods for Requirements Acquisition. Software Engineering Journal 11(3), 183–192 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Minor, O., Armarego, J.: Requirements Engineering: a Close Look at Industry Needs and Model Curricula. Australian Journal of Information Systems 13(1), 192–208 (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Raimundas Matulevičius, R.: Visual Syntax Does Matter: Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of the i* Visual Notation. Requirements Engineering 15(2), 141–175 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    OMG: Systems Modeling Language (SysML) - Version 1.2 (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., Lormans, M., van Solingen, R.: Requirements Engineering: Dealing with the Complexity of Sociotechnical Systems Development., ch. 1, pp. 1–20. IdeaGroup Inc. (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Robertson, S., Robertson, J.: Mastering the Requirements Process, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Robinson, W.N., Pawlowski, S.D., Volkov, V.: Requirements Interaction Management. ACM Computing Surveys 35(2), 132–190 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sharon, I., Soares, M.S., Barjis, J., van den Berg, J., Vrancken, J.L.M.: A Decision Framework for Selecting a Suitable Software Development Process. In: Proceedings of ICEIS 2010, 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. vol. 3, pp. 34–43 (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Simons, A.J.H.: Use Cases Considered Harmful. In: TOOLS 1999: Proceedings of the Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, pp. 194–203 (1999)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Soares, M.S., Vrancken, J.L.M.: Evaluation of UML in Practice - Experiences in a Traffic Management Systems Company. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2010, pp. 313–319 (2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Soares, M.S., Vrancken, J.L.M., Verbraeck, A.: User Requirements Modeling and Analysis of Software-Intensive Systems. Journal of Systems and Software 84(2), 328–339 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 9th edn. Addison-Wesley, Essex (2010)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sommerville, I., Kotonya, G.: Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1998)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P., Viller, S.: Managing process inconsistency using viewpoints. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25, 784–799 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P., Viller, S.: Viewpoints for Requirements Elicitation: A Practical Approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering: Putting Requirements Engineering to Practice, ICRE 1998, pp. 74–81 (1998)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    The Standish Group: CHAOS Chronicles v3.0. Tech. rep., The Standish Group (2003) (last accessed on the August 20, 2009)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wassyng, A., Lawford, M.: Lessons Learned from a Successful Implementation of Formal Methods in an Industrial Project. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 133–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Woodcock, J., Larsen, P.G., Bicarregui, J., Fitzgerald, J.: Formal Methods: Practice and Experience. ACM Computing Surveys 41(4), 1–36 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yu, E.S.: Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. In: International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 226–235 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel dos Santos Soares
    • 1
  • Daniel Souza Cioquetta
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Faculty (FACOM)Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU)UberlândiaBrazil

Personalised recommendations