Advertisement

A Taxonomy of Software’s Non-functional Requirements

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 379)

Abstract

Software requirements are divided into two parts, FRs and NFRs. FRs determine the functionality, while, NFRs determine how a system is supposed to be. In the literature, we have identified that most of the work is related to FRs. NFRs have received less attention by goal-oriented requirements engineering community. The aim of this paper is to present taxonomy of non-functional requirements so that the requirements analyst can easily identify different types of NFRs according to their needs in the early phase of requirements engineering.

Keywords

Non-functional requirements Types of non-functional requirements Classification 

References

  1. 1.
    Chung, L., Nixon, A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J. et al.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ebert, C.: Putting requirements managements into praxis: dealing with non-functional requirements. Inform. Softw. Technol. 40, 175–185 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Firesmith, D.: Using quality models to engineer quality requirements. J. Object Technol. 2, 67–75 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D.: Constructing a catalogue of conflicts among non-functional requirements. In: Maciaszek, L.A., Loucopoulos, P. (eds.) ENASE 2010, CCIS 230, pp. 31–44, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer Publishers, London (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    IEEE Standard 1061-1992: Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glinz, M.: On non-functional requirements. In: 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 21–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brietman, K.K., Leite, J.C., Finklelstein, S.P.: The World’s Stage A Survey on Requirements Engineering Using a Real-Life Case Study. Braz. Comput. Soc. 6, 13–38 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finkelstein, A., Dowell, J.: A comedy of errors: the London service case study. In: Eight International Workshop Software Specification and Design, pp. 2–5 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., MacLeod, G.J., Merritt, M.J.: Characteristics of Software Quality. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roman, G.-C.: A taxonomy of current issues in requirements engineering. IEEE Computer, pp. 14–21 April 1985Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grady, R., Caswell, D.: Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-wide Program. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001(E): Software Engineering—Product Quality—Part 1: Quality Model (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N.: An investigation into the notion on non-functional requirements. SAC10, pp. 22–26, Sierre Switzerland, March 2010Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Sadiq, M., Jain, S.K.: A fuzzy based approach for the selection in goal oriented requirements elicitation process. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sadiq, M., Jain, S.K.: An Insight into Requirements Engineering Processes. In: International Conference of Advance in Communication, Networking and Computing (CNC), LNCSIT, pp. 313–318. Springer, India (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadiq, M., Jain, S.K.: Applying fuzzy preference relation for requirements prioritization in goal oriented requirements elicitation process. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manage. Springer 5(4), 711–723 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sadiq, M., Jain, S.K.: A fuzzy based approach for requirements prioritization in goal oriented requirements elicitation process. In: International Conference of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), pp. 54–58. USA (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sadiq, M., Jain, S.K.: Stakeholders identification methods in goal oriented requirements elicitation process. In: Fifth IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Prioritization and Communication at IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 25–33, Karlskrona, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shahnawaz, A., Sadiq, M.: Goal oriented mind map generation method for requirements elicitation process. In: IEEE International Conference on Futuristic Trends in Computational analysis and Knowledge management, (A-BLAZE), organized by Amity University, Greater Noida, India 2015 (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadiq, M., Shahnawaz, A., Arif, M.: Intertwining of Recommender Systems with GOMMG method for Requirements Elicitation. In: International Conference on Innovative Trends in Computing Technology and Mathematica-2015, Organized by Delhi Institute of Technology and management, Sonepat, Haryana, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boehm, B., In, H.: Identifying Quality-Requirement Conflicts. IEEE Software, pp. 25–35 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chung, L., Sampaio do Prado Liete, J.C.: On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Borgida, A.T. et al. (eds.) Mylopoulos Festschrif, LNCS 5600, pp. 363–379, 2009. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chung, L.: Representing and Using Non-Functional Requirements: A Process Oriented Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Comp. Science. University of Toronto, June 1993. Also tech. Rep. DKBS-TR-91-1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and TechnologyAl-Falah UniversityDhauj, FaridabadIndia
  2. 2.Computer Engineering Section, UPFETJamia Millia Islamia (A Central University)New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations