Reducing Excess Requirements Through Orthogonal Categorizations During Problem Formulation: Results of a Factorial Experiment

Problem formulation lays at the heart of systems engineering. While an over-constrained solution space may yield no satisficing solution affordably, properly defined solution spaces may enable developing solutions with high levels of affordability. Therefore, effective requirement elicitation from stakeholder needs is key to achieve a proper definition of the problem to be solved. Categorizing requirements according to predefined taxonomies is an inherent part of this activity and they are as diverse as engineering industries are. Conventional approaches, which use a designer-perspective, a contractual perspective, or a combination of both, facilitate the generation of excess facilitate the generation of excess requirements during requirements elicitation due to promoted design biases and overlaps between the different categories. In order to mitigate those problems, orthogonal, system-centric categorization methods have been proposed as a potential solution. Yet, research has not measured the influence of any type of requirement taxonomy on the effectiveness in defining solution spaces of maximum size, i.e., without excess requirements with respect to a given set of stakeholder needs. In order to fill in this gap, this paper presents the results of a factorial experiment involving systems engineering practitioners that compares the effectiveness in eliciting less excess requirements of an orthogonal, system-centric categorization method versus traditional ones.

[1]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information systems failures—a survey and classification of the empirical literature , 1988 .

[2]  Barry W. Boehm Understanding and Controlling Software Costs , 1988 .

[3]  Jeremy Dick,et al.  Requirements Engineering , 2002, Springer International Publishing.

[4]  Ichiro Nagasaka,et al.  Requirements and Theories of Meaning , 2007 .

[5]  Nan Niu,et al.  Using soft systems methodology to improve requirements practices: an exploratory case study , 2011, IET Softw..

[6]  Thomas Gilb,et al.  Towards the engineering of requirements , 1997, Requirements Engineering.

[7]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[8]  T. Higgins Book reviewSystems engineering handbook: edited by R. E. Machol, W. P. Tanner, Jr., and S. N. Alexander. 1054 pages, diagrams, illustr., New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965. Price, $29.50 , 1966 .

[9]  Wil A. H. Thissen Issue formulation in a multi-actor context: a five-step approach , 2000, Smc 2000 conference proceedings. 2000 ieee international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. 'cybernetics evolving to systems, humans, organizations, and their complex interactions' (cat. no.0.

[10]  A. Wayne Wymore,et al.  Model-based systems engineering , 1993 .

[11]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  A framework for understanding creativity in requirements engineering , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  A Categorization Model of Requirements Based on Max‐Neef's Model of Human Needs , 2013, Syst. Eng..

[13]  Pj Clarkson,et al.  REQUIREMENTS CAPTURE FOR MEDICAL DEVICE DESIGN , 2003 .

[14]  Gerald M. Weinberg The Quality Software Management , 1997 .

[15]  Stefan Wagner,et al.  Field study on requirements engineering: Investigation of artefacts, project parameters, and execution strategies , 2012, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[16]  Ronald S. Carson,et al.  Requirements Completeness : A Deterministic Approach , 1998 .

[17]  Rashmi Jain,et al.  Exploring the Impact of Systems Architecture and Systems Requirements on Systems Integration Complexity , 2008, IEEE Systems Journal.

[18]  Manfred A. Max-Neef Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections , 1989 .

[19]  Lawrence D. Pohlmann,et al.  The Engineering Design of Systems – Models and Methods , 2000 .

[20]  Jorge J. Gómez-Sanz,et al.  Requirements Elicitation and Analysis of Multiagent Systems Using Activity Theory , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[21]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  The Tension Matrix and the Concept of Elemental Decomposition: Improving Identification of Conflicting Requirements , 2017, IEEE Systems Journal.

[22]  Dennis M. Buede Integrating requirements development and decision analysis , 1997, 1997 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation.

[23]  K. T. Yeo,et al.  Critical failure factors in information system projects , 2002 .

[24]  Dennis M. Buede,et al.  The Engineering Design of Systems , 2009 .

[25]  William Brace,et al.  FROM REQUIREMENTS TO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS - A FORMAL APPROACH , 2010 .

[26]  Janis A. Bubenko,et al.  Requirements Engineering and Technology Transfer: Obstacles, Incentives and Improvement Agenda , 2002, Requirements Engineering.

[27]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  A contribution to the scientific foundations of systems engineering: Solution spaces and requirements , 2017 .

[28]  S. Gevorgian Ferroelectrics in Microwave Devices, Circuits and Systems , 2009 .

[29]  Gianfranco Lamperti,et al.  AMMETH: a methodology for requirements analysis of advanced human-system interfaces , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[30]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  The Concept of Order of Conflict in Requirements Engineering , 2016, IEEE Systems Journal.

[31]  Steve McConnell From the Editor - An Ounce of Prevention , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[32]  Bapat Vikram,et al.  Requirements-Driven Design Computations in Next-Generation Cad , 2007 .

[33]  Robin A. Gandhi,et al.  Ontology-based active requirements engineering framework , 2005, 12th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC'05).

[34]  Jos L. M. Vrancken,et al.  Requirements specification and modeling through SysML , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[35]  Roshanak Nilchiani,et al.  Increasing the Probability of Developing Affordable Systems by Maximizing and Adapting the Solution Space , 2014, CSER.

[36]  Danish Dada The Failure of E‐Government in Developing Countries: A Literature Review , 2006, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries..

[37]  Paul Collopy,et al.  Aerospace System Value Models: A Survey and Observations , 2009 .

[38]  5.1.3 Requirements Completeness , 2004 .

[39]  James Bret Michael,et al.  End-to-End Formal Specification, Validation, and Verification Process: A Case Study of Space Flight Software , 2013, IEEE Systems Journal.