Managing the requirements engineering process

AbstractProcess management is a crucial issue in developing information or computer systems. Theories of software development process management suggest that the process should be supported and managed based on what the process really is. However, our learning from an action research study reveals that the requirements engineering (RE) process differs significantly from that which the current literature tends to describe. The process is not a systematic, smooth and incremental evolution of the requirements model, but involves occasional simplification and restructuring of the requirements model. This revised understanding of the RE process suggests a new challenge to both the academic and industrial communities, demanding new process management approaches. In this paper, we present our understanding of the RE process and its implications for process management.

[1]  Simon P. Davies,et al.  Characterizing the program design activity : neither strictly top-down nor globally opportunistic , 1991 .

[2]  K. Hambridge.  Action research. , 2000, Professional nurse.

[3]  Henri Poincaré.  Science and Method , 1914 .

[4]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[5]  Lemai. Nguyen.  Incorporating design explanation within formal object-oriented method (FOOM) , 2000 .

[6]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[7]  P. Swatman,et al.  THE PROCESS OF DERIVING REQUIREMENTS : LEARNING FROM PRACTICE , 1998 .

[8]  R. Hepburn,et al.  BEING AND TIME , 2010 .

[9]  Raymonde Guindon.  Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts , 1990 .

[10]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  The three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications , 1994, Inf. Syst..

[11]  J. Metcalfe.  Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. , 1986 .

[12]  H. Klein,et al.  Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions , 1991 .

[13]  J. Metcalfe.  Premonitions of insight predict impending error. , 1986 .

[14]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[15]  Pericles Loucopoulos,et al.  System Requirements Engineering , 1995, System Requirements Engineering.

[16]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Analysing the Novice Analyst: Cognitive Models in Software Engineering , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[17]  J. Hadamard,et al.  The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. , 1945 .

[18]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Where Do Requirements Come From? , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[19]  E. Jeffrey Conklin,et al.  A process-oriented approach to design rationale , 1991 .

[20]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Investigating Information Systems with Action Research , 1999, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  Managing the software process , 1989, The SEI series in software engineering.

[22]  Paul A. Swatman.  Formal Object-Oriented Method — Foom , 1996 .

[23]  T. Kuhn.  The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[24]  Willemien Visser.  Designers' activities examined at three levels: organization, strategies and problem-solving processes , 1992, Knowl. Based Syst..

[25]  PA Swatman,et al.  Formal specification – an analytic tool for (management) information systems , 1992, Inf. Syst. J..

[26]  Eugene Miya,et al.  On "Software engineering" , 1985, SOEN.

[27]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  Complementary use of ad hoc and post hoc design rationale for creating and organising process knowledge , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[28]  Trevor Wood-Harper.  Viewpoint: Action research , 1992, Inf. Syst. J..

[29]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  Essential and incidental complexity in requirements models , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Requirements Engineering. ICRE 2000. (Cat. No.98TB100219).

[30]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Conceptual Data Modeling Process: A Study of Novice and Expert Data Modellers , 1994, ORM.

[31]  J. Hadamard,et al.  The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. , 1945 .

[32]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Object-Oriented Metrics , 1995, TOOLS.

[33]  Raymond McCall,et al.  Making argumentation serve design , 1991 .

[34]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[35]  Alan M. Davis,et al.  Software requirements - analysis and specification , 1990 .

[36]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Software engineering (5th ed.) , 1995 .

[37]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified , 1990 .

[38]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[39]  K. C. Burgess Yakemovic,et al.  A Process-Oriented Approach to Design Rationale , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[40]  Donald M. Johnson.  The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. , 1945 .

[41]  Richard M. Young,et al.  Options and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis , 1991 .

[42]  Raymonde Guindon.  The process of knowledge discovery in system design , 1989 .

[43]  Galal H. Galal-Edeen,et al.  Requirements engineering: A good practice , 2000, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[44]  Pericles Loucopoulos,et al.  A generic model for reflective design , 2000, TSEM.

[45]  Philip Banyard,et al.  Thinking & problem solving , 1991 .

[46]  R. Mayer.  Thinking, problem solving, cognition, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[47]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[48]  A. Adam.  Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[49]  Danielle Fowler.  Formal Methods in a Commercial Information Systems Setting: the FOOM Method , 1996 .

[50]  John Bennett,et al.  Reflective conversation with materials , 1996 .

[51]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques , 1998 .

[52]  F. Galton.  Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development , 1883 .

[53]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Using Design Explanation within the Formal Object-Oriented Method , 1999, Requirements Engineering.

[54]  P. Checkland.  From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of action research , 1991 .

[55]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Supplementing process-oriented with structure-oriented design explanation within formal object-oriented method , 1998, Proceedings 1998 Australian Software Engineering Conference (Cat. No.98EX233).

[56]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  Supporting and monitoring the creativity of IS personnel during the requirements engineering process , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[57]  David E. Avison,et al.  Action Programmes for Teaching and Researching in Information Systems , 1991, Australian Computer Journal.

[58]  G. Susman,et al.  An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. , 1978 .

[59]  D. Schoen.  Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .

[60]  Suzanne Robertson,et al.  Mastering the Requirements Process , 1999 .

[61]  W. Edwards Deming,et al.  Out of the Crisis , 1982 .

[62]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[63]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Conceptual Data Modelling in Database Design: Similarities and Differences between Expert and Novice Designers , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..