A Framework for Predicting Person-Effort on Requirements Changes

Requirements changes are normally reviewed by change control committees, who examine costs and consider consequences of additions, deletions and modifications to a piece of software. In order to predict the person effort required for a change, it is important to understand the reasons for the change as the nature of a change is characterized by its attributes which may be inherited and may be internal or external. The activities involved in supplying information for, and approving a requirements change can be time-consuming and complicated. As a result, there is a need to understand the relationships between requirements change characteristics and their attributes, and the level of effort. This paper presents a framework designed to address requirements change relationships. Our approach uses content analysis to study existing change control forms, and a detailed literature review. The contributions of this paper are two fold; firstly, we wish to improve the process of reviewing and approving requirements changes by change management committees. Secondly, we wish to assist project managers in better planning for requirements changes through more accurate prediction of person-effort required for a requirements change.

[1]  Capers Jones,et al.  Software Project Management Practices: Failure Versus Success © , 2004 .

[2]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  A study of the impact of requirements volatility on software project performance , 2002, Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, 2002..

[3]  Joseph Kasser 3.5.1 A Prototype Tool for Improving the Wording of Requirements , 2002 .

[4]  Thomas E. Bell,et al.  Software requirements: Are they really a problem? , 1976, ICSE '76.

[5]  Yashwant K. Malaiya,et al.  Requirements volatility and defect density , 1999, Proceedings 10th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (Cat. No.PR00443).

[6]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Software errors and complexity: an empirical investigation0 , 1984, CACM.

[7]  Ivy Hooks,et al.  WRITING GOOD REQUIREMENTS , 1994 .

[8]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[9]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  Combination of software development effort prediction intervals: why, when and how? , 2002, SEKE '02.

[10]  Martin Loomes,et al.  Requirements evolution in the midst of environmental change: a managed approach , 1998, Proceedings of the Second Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering.

[11]  Martin L. Shooman,et al.  Types, distribution, and test and correction times for programming errors , 1975 .

[12]  George E. Stark,et al.  An examination of the effects of requirements changes on software maintenance releases , 1999 .

[13]  Stephan Jacobs Introducing measurable quality requirements: a case study , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188).

[14]  Sunita Devnani-Chulani,et al.  Incorporating Bayesian Analysis to Improve the Accuracy of COCOMO II and Its Quality Model Extension , 1998 .

[15]  Lorin J. May Major Causes of Software Project Failures , 2007 .

[16]  Magne Jørgensen,et al.  An effort prediction interval approach based on the empirical distribution of previous estimation accuracy , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[17]  George E. Stark,et al.  Measurements for managing software maintenance , 1996, 1996 Proceedings of International Conference on Software Maintenance.

[18]  Pete Sawyer,et al.  Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide , 1997 .

[19]  Donald Firesmith,et al.  Specifying Good Requirements , 2003, J. Object Technol..

[20]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Evaluation of a software requirements document by analysis of change data , 1981, ICSE '81.