Managing requirements in a co-evolution context

Complex artefacts, such as information systems (IS), have multiple aspects and components: business processes, databases, architecture, or software. It is generally agreed that all these should be kept consistent over time. One major issue to preserve consistency is when required evolutions affect multiple aspects or components of the system at the same time. As each evolution requirement can have an impact onto several projects, teams, engineering domains, viewpoints, or system components, the question of "is the consistency link preserved by this requirement?" has to be continuously raised. This paper presents: (i) a framework that defines challenges for RE caused by coevolution; and (ii) an approach to solve some of these RE-related coevolution challenges. The framework was developed based on our experience in three IS evolution projects: ERP installation, baselining of an IS across subsidiaries, and business process improvement driven IS evolution. Each challenge identified in the framework is discussed with respect to our experience with practice and state of the art methods. Our approach was developed for the business process improvement driven IS evolution project, then generalised for the IS baselining project. The approach is presented, and then illustrated with the case of the latter project.

[1]  Jacob L. Cybulski,et al.  Reusing UML specifications in a constrained application domain , 1998, Proceedings 1998 Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (Cat. No.98EX240).

[2]  Akila Sarirete,et al.  Similarity Measure in the Object Model , 2007 .

[3]  Thierry Bodhuin,et al.  Impact Analysis for Supporting the Co-Evolution of Business Processes and Supporting Software Systems , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[4]  Jay Banerjee,et al.  Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object-oriented databases , 1987, SIGMOD '87.

[5]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Deriving tabular event-based specifications from goal-oriented requirements models , 2003, Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2003..

[6]  James J. Alpigini,et al.  USING GRAMMAR-ORIENTED OBJECT DESIGN TO SEAMLESSLY MAP BUSINESS MODELS TO COMPONENT-BASED SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURES , 2001 .

[7]  Eric Yu,et al.  Agent orientation as a modelling paradigm , 2001, Wirtschaftsinf..

[8]  Pericles Loucopoulos,et al.  Aligning Legacy Information Systems to Business Processes , 1998, CAiSE.

[9]  Tom Mens,et al.  On the Evolution Complexity of Design Patterns , 2005, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Pnina Soffer Fit Measurement: How to Distinguish Between Fit and Misfit , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[11]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Matching ERP system functionality to customer requirements , 2001, Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[12]  M M Lehman J F Ramil,et al.  Evolution as a Noun and Evolution as a Verb , 2000 .

[13]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Workflow Evolution , 1996, ER.

[14]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  Concurrent Engineering: Enabling Traceability and Mutual Understanding , 1994 .

[15]  Lina Al-Jadir,et al.  Once Upon a Time a DTD Evolved into Antother DTD , 2003, OOIS.

[16]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations , 1999, IBM Syst. J..

[17]  José Samos,et al.  Primitive Operations for Schema Evolution in ODMG Databases , 2003, OOIS.

[18]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Deriving tabular event-based specifications from goal-oriented requirements models , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[19]  Siobhán Clarke,et al.  Subject-oriented design: towards improved alignment of requirements, design, and code , 1999, OOPSLA '99.

[20]  E. Mitleton-Kelly,et al.  Systems Engineering for Business Process Change , 2000, Springer London.

[21]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Eliciting gaps in requirements change , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[22]  E. Mitleton-Kelly,et al.  Co-Evolution and an Enabling Infrastructure: A Solution to Legacy? , 2000 .

[23]  Jean-Marie Favre,et al.  Meta-Model and Model Co-evolution within the 3D Software Space , 2003 .

[24]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Measuring the fitness relationship , 2005, Requirements Engineering.

[25]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  On the interplay between consistency, completeness, and correctness in requirements evolution , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[26]  Eve Mitleton-Kelly,et al.  CO-EVOLUTION & AN ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE : A SOLUTION TO LEGACY ? , 2000 .

[27]  Peter Dadam,et al.  A formal framework for workflow type and instance changes under correctness constraints , 2005 .

[28]  Aditya K. Ghose,et al.  A Framework for Reasoning about Requirements Evolution , 1996, PRICAI.

[29]  R. Lämmel Coupled Software Transformations — Extended , 2022 .

[30]  Aneesh Krishna,et al.  Co-evolution of complementary formal and informal requirements , 2004 .

[31]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Fitting Business Models to System Functionality Exploring the Fitness Relationship , 2003, CAiSE.

[32]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour , 2001, RE.

[33]  Jun Han,et al.  Supporting impact analysis and change propagation in software engineering environments , 1997, Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice incorporating Computer Aided Software Engineering.

[34]  Lutz Prechelt,et al.  JPlag: Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs , 2000 .

[35]  Camille Salinesi,et al.  Towards a Systematic Definition of Requirements for Software Evolution: A Case-study Driven Investigation , 2003 .

[36]  Sven-Eric Lautemann Schema Versions in Object-Oriented Database Systems , 1997, DASFAA.