Advertisement

Metamodel for Requirements Traceability and Impact Analysis on Agile Methods

  • Carlos Andrei CarnielEmail author
  • Raquel Aparecida PegoraroEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 802)

Abstract

Requirements traceability is a requirements management activity used to identify relations between requirements and to enable the comprehension of its dependencies. In the agile development changes are normal and occur at any moment in the project, requirements are written in the format of user stories which have dependencies between them. These dependencies can be technical or related to the business being developed. Handling dependencies among requirements and impact analysis is a challenge due to the possibility of refactoring and maintenance caused by not analyzed changes. This paper aims to propose a metamodel that enables requirements traceability and impact analysis in agile methods. The proposed metamodel presents the following contributions: enable traceability analysis through the mapping of dependencies between user stories; (b) allow identification of dependencies between user stories and between tasks; (c) management of the evolution of requirements; (d) support on impact analysis of changes.

Keywords

Metamodel Requirements traceability Agile methods User stories 

References

  1. 1.
    Ambler, S.: Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for Extreme Programming and the Unified Process. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breitman, K., Leite, J.C.S.P.: Managing user stories. In: International Workshop on Time-Constrained Requirements Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y., O’Sullivan, L.: Impact analysis and change management of UML models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance. ICSM, 22–26 September 2003. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohn, M.: Succeeding with Agile: Software Development Using Scrum. Pearson Education, London (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Espinoza, A., Garbajosa, J.: A study to support agile methods more effectively through traceability. Innovations Syst. Softw. Eng. 7, 53–69 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaur, V., Soni, A.: A novel approach to explore inter agent dependencies from user requirements. Procedia Technol. 1, 412–419 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gomez, A., Rueda, G., Alarcón, P.P.: A systematic and lightweight method to identify dependencies between user stories. In: Sillitti, A., Martin, A., Wang, X., Whitworth, E. (eds.) XP 2010. LNBIP, vol. 48, pp. 190–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13054-0_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffmann, M., Kuhn, N., Weber, M.: Requirements for requirements management tools. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 301–308 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kannenberg, A., Saiedian, H.: Why software requirements traceability remains a challenge. CrossTalk J. Def. Softw. Eng. 22(5), 14–19 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kassab, M., Ormandjieva, O., Daneva, M.: Traceability metamodel for change management of nonfunctional requirements. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Sixth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lang, M., Duggan, J.: A tool to support collaborative software requirements management. Requir. Eng. J. 6, 161–172 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leffingwell, D.: Agile Software Requirements: Lean Requirements Practices for Teams, Programs, and the Enterprise. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Letelier, P.: A framework for requirements traceability in UML-based projects. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (TFFSE 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martakis, A., Daneva, M.: Handling requirements dependencies in agile projects: a focus group with agile software development practitioners. In: 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS). IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language Specification. UML 2.5 with Action Semantics, Final Adopted Specification (2015). www.omg.org
  17. 17.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramesh, B., Powers, T., Stubbs, C., Edwards, M.: Implementing requirements traceability: a case study. In: Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. IEEE (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramesh, B., Jarke, M.: Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27, 58–93 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sliger, M., Broderick, S.: The Software Project Manager’s Bridge to Agility. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenberg, D., Stephens, M.: Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP. Apress, Berkeley (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trkman, M., Mendling, J., Krisper, M.: Using business process models to better understand the dependencies among user stories. Inf. Softw. Technol. 71, 58–76 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Version One: 11th annual state of agile survey. Technical report, Version One (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rossberg, J.: Beginning Application Lifecycle Management. Apress, Berkeley (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sayão, M., Leite, J.C.S.P.: Rastreabilidade de requisitos. RITA 13.1 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of Fronteira SulChapecóBrazil

Personalised recommendations