Cost-Benefits of Traceability

Abstract

Traceability can provide substantial benefits, but many software development projects fail to employ best practise in traceability. A major factor in this is the relatively high cost of traceability and the difficulty of assessing its long term financial benefits. We discuss techniques for implementing requirements traceability in such a way as to maximise the potential benefits whilst minimising the costs, but still ensuring that trace data collected meets the needs of the project. Finally we suggest a simple, practical cost analysis for developing an appropriate traceability strategy, underpinned by value-based software engineering principles.

Keywords

Assure Volatility 

References

  1. Albrecht, A.J.: Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings, IBM Applications Development Symposium, pp. 14–17. Monterey, CA (1979, October)Google Scholar
  2. Albrecht, A.J., Gaffney, J.E., Jr.: Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: A software science validation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-9, 639–648 (1983, November)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arisholm, E., Briand, L.C., Føyen, A.: Dynamic coupling measurement for object-oriented software. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(8), 491–506 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basili, V.R., Briand, L.C., Melo, W.L.: A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22(10), 751–761 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehm, B., Huang, L.G.: Value-based software engineering: A case study. IEEE Softw. 36(3), 33–41 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. Briand, L.C., Wüst, J., Lounis, H.: Using coupling measurement for impact analysis in object-oriented systems. In: Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, (ICSM ’99), pp. 475–482. ICSM, Oxford, England (1999)Google Scholar
  7. Chaumun, M. Ajmal, K., Hind, K., Rudolf K., Lustman, F.: Département IRO, and Université De Montréal. A change impact model for changeability assessment in object-oriented software systems. In: Proceedings of the Third Euromicro Working Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 130–138 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. Cleland-Huang, J.: Just enough requirements traceability. In: 30th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2006), pp. 41–42 (2006, September)Google Scholar
  9. Cleland-Huang, J., Change, C.K., Christensen, M.: Event-based traceability for managing evolutionary change. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(9), 796–810 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cleland-Huang, J., Zemont, G., Lukasik, W.: A heterogeneous solution for improving the return on investment of requirements traceability. In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE 2004), pp. 230–239 (2004, September)Google Scholar
  11. Egyed, A.: Determining the cost-quality trade-off for automated software traceability. ASE 2005:360–363 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Egyed, A., Biffl, S., Heindl, M., Grünbacher, P.: A value-based approach for understanding cost-benefit trade-offs during automated software traceability. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, TEFSE ’05, pp. 2–7. ACM, New York, NY. ISBN 1-59593-243-7 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. Egyed, A., Grünbacher, P., Heindl, M., Biffl, S.: Value-based requirements traceability: Lessons learned. In: 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2007, pp. 115–118 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: Contribution structures. In: Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 100–107 (1995, March)Google Scholar
  15. Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: Extended requirements traceability: Results of an industrial case study. In: International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE97), pp. 169–178. Society Press, Annapolis, MD (1997)Google Scholar
  16. Han, Ah.-R., Jeon, S.-Uk., Bae, D.-H., Hong, J.-E.: Behavioral dependency measurement for change-proneness prediction in UML 2.0 design models. In: COMPSAC ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference, pp. 76–83. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC. ISBN 978-0-7695-3262-2 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. Heindl, M., Biffl, S.. A case study on value-based requirements tracing. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 60–69. ISBN 1-59593-014-0 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. Huang, L., Boehm, B.: How much software quality investment is enough: A value-based approach. IEEE Softw. 23(5), 88–95 (2006, September/October)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, R.T.: Expert judgement as an estimating method. Inform. Softw. Technol. 28, 67–75 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ingram, C., Riddle, S.: Linking software design metrics to component change-proneness. In: WeTSOM 2011 – 2nd International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics (WeTSOM 2011). Honolulu, Hawaii (2011)Google Scholar
  21. Jarke, M.: Requirements tracing. Commun. ACM 41(12), 32–36 (1998, December)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kemerer, C.F:. An empirical validation of software cost estimation models. Commun. ACM 30(5), 416–429 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li, W., Henry, S.: Object Oriented Metrics Which Predict Maintainability. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia (1993, February)Google Scholar
  24. Ramesh, B., Powers, T., Stubbs, C.: Implementing requirements traceability: A case study. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 89–95 (1995, March).Google Scholar
  25. Ratzinger, J., Sigmund, T., Vorburger, P., Gall, H.C.: Mining software evolution to predict refactoring. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007), pp. 354–363. IEEE Computer Society, Madrid, Spain (2007)Google Scholar
  26. Wilkie, F.G., Kitchenham, B.A.: Coupling measures and change ripples in C++ application software. J. Syst. Softw. 52(2–3), 157–164 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Newcastle UniversityEnglandUK

Personalised recommendations