Cost-Benefits of Traceability


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.


Automate Tool Trace Data Testing Coverage Trace Link Change Request 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  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