Object-Oriented Graceful Evolution Monitors

  • Vic Page
  • Maurice Dixon
  • Peter Bielkowicz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2817)


Software development teams are required to produce applications that are enmeshed with contributory systems over which the team has no control. This highlights the need for an approach that allows the developed application to evolve gracefully with changes in the contributory systems. This work proposes an approach to graceful evolution which is appropriate for an object-oriented rapid application development environment. The approach combines elements of Risk Analysis (Baskerville and Stage, 1996) and of the Goal Based Requirements Analysis Method (Anton, 1997), with the perspective given by considering Dynamic Inconsistency (Lamsweerde, Letier and Ponsard, 1997). The approach investigates assumptions made about requirements; the obstacles to those assumptions are then identified. The obstacles are assessed with respect to their impact on the running system and the decision is made to resolve, monitor or ignore the obstacle. The assessment provides (both directly and through the monitoring logs) guidance to the software development teams of the type of corrective action needed. This work demonstrates the approach for a synthetic example drawn from experience in the telecommunications industry for which the enmeshed system was a legacy system.


Legacy System Development Team Line Test Requirement Engineer Case Diagram 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anton, A.: Goal Identification and Refinement in the Specification of Software-Based Information Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology (1997)Google Scholar
  2. Anton, A., Earp, J.: Strategies for Developing Policies in Requirements for Secure Electronic Commerce Systems. In: Ghosh, A.K. (ed.) Recent Advances in E-Commerce Security and Privacy, pp. 29–46. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, L.: Rapid Evolutionary Development. Wiley, New York (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Avison, D., Fitzgerald, G.: Where Now for Development Methodologies. Communications of the ACM 46(1) (January 2003)Google Scholar
  5. Baskerville, R., Stage, J.: Controlling Prototype Development Through Risk Analysis. MIS Quarterly 20(4), 481–504 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, F.: The Mythical Man Month, The Essays on Software Engineering. Anniversary edition, 2/E, Addison Wesley, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  7. Carter, R., Anton, A., Dagnino, A., Williams, L.: Evolving Beyond Requirements Creep: A Risk-Based Evolutionary Prototyping Model. In: IEEE 5th International Symposiumon Requirements Engineering (RE 2001), Toronto, Canada, August 27-31, pp. 94–101 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, D., Feather, M., Narayanaswarmy, K., Fickas, S.: Automatic Monitoring of Software Requirements. In: Proc. 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  9. DSDM Consotium, Handbook for DSDM Version 4.1 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E.: Integrating Obstacles in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering. In: ICSE 1998 – 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, Kyoto, ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  11. Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E., Ponsard, C.: Leaving Inconsistency. Position paper for the ICSE 1997 workshop on Living with Inconsistency (May 1997)Google Scholar
  12. Feather, M., Fickas, S.: Requirements Monitoring in Dynamic Environments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (1995)Google Scholar
  13. Orso, A., Liang, D., Harrold, J., Lipton, R.: Gamma System: Continous Evolution of Software after Deployment. ACM, New York (2002) 1–58113–562–9Google Scholar
  14. Page, V., Sivagurunathan, K.: Is DSDM the future of SSADM. In: Jayaratna, N., Fitzgerald, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the British Computer Society Information Systems Methodologies Specialist Group, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, September 12-14, pp. 215–221 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. Robinson, W.: Monitoring Software Requirements using Instrumented Code. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  16. Schulz, J.: Requirements-Based UML. In: Patel, D., Choudhury, I., Patel, S., de Cesare, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Object-oriented Information Systems, December 18-20, pp. 253–267. London Guildhall University, London (2000)Google Scholar
  17. Sneed, H.: Encapsulating Legacy Software for Use in Client/Server Systems. In: Proc. Third Working Conf. Requirements Eng, pp. 104–119. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  18. Wang, Y., King, G., Patel, D., Patel, S., Dorling, A.: On coping with real-time software dynamic inconsistency by built-in tests. Annals of Software Engineering 7, 283–296 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vic Page
    • 1
  • Maurice Dixon
    • 1
  • Peter Bielkowicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing, Communications Technology and MathematicsLondon Metropolitan UniversityLondon

Personalised recommendations