Advertisement

The Brave New World of Design Requirements: Four Key Principles

  • Matthias Jarke
  • Pericles Loucopoulos
  • Kalle Lyytinen
  • John Mylopoulos
  • William Robinson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6051)

Abstract

Despite its undoubted success, Requirements Engineering (RE) needs a better alignment between its research focus and its grounding in practical needs as these needs have changed significantly recently. We explore changes in the environment, targets, and the process of requirements engineering (RE) that influence the nature of fundamental RE questions. Based on these explorations we propose four key principles that underlie current requirements processes: (1) intertwining of requirements with implementation and organizational contexts, (2) dynamic evolution of requirements, (3) architectures as a critical stabilizing force, and (4) high levels of design complexity. We make recommendations to refocus RE research agenda as to meet new challenges based on the review and analysis of these four key themes. We note several managerial and practical implications.

Keywords

Business Process Requirement Engineer Design Requirement Design Complexity Software Product Line 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ross, D.T., Schoman Jr., K.E.: Structured analysis for requirements definition. Transactions on Software Engineering SE-3(1), 6–15 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frederick, J., Brooks, P.: The Mythical Man-Month. Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lyytinen, K., et al.: Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective. In: Design Requirements Workshop, Cleveland, OH, USA, June 3-6 (2007); Revised and Invited Papers, p. 495. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hansen, S., et al.: Principles of Requirements Processes at the Dawn of 21st Century. Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information 13(1), 9–35 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schuler, D., Namioka, A.: Participatory design. In: Proc. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simon, H.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schon, D.: The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G.: Ten Commandments of Formal Methods (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swartout, W., Balzer, R.: On the inevitable intertwining of specification and implementation. CACM 25(7), 438–440 (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mathiassen, L., et al.: A Contigency Model for Requirements Development. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(11), 569–597 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chapin, N., et al.: Types of software evolution and software maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution Research and Practice 13(1), 3–30 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger, C., et al.: Customers as co-designers. Manufacturing Engineer 82(4), 42–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lehman, M.M.: Software Evolution. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering 2, 1507–1513 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nuseibeh, B.: Weaving together requirements and architectures. Computer 34(3), 115–119 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pohl, K., et al.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Godet, M.: Scenarios and strategic management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Butterworths (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scacchi, W.: Understanding Open Source Software Evolution. In: Software Evolution and Feedback, Theory and Practice. Wiley, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carroll, J.M.: Scenarios and design cognition. In: Proceedings of IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 3–5 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glasser, B., Strauss, A.: The development of grounded theory. Alden, Chicago (1967)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zave, P.: Classification of research efforts in requirements engineering. ACM Comp. Surv. 29(4), 315–321 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering in the Year 00: A Research Perspective. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 5–19 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheng, B., Atlee, J.: Current and Future Research Directions in Requirements Engineering. In: Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., Robinson, W. (eds.) Design Requirements Engineering – A Ten-Year Perspective. LNBIP, vol. 14. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Jarke
    • 1
  • Pericles Loucopoulos
    • 2
  • Kalle Lyytinen
    • 3
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 4
  • William Robinson
    • 5
  1. 1.RWTH Aachen UniversityGermany
  2. 2.University of LoughboroughU.K.
  3. 3.Case Western Reserve UniversityUSA
  4. 4.University of TorontoCanada
  5. 5.Georgia State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations