Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Developing Business Application Systems pp 47–57Cite as

The importance of requirements specifications for successful IT projects

  • Chapter

  • 419 Accesses

Abstract

Today, information technology not only shapes inevitable parts of daily life in modern societies, but also counts for one of the most important success factors in business. By strengthening their own, unique selling propositions, enterprises can achieve particular competitive advantages on the market. IT must support these individual propositions, respectively enable them in the first place. In order to plan, procure, develop, and operate the corresponding IT solutions in today’s efficient and divided value creation processes, the exact requirements for the solutions need to be specified as dearly as possible. All parties involved in the divided work – including, for instance, the principal contractor, end-users, computing centers, systems integrators or developers - profit fromunambig-uous and resilient agreements, which reduce the numerous project risks along steadily globalizing value creation chains.

Research article R3: Pruß, M.: Skroch, o. (2010), “Die Bedeutung der Antordenmgsspezifiketion für errolgreiciie IT-Projekte”, HMD - Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 46 (272): 100-107.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Achermann, F.; Nierstrasz, O. (2005), “A calculus for reasoning about software composition”, Theoretical Computer Science, 331 (2–3): 367–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, C.; Bunse, C.; Groß, H.; Kühne, T. (2002), “Towards a general component model for Web–based applications“, Annals of Software Engineering, 13 (1): 35–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, P.; Haas, L. (2008), “Information integration in the enterprise”, Communications of the ACM, 51 (9): 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruss, T. (1984), “A unified approach to a class of best choice problems with an unknown number of options”, The Annals of Probability, 12 (3): 882–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruss, T. (2000), “Sum the odds to one and stop”, The Annals of Probability, 28 (3): 1384–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dynkin, E.; Juschkewitsch, A. (1969), Sätze und Aufgaben über Markoffsche Prozesse, Springer, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, T.; Gamble, R. (2008), “Monoliths to mashups: Increasing opportunistic assets”, IEEE Software, 25 (6): 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindley, D. (1961), “Dynamic programming and decision theory”, Applied Statistics, 10 (1): 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnas, D. (1972). “On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules”, Communications of the ACM, 15 (12): 1053–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M.; Garlan, D. (1996), Software architecture: Perspectives on an emerging discipline, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skroch, O.; Turowski, K. (2007), “Improving service selection in component–based architectures with optimal stopping”, Proceedings of the 34th Euromicro conference on software engineering and advanced applications, IEEE Computer Society, 28–31 Aug. 2007, Lübeck: 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyperski, C.; Gruntz, D.; Murer, S. (2002), Component software: Beyond object–oriented programming, 2nd edn, Addison Wesley, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Achermann, F.; Nierstrasz, O. (2005), “A calculus for reasoning about software composition”, Theoretical Computer Science, 331 (2–3): 367–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, J.; Brinkop, F.; Conrad, S.; Fettke, P.; Frick, A.; Glistau, E.; Jaekel, H.; Koltar, O .; Loos, P.; Mrech, H.; Ortner, E.; Raape, U.; Overhage, S.; Sahm, S.; Schmietendorf, A.; Teschke, T.; Turowski, K. (2002), “Standardized Specification of Business Components”, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Augsburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baber, R.; Parnas, D.; Vilkomir, S.; Harrison, P.; O’Connor, T. (2005), “Disciplined methods of software specification: A case study”, Proceedings of the international symposium on information technology: Coding and computing, IEEE Computer Society, 4–6 Apr. 2006, Las Vegas, USA: 428–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beizer, B. (1995), Black–box testing: Techniques for functional testing of software and systems, Wiley, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggerstaff, T.; Richter, C. (1987), “Reusability framework, assessment, and directions”, IEEE Software, 4 (2): 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. (2005), “The future of software processes”, Unifying the software process spectrum: Proceedings of the international software process workshop: Revised selected papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3840, Springer, 25–27 May 2005, Beijing, China: 10–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briand, L.; Labiche, Y. (2002), “A UML–based approach to system testing”, Journal of Software and Systems Modeling, 1 (1): 10–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. (1987), “No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering”, IEEE Computer, 20 (4): 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y.; Heimdahl, M. (2003), “Model checking software requirement specifications using domain reduction abstraction”, Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering, IEEE Computer Society, 6–10 Oct. 2003, Montreal, Canada: 314–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. (2006), Enterprise ontology: Theory and methodology, Springer, Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, H.; Hörnstein, J. (2003), Component+ final report 1.1., accessed on 12 Oct. 2005, http:// www. component–plus.org/pdf/reports/Final report 1.l. pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidge, C. (2002), “Contextual matching of software library components”, Proceedings of the 9th Asia–Pacific software engineering conference, IEEE Computer Society, 4–6 Dec. 2002, Gold Coast, Australia: 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J.; Tsao, H.; Wu, Y. (2003), Testing and quality assurance for component–based software, Artech House, Boston, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordijn, J.; Akkermans, H. (2001), “Designing and evaluating e–business models”, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16 (4): 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, J.; Hogrefe, D.; Réthy, G.; Schieferdecker, I.; Wiles, A.; Willcock, C. (2003), “An introduction to the testing and test control notation (TTCN–3)”, Computer Networks, 42 (3): 375–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, O.; Atkinson, C. (2005), “Automated harvesting of test oracles for reliability testing”, Proceedings of the 29th annual international computer software and applications conference, IEEE Computer Society, 25–28 Jul. 2005, Edinburgh, UK: 196–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maarek, Y.; Berry, D.; Kaiser, G. (1991), “An information retrieval approach for automatically constructing software libraries”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17 (8): 800–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIlroy, M. (1969), “Mass produced software components”, Software engineering: Report on a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, NATO Scientific Affairs Division, 7–11 Oct. 1968, Garmisch: 138–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. (1992), “Applying ‘design by contract”’, IEEE Computer, 25 (10): 40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. (2003), “The grand challenge of trusted components”, Proceedings of the 25th international conference on software engineering, IEEE Computer Society, 3–10 May 2003, Portland, USA: 660–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mili, H.; Mili, F.; Mili, A. (1995), “Reusing software: Issues and research directions”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21 (6): 528–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moormann Zaremski, A.; Wing, J. (1997), “Specification matching of software components”, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 6 (4): 333–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (1979), The art of software testing,Wiley, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Object Management Group (2005), Unified modeling language: Superstructure version 2.0, accessed on 31 Mar. 2006, http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/05–07–04.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Object Management Group (2006), UML 2.0. OCL specification, accessed on 24 Oct. 2006, http://www.omg.org/cgi–bin/apps/doc?formal/06–05–01.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offutt, J.; Abdurazik, A. (1999), “Generating tests from UML specifications”,The Unified Modeling Language– Beyond the Standard: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1723, Springer, 28–30 Oct. 1999, Fort Collins, USA: 416–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overhage, S. (2006), “Vereinheitlichte Spezifikation von Komponenten: Grundlagen, UnSCom Spezifikationsrahmen und Anwendung”, Dissertation, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnas, D. (1993), “Predicate logic for software engineering”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19 (9): 856–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnas, D. (2001), “Software aspects of strategic defense systems”, in Hoffman, D.; Weiss, D. (eds), Software fundamentals: Collected papers by David L. Parnas. Addison Wesley, Boston, USA: 497–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penix, J.; Alexander, P. (1999), “Efficient specification–based component retrieval”, Automated Software Engineering, 6 (2): 139–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretschner, A.; Philipps, J. (2005), “Methodological issues in model–based testing”, in Broy, M.; Jonsson, B.; Katoen, J.; Leucker, M.; Pretschner, A. (eds), Model–based testing of reactive systems: Advanced lectures, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3472, Springer, Berlin: 281–291.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto–Díaz, R.;Freeman, P. (1987), “Classifying software for reusability”, IEEE Software, 4 (1): 6–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skroch, O. (2007), “Validation of component–based software with a customer centric domain level approach”, Proceedings of the 14th annual IEEE international conference and workshop on the engineering of computer based systems, IEEE Computer Society, 26–29 Mar. 2007, Tucson, USA: 459–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyperski, C.; Gruntz, D.; Murer, S. (2002). Component software: Beyond object–oriented programming, 2nd edn, Addison Wesley, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A. (1939), “Systems of logic based on ordinals”, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, s245 (1): 161–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turowski, K. (2003), Fachkomponenten: Komponentenbasierte betriebliche Anwendungssysteme, Shaker, Aachen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Aalst, W.; ter Hofstede, A.; Kiepuszewski, B.; Barros, A. (2003), “Workflow patterns”, Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14 (1): 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincenzi, A.; Maldonado, J.; Delamaro, M.; Spoto, E.; Wong, W. (2003), “Component–based software: An overview of testing”, in Cechich, A.; Piattini, M.; Vallecillo, A. (eds), Component–based software quality: Methods and techniques, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2693, Springer, Berlin: 99–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyuker, E. (1982), “On testing non–testable programs”,The Computer Journal, 25 (4): 465–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyuker, E. (1998), “Testing component–based software: A cautionary tale”, IEEE Software, 15 (5): 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yellin, D.; Strom, R. (1997), “Protocol specifications and component adaptors”, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 19 (2): 292–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yourdon, E. (1995), “When good enough software is best”, IEEE Software, 12 (3): 79–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaha, J. (2004), “Automated compatibility tests for business related aspects of software components”, On the move to meaningful Internet systems: Workshop proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3292,Springer,25–29 October 2004, Agia Nepa, Cyprus: 834–841.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Oliver Skroch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skroch, O. (2010). The importance of requirements specifications for successful IT projects. In: Developing Business Application Systems. Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8858-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation