Skip to main content

Scope Determined (D) and Scope Determining (G) Requirements: A New Categorization of Functional Requirements

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2023)

Abstract

Context: Some believe that Requirements Engineering (RE) for a computer-based system (CBS) should be done up front, producing a complete requirements specification before any of the CBS’s software (SW) is written. Problem: A common complaint is that (1) new requirements never stop coming; so upfront RE goes on forever with an ever growing scope. However, data show that (2) the cost to modify written SW to include a new requirement is at least 10 times the cost of writing the SW with the requirement included from the start; so upfront RE saves development costs, particularly if the new requirement is one that was needed to prevent a failure of the implementation of a requirement already included in the scope. The scope of a CBS is the set of requirements that drive its implementation. Hypothesis: We believe that both (1) and (2) are correct, but each is about a different category of requirements, (1) scope determininG (G) or (2) scope determineD (D), respectively. Past Work: Re-examination of the reported data of some past case studies through the lens of these categories indicates that when a project failed, a large number of its defects were due to missing D requirements, and when a project succeeded, the project focused its RE on finding all of its D requirements. Conclusions: The overall aim of the future research is to empirically show that focusing RE for a chosen scope, including for a sprint in an agile development, on finding all and only the D requirements for the scope, while deferring any G requirements to later releases or sprints, allows upfront RE (1) that does not go on forever, and (2) that discovers all requirements whose addition after implementation would be wastefully expensive, wasteful because these requirements are discoverable during RE if enough time is devoted to looking for them.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A mnemonic: The first letters that completely distinguish the phrases “scope determining” and “scope determined” are the phrases’ last letters!

  2. 2.

    The example does not expose all the nuances that emerge only when the definitions are applied to real-life CBSs.

  3. 3.

    Use of mathematical notation, e.g., the variable “C ”, is not signaling any attempt to be formal about inherently informal, real-world concepts [17]. Attempts to stick to only natural language led to confusingly ambiguous sentences, e.g., with two different scopes distinguished by multi-word adjective phrases that confused the authors!

  4. 4.

    The data from which the list of pains is obtained are in the papers listed at the cited website [27].

References

  1. Agile Alliance. Principles: The Agile Alliance (2001). http://www.agilealliance.org/

  2. Balaji, S., Sundararajan Murugaiyan, M.: WATEERFALLVs [sic] V-MODEL Vs AGILE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SDLC. JITBM 2(1) (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barbosa, L., Freire, S., et al.: Organizing the TD management landscape for requirements and requirements documentation debt. In: Proceedings of WER (2022). http://wer.inf.puc-rio.br/WERpapers/artigos/artigos_WER22/WER_2022_Camera_ready_paper_28.pdf

  4. Berry, D., Daudjee, K., et al.: User’s manual as a requirements specification: Case studies. REJ 9(1), 67–82 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berry, D., Lucena, M., et al.: Scope determined (D) versus scope determining (G) requirements: A new significant categorization of functional requirements. Tech. rep., Univ. Waterloo (2023). https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/FTP_SITE/tech.reports/GvsDprelimTechReport.pdf

  6. Berry, D.M., Czarnecki, K., et al.: Requirements determination is unstoppable: An experience report. In: Proceedings of RE, pp. 311–316 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berry, D.M., Czarnecki, K., et al.: The problem of the lack of benefit of a document to its producer (PotLoBoaDtiP). In: Proceedings of SWSTE, pp. 37–42 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Berry, D.M., Damian, D., et al.: To do or not to do: If the requirements engineering payoff is so good, why aren’t more companies doing it? In: Proceedings of RE, p. 447 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Boehm, B.W.: A spiral model of software development and enhancement. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 11(4), 14–24 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ellis, K., Berry, D.M.: Quantifying the impact of requirements definition and management process maturity on project outcome in business application development. REJ 18(3), 223–249 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gaborov, M., Karuović, D., et al.: Comparative analysis of agile and traditional methodologies in IT project management. jATES 11(4), 1–24 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gause, D., Weinberg, G.: Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design. Dorset House, New York (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Gellert, C.: Requirements engineering and management effects on downstream developer performance in a small business findings from a case study in a CMMI/CMM context. Master’s thesis, Univ. Waterloo, Canada (2021). http://hdl.handle.net/10012/17777

  15. Greenspan, S.J.: Extreme RE: What if there is no time for requirements engineering? In: Proceedings of RE, pp. 282–284 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Isaacs, D., Berry, D.M.: Developers want requirements, but their project manager doesn’t; and a possibly transcendent Hawthorne effect. In: Proceedings of EmpiRE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jackson, M.A.: Problems and requirements. In: Proceedings of ISRE, pp. 2–8 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jiang, L., Eberlein, A.: An analysis of the history of classical software development and agile development. In: Proceedings of IEEE SMC, pp. 3733–3738 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kalinowski, M., Curty, P., et al.: Supporting defect causal analysis in practice with cross-company data on causes of requirements engineering problems. In: Proceedings of ICSE SEIP, pp. 223–232 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kasauli, R., Knauss, E., et al.: Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development. JSS 172, 110851 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lehman, M.M.: Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proc. IEEE 68(9), 1060–1076 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lehman, M.M.: Laws of software evolution revisited. In: Montangero, C. (ed.) EWSPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1149, pp. 108–124. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017737

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Lucia, A., Qusef, A.: Requirements engineering in Agile software development. J. Emerg. Technol. Web Intell. 2(3), 212–220 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Malm, T.: Requirements engineering in agile projects - Comparing a sample to requirements-engineering literature. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences, Business and Economics, Åbo Akademi Univ., Turku, Finland (2020). https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/177487/malm_tobias.pdf

  25. Mendez, D., Tießler, M., et al.: On evidence-based risk management in requirements engineering. In: SWQD: Methods and Tools for Better Software and Systems, pp. 39–59 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mendez, D., Wagner, S., et al.: Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice. EMSE 22, 2298–2338 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  27. NaPiRE: Napire data and publications (Viewed 1 November 2022). http://napire.org/#/data

  28. Ou, L.: WD-pic, a new paradigm for picture drawing programs and its development as a case study of the use of its user’s manual as its specification. Master’s thesis, Univ. Waterloo (2002). https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/FTP_SITE/tech.reports/LihuaOuThesis.pdf

  29. Rasheed, A., Zafar, B., et al.: Requirement engineering challenges in agile software development. Math. Prob. Eng. 2021 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rogers, G.: How agile can requirements engineers really be? RE Magazine (2014). https://re-magazine.ireb.org/articles/requirements-engineers

  31. Royce, W.W.: Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In: WesCon (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schach, S.R.: Classical and object-oriented software engineering with UML and Java, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  33. So, J., Berry, D.M.: Experiences of requirements engineering for two consecutive versions of a product at VLSC. In: Proceedings of RE, pp. 216–221 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Thesing, T., Feldmann, C., Burchardt, M.: Agile versus waterfall project management: Decision model for selecting the appropriate approach to a project. Procedia Comput. Sci. 181(01), 746–756 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Cauwenberghe, P.: Chapter 18: Refactoring or up-front design? (2002). http://wwww.agilecoach.net/html/refactoring_or_upfront.pdf

  36. Wagner, S., Mendez, D., et al.: Requirements engineering practice and problems in Agile projects: Results from an international survey. In: Proceedings of CibSE, pp. 85–98 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Luiz Márcio Cysneiros, Sarah Gregory, Irit Hadar, Andrea Herrmann, John Mylopoulos, Mike Panis, Davor Svetinovic, and Anna Zamansky for their comments on previous drafts or in oral presentations of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel M. Berry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Berry, D.M., Lucena, M., Sakhnini, V., Dhakla, A. (2023). Scope Determined (D) and Scope Determining (G) Requirements: A New Categorization of Functional Requirements. In: Ferrari, A., Penzenstadler, B. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13975. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29786-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29786-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29785-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29786-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics