Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

System requirements engineering in complex situations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative systems thinking–based perspective and approach to the requirements elicitation process in complex situations. Three broad challenges associated with the requirements engineering elicitation in complex situations are explored, including the (1) role of the system observer, (2) nature of system requirements in complex situations, and (3) influence of the system environment. Authors have asserted that the expectation of unambiguous, consistent, complete, understandable, verifiable, traceable, and modifiable requirements is not consistent with complex situations. In contrast, complex situations are an emerging design reality for requirements engineering processes, marked by high levels of ambiguity, uncertainty, and emergence. This paper develops the argument that dealing with requirements for complex situations requires a change in paradigm. The elicitation of requirements for simple and technically driven systems is appropriately accomplished by proven methods. In contrast, the elicitation of requirements in complex situations (e.g., integrated multiple critical infrastructures, system-of-systems, etc.) requires more holistic thinking and can be enhanced by grounding in systems theory.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This paper uses the term observer very broadly to include system owner, designer, requirement elicitor, analyst, users, etc. Therefore, the term system observer is used as a collective representation of people involved in any aspects of requirement elicitation process.

  2. Requirements can also be interconnected as addressed in [15, 16]. In this section, the space that allows for requirements interconnectivity to take place is at the discussion.

  3. Authors acknowledge that refinement of requirements can take place. However, elicitation of requirements from stakeholders is most appropriately suited for situations of high stability and certainty.

References

  1. Keating CB (2009) Emergence in system of systems. In: Jamshidi M (ed) System of systems engineering. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 169–190

    Google Scholar 

  2. Keating CB, Padilla JJ, Adams K (2008) System of systems engineering requirements: challenges and guidelines. Eng Manag J 20:24–31

    Google Scholar 

  3. Keating CB, Katina PF (2011) System of systems engineering: prospects and challenges for the emerging field. Int J Syst Syst Eng 2:234–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blanchard BS, Fabrycky WJ (2006) Systems engineering and analysis, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  5. Forsberg K, Mooz H (1991) The relationship of system engineering to the project cycle. In: American society for engineering management (ASEM), Chattanooga

  6. Forsberg K, Mooz H (1999) System engineering for faster, cheaper, better. In: 1999 Ninth annual international symposium (INCOSE), Brighton, England

  7. Padilla JJ, Sousa-Poza A, Tejada A, Kovacic S (2007) Towards a diagnostic framework for understanding complex situations. Paper presented at the seventh international conference on complex systems, Boston, MA

  8. Mitroff I (1998) Smart thinking for crazy times: the art of solving the right problems. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  9. van Lamsweerde A (2009) Requirements engineering: from system goals to UML models to software specifications. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hinds C (2008) The case against a positivist philosophy of requirements engineering. Requir Eng 13:315–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mich L, Anesi C, Berry DM (2005) Applying a pragmatics-based creativity-fostering technique to requirements elicitation. Requir Eng 10:262–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Corrall D (1997) Requirements engineering needs total systems engineering. Requir Eng 2:217–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Agouridas V, McKay A, Winand H, de Pennington A (2008) Advanced product planning: a comprehensive process for systemic definition of new product requirements. Requir Eng 13:19–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alexander I, Robertson S (2004) Understanding project sociology by modeling stakeholders. Softw IEEE 21:23–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ballejos LC, Montagna JM (2008) Method for stakeholder identification in interorganizational environments. Requir Eng 13:281–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu ESK (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Requirements engineering, 1997. Proceedings of the third IEEE international symposium on, pp 226–235

  17. Yu ESK (1993) Modeling organizations for information systems requirements engineering. In: Requirements engineering, 1993. Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on, pp 34–41

  18. Andreou AS (2003) Promoting software quality through a human, social and organisational requirements elicitation process. Requir Eng 8:85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bergman M, King JL, Lyytinen K (2002) Large-scale requirements analysis revisited: the need for understanding the political ecology of requirements engineering. Requir Eng 7:152–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Coughlan J, Macredie RD (2002) Effective communication in requirements elicitation: a comparison of methodologies. Requir Eng 7:47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fuentes-Fernández R, Gómez-Sanz JJ, Pavón J (2010) Understanding the human context in requirements elicitation. Requir Eng 15:267–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory: foundations, developments, applications. George Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ashby WR (1960) Design for a brain: the origin of adaptive behaviour, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Hull E, Jackson K, Dick J (2011) Requirements engineering, 3rd edn. Springer, London

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Alderson A (1999) False requirements express real needs. Requir Eng 4:60–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hooks I (2000) Requirements engineering: is it ‘Mission Impossible’? Requir Eng 5:194–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lang M, Duggan J (2001) A tool to support collaborative software requirements management. Requir Eng 6:161–172

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Donzelli P (2004) A goal-driven and agent-based requirements engineering framework*. Requir Eng 9:16–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Katasonov A, Sakkinen M (2006) Requirements quality control: a unifying framework. Requir Eng 11:42–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Liaskos S, McIlraith SA, Sohrabi S, Mylopoulos J (2011) Representing and reasoning about preferences in requirements engineering. Requir Eng 16:227–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bar-Yam Y (1997) Dynamics of complex systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. DeLaurentis DA, Sindiy OV, Stein WB (2006) Developing sustainable space exploration via a system-of-systems approach. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, San Jose

    Google Scholar 

  33. DoD (2008) Systems engineering guide for systems of systems, vol. Ver. 1.0, ed. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington, DC

  34. Fritz S, Scholes RJ, Obersteiner M, Bouma J, Reyers B (2008) A conceptual framework for assessing the benefits of a global earth observation system of systems. IEEE Syst J 2:338–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gorod A, Sauser B, Boardman J (2008) System-of-systems engineering management: a review of modern history and a path forward. IEEE Syst J 2:484–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kotov V (1997) Systems of systems as communicating structures. Hewlett Packard Company, Paper HPL-97-124, pp 1–15

  37. Keating CB, Rogers R, Unal R, Dryer D, Sousa-Poza A, Safford R, Peterson W, Rabadi G (2003) System of systems engineering. Eng Manag J 15:36–45

    Google Scholar 

  38. Krippendorff K (1986) A dictionary of cybernetics. The American Society for Cybernetics, Norfolk

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ashby WR (1962) Principles of the self-organizing system. In: Principles of self-organization: transactions of the University of Illinois Symposium, pp 255–278

  40. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization, 1st edn. Doubleday/Currency, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jackson MC (1991) Systems methodology for the management sciences. Plenum, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Ackoff RL (1971) Towards a system of systems concepts. Manag Sci 17:661–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rolland C, Salinesi C, Etien A (2004) Eliciting gaps in requirements change. Requir Eng 9:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Padilla JJ, Logan B, Sousa-Poza A, Keating CB (2008) A system of systems engineering environment to deal with complex situations. In: System of systems engineering, 2008. SoSE ‘08. IEEE international conference on 2008, pp 1–5

  45. Viller S, Sommerville I (1999) Social analysis in the requirements engineering process: from ethnography to method. In: IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp 6–13

  46. Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein L, Goedicke M (1992) Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 2:31–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Leite JCSP (1989) Viewpoint analysis: a case study. Presented at the proceedings of the 5th international workshop on software specification and design, Pittsburgh, PA

  48. Easterbrook S, Yu E, Aranda J, Yuntian F, Horkoff J, Leica M, Qadir RA (2005) Do viewpoints lead to better conceptual models? An exploratory case study. In: 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, Paris, France, 2005, pp 199–208

  49. Flood RL, Carson ER (1993) Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of systems science, 2nd edn. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Atkinson CJ (1984) Metaphor and systemic praxis. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Systems, University of Lancaster, Lancaster

  51. Azani C (2009) An open systems approach to system of systems engineering. In: Jamshidi M (ed) System of systems engineering. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 21–43

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bane M (2008) Quantifying and measuring morphological complexity. In: Proceedings of the 26th west coast conference on formal linguistics, Somerville, MA, pp 69–76

  53. Biggiero L (2001) Sources of complexity in human systems. Nonlinear Dyn Psychol Life Sci 5:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bozkurt I, Padilla JJ, Calida B, Henrie M, Sousa-Poza AA (2009) Towards a leadership theory based on philosophical predispositions. Int J Knowl Cult Chang Manag 9:85–98

    Google Scholar 

  55. Calvano CN, John P (2004) Systems engineering in an age of complexity. Syst Eng 7:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gheorghe AV, Vamanu DV (2004) Complexity induced vulnerability. Int J Crit Infrastruct 1:76–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Keating CB, Sousa-Poza A, Kovacic S (2005) Complex system transformation: a system of systems engineering (SoSE) perspective. In: 26th ASEM national conference, pp 200–207

  58. Norman DO, Luras ML (2006) Engineering Complex Systems. In: Braha D, Minai AA, Bar-Yam Y (eds) Complex engineered systems (science meets technology). Springer, Cambridge, pp 206–245

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Sousa-Poza A, Correa-Martinez Y (2005) Pragmatic idealism as the basis for understanding complex domains: the trinity and SOSE. In: 2005 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, pp 2744–2750

  60. Lucas C (1999) Quantifying complexity theory, complexity and artificial life research concept (CALResCo). Retrieved from http://www.calresco.org/lucas/quantify.htm

  61. Goertzel B (1992) Measuring static complexity. Int J Math Math Sci 15:161–174

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Jonas S, Goldsteen RL, Goldsteen K (2007) An Introduction to the US health care system, 6th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  63. Schilpp PA (ed) (1949) Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. The Library of Living Philosophers, Inc., Evanston, IL

  64. Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hall AD, David A (1989) Metasystems methodology: a new synthesis and unification. Pergamon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  66. Nuseibeh B (1997) Ariane 5: who Dunnit? IEEE Softw 14:15–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lions JL (1996) ARIANE 5 flight 501 Failure, Report by the Inquiry Board

  68. De Neufville R (1994) The baggage system at Denver: prospects and lessons. J Air Transp Manag 1:229–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. GAO (2006) Federal bureau of investigation: weak controls over trilogy project led to payment of questionable contractor costs and missing assets. GAO-06-306. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06306.pdf

  70. Fine GA (2005) Statement of Glenn A. Fine Inspector General. In: Testimony C (ed) Washington, DC, 2005, http://www.justice.gov/oig/testimony/0502/final.pdf

  71. Stacey R (2007) The challenges of human interdependence: consequences of thinking about the day to day practice of management in organizations. Eur Bus Rev 19:292–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Mayer JD (1993) A system-topics framework for the study of personality. Imagin Cogn Pers 13:99–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ghoshal S (2005) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad Manag Learn Educ 4:75–91

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  74. Sousa-Poza A, Kovacic S, Keating C (2008) System of systems engineering: an emerging multidiscipline. Int J Syst Syst Eng 1:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved the quality of this paper. The authors are grateful to Pericles Loucopoulos and William N. Robinson, Editors-in-Chief for Journal of Requirements Engineering and technical support from the National Centers for System of Systems Engineering (NCSoSE) at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, National Centers for System of Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Polinpapilinho F. Katina, Charles B. Keating & Ra’ed M. Jaradat

Authors
  1. Polinpapilinho F. Katina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles B. Keating
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ra’ed M. Jaradat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Polinpapilinho F. Katina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katina, P.F., Keating, C.B. & Jaradat, R.M. System requirements engineering in complex situations. Requirements Eng 19, 45–62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0157-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0157-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation