Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Priority-Based Negotiations Approach for Handling Inconsistencies in Multi-Perspective Software Requirements

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inconsistency of multi-perspective requirements specifications is a pervasive issue during the requirements process. However, managing inconsistency is not just a pure technical problem. It is always associated with a process of interactions and competitions among corresponding stakeholders. The main contribution of this paper is to present a negotiations approach to handling inconsistencies in multi-perspective software requirements. In particular, the priority of requirements relative to each perspective plays an important role in proceeding negotiation over resolving inconsistencies among different stakeholders. An algorithm of generating negotiation proposals and an approach to evaluating proposals are also presented in this paper, respectively.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, L. Finkelstein, and M. Goedicke, Viewpoints: A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 1992, 2(1): 31–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. G. P. Mullery, Core-A method for controlled requirements specification, in 4th International Conference on Software Engineering, London, The Institution of Eletrical Engineers, 1979, 126–135.

  3. G. Kotonya and I. Sommerville, Viewpoints for requirements definition, IEEE Software Eng. Journal, 1992, 7(6): 375–387.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Javier, J. Ares, R. Garcia, J. Pazos, S. Rodriguez, and A. Silva, A methodological framework for viewpoint-oriented conceptual modeling, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 2004, 30(5): 282–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Leite and P. A. Freeman, Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution, IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng., 1991, 17(12): 1253–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. W. N. Robinson, Integrating multiple specifications using domain goals, in Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, ACM Press, USA, New York, 1989, 219–226.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A. Finkelstein, Viewpoints: Meaningful relationships are difficult, in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE CS Press, 2003, 676–681.

  8. D. Zowghi and V. Gervasi, On the interplay between consistency, completeness, and correctness in requirements evolution, Information and Software Technology, 2003, 45(14): 993–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik, A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints, in Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’01), Toronto, Canada, 2001, 411–420.

  10. A. Hunter and B. Nuseibeh, Managing inconsistent specification, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1998, 7(4): 335–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. A. Finkelstein, D. Gabbay, A. Hunter, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh, Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications, IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 1994, 20(8): 569–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. B. Nuseibeh, S. Easterbrook, and A. Russo, Leveraging inconsistency in software development, IEEE Computer, 2000, 33(4): 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  13. V. Gervasi and D. Zowghi, Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements, ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and Methodologies, 2005, 14(3): 277–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. W. N. Robinson, Negotiation behavior during requirements specification, in ICSE1990, 1990, 268–276.

  15. W. N. Robinson, Interactive decision support for requirements negotiation, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering, 1994, 2(3): 237–252.

    Google Scholar 

  16. B. Boehm and H. In, Identifying quality-requirement conflicts, IEEE Software, 1996, 13(2): 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. H. In and D. Olson, Requirements negotiation using multi-criteria preference analysis, Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2004, 10(4): 306–325.

    Google Scholar 

  18. B. Boehm, P. Bose, E. Horowtiz, and M. Lee, Software requirements negotiation and renegotiation aids: A theory-W based spiral approach, in Proc. of ICSE, 1995, 243–253.

  19. K. Wiegers, First things first: Prioritizing requirements, Software Development, 1999, 7(9): 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. Davis, Just Enough Requirements Management: Where Software Development Meets Marking, Dorset House Publishing, New York, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  21. K. Wiegers, Software Requirements (2nd ed.), Microsoft Press, Buffalo, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Karlsson and K. Ryan, A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements, IEEE Software, 1997, 14(5): 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. J. Pardee, To Satisfy and Delight Your Customer: How to Manage for Customer Value, Dorset House Publishing, New York, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. K. Mu, Z. Jin, R. Lu, and W. Liu, Measuring inconsistency in requirements specifications, in Proceedings of 2005 European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (LNCS) (ed. by L. Godo), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005, Volume 3571, 440–451.

  25. S. Kraus, Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments, Artificial Intelligence, 1997, 94(1–2): 79–98.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. M. Wooldridge and S. Parsons, Languages for negotiation, in Proceedings of ECAI 2000, 2000, 393–397.

  27. L. Austin, How to do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  28. C. Sierra, N. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons, A framework for argumentation-based negotiation, in Intelligent Agents IV (LNAI Volume 1365), 1998, 177–192.

  29. D. Gabbay and A. Hunter, Making inconsistency respectable 2: Meta-level handling of inconsistent data, in Proceedings of 1993 European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (LNCS), Vol. 747, 1993, 129–136.

  30. G. Spanoudakis, A. Finkelstein, and D. Till, Overlaps in requirements engineering. Automated Software Eng., 1999, 6(2): 171–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. G. Spanoudakis and A. Finkelstein, Reconciling requirements: A method for managing interference, inconsistency and conflict, Annals of Software Engineering, 1997, 3(1): 433–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. G. Spanoudakis and A. Zisman, Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues (ed. by S. K. Chang), in Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, World Scientific Publishing Co., 2001, 329–380.

  33. A. Lamsweerde and E. Letier, Handling obstacles in goal-driven requirements engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2000, 26(10): 978–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. H. Bowman, M. Steen, E. Boiten, and J. Derrick, A formal framework for viewpoint consistency, Formal Methods in System Design, 2002, 21(2): 111–166.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. S. Easterbrook and M. Chechik, 2nd international workshop on living with inconsistency, Software Engineering Notes, 2001, 26(6): 76–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. M. Chechik, B. Devereux, and S. Easterbrook, Efficient multiple-valued model-checking using lattice representations, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrency Theory, Aalborg, Denmark, 2001, 21–24.

  37. B. Nuseibeh, S. Easterbrook, and A. Russo, Making inconsistency respectable in software development, Journal of Systems and Software, 2001, 58(2): 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. K. Mu and Z. Jin, Identifying acceptable common proposals for handling inconsistent software requirements, in Proceedings of FORTE 2007: LNCS, Vol. 4574, 2007, 298–308.

  39. I. Sommerville and P. Sawyer, Viewpoints: Principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering, Ann. Software Eng., 1997, 3(1): 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

    Kedian MU

  2. Academy of Mathematics and System Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Zhi JIN

  3. Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Didar ZOWGHI

Authors
  1. Kedian MU
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhi JIN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Didar ZOWGHI
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kedian MU.

Additional information

This research is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 60703061, the National Natural Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China under Grant No. 60625204, the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant No. 2002CB312004, the National 863 High-tech Project of China under Grant No. 2006AA01Z155, the Key Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 60496324, and the International Science Linkage Research Grant under the Australia-China Special Fund for Science and Technology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MU, K., JIN, Z. & ZOWGHI, D. A Priority-Based Negotiations Approach for Handling Inconsistencies in Multi-Perspective Software Requirements. J Syst Sci Complex 21, 574–596 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-008-9136-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-008-9136-4

Key words

Search

Navigation