Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Improving the Requirements Engineering Process Management

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a system dynamics model for improving the requirements engineering process management. The paper argues that improving RE process management improves the quality of the specification produced. It uses a simulation modelling approach to capture the complex and dynamic nature of quality and also the cost of resources and time needed to complete the process. Current claims by various researchers and empirical evidence has led to our proposition that “the earlier in the requirements engineering phase that system dynamics simulation modelling is used, the more effective the RE process management is and the better its product quality will be.” In developing such a model, the paper fills an important gap in the RE process management literature and has potential to provide requirement engineers, managers and software development organisations with a model-based process framework to aid quality assessment and improvement. The paper concludes by suggesting that the framework makes a useful contribution both in providing the foundations for theory building in RE process management and quality improvement by aiding shared understanding through learning and training situations.

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

  • Abdel-Hamid, T. and Madnick, S. E. 1990. Software project dynamics—an integrated approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, J. 1997. Essense of the capability maturity model. IEEE Comput. 30 (6):112–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackman, A. W. 1978. The use of dynamic modelling for conditional forecasts of resource allocation policies, in Roberts, Edward B., Ed. Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, Portland, Productivity, pp. 355–372.

  • Boehm, B. W. 1981. Software engineering economics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • BOOTSTRAP Institute. 1994. BOOTSTRAP global questionnaire, V2.3, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N. R. 1920. Physics, the elements, Cambridge University Press (reprinted as Foundations of Science, Dover, 1957).

  • Clark, T. D., and Augustine, F. F. 1992. Using system dynamics to measure the value of information in a business firm, Sys. Dynam. Revi. Cambridge University Press 8(2):149–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello, R. J., and Liu, D.-B. 1995. Metrics for requirements engineering, J. Syst. Software 29(1):39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, R. G. 1996. System dynamics modelling—a practical approach, London: Chapman & Hall, 413 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B., Krasner, H., and Iscoe, N. 1988.A field study of the software design process for large systems, Communi. ACM 31(11):1268–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A., Overmyer, S., Jordan, K., Caruso, J., Dandashi, F., Dinh, A., Kincaid, G., Ledeboer, G., Reynolds, P., Sitaram, P., Ta, A., and Theofanos, M. 1993. Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification, Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Software Metrics, pp. 141–152.

  • El Emam, K., and Madhavji, N. H. 1995a. A field study of requirements engineering practices in information systems development, in Second IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 68–80.

  • El Emam, K., and Madhavji, N. H. 1995b. Measuring the success of requirements engineering processes, in Second IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 204–211.

  • Fayad, M. E., and Laitinen, M. 1997. Process assessment considered wasteful (column), Commun. ACM, 40(11):125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N. 1991. Software measurement: why a formal approach? in Denvir, T., Herman, R., and Whitty, R. W., Eds., Formal Aspects of Measurement, Computing Workshop, Springer-Verlag.

  • Finkelstein, L. 1982. Theory and philosophy of measurement, in Sydenham, P. H., Ed., Handbook of measurement science, Vol. 1: Theoretical fundamentals, Wiley.

  • Ford, D. N., and Sterman, J. D. 1996. Dynamic modelling of product development processes. Proc. 1996 Int. Syst. Dynamics Conf., Cambridge, MA, Vol. 1.

  • Forrester, J. W., and Senge, P. 1980. Tests for building confidence in systems dynamics models, TIMS Stud. Manage. Sci. 14:209–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. 1961. Industrial dynamics, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R. D., Ed. 1984. Information systems research: issues, methods and practical guidelines, Information Systems Series, Henley-on-Thames, Alfred Waller.

  • Hayes, W., and Zubrow, D. 1995. Moving on up: data and experience doing CMM-based software process improvement. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, CMUrSEI-95-TR-08, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. A. 1992. Information systems epistemology—a historical perspective, in Galliers, B. Information Systems Series, pp. 26–46.

  • Humphrey, W. W., and Sweet, W. L. 1987. A method for assessing the software engineering capability of contractors, Technical Report CMUrSEI-87-TR-23, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organisation for Standardisation. 1994. Quality systems—model for quality assurance in designrdevelopment, production, installation, and servicing, ISO 9000-1, revised edition.

  • ISOrIEC JTC1rSC7rWG10. 1996. Software Process Assessment Part 3–9. v.2.0.

  • Jenner, M. J. 1995. Software quality management and ISO 90001, New York, Wiley, pp. 47–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jirotka, M., and Goguen, J. A. 1994. Introduction, in Virotka, M., and Goguen, J. A., Eds., Requirements engineering: social and technical issues, London, Academic Press, pp. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. W. 1981. Application of a performance-based approach to economic valuation of information, J Oper. Res. Soc. 32(11):967–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A. 1971. Foundations of Measurements, Academic Press.

  • Kuhn, J. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed., Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

  • Kuvaja, P., Simila, J., Kizanik, L., Bicego, A., Koch, G., Saukkonen, S. 1994. Software process assessment and improvement: the BOOTSTRAP approach, Blackwell Business Publishers.

  • Loucopoulos, P., and Karakostas, V. 1995. System Requirements Engineering, McGraw-Hill.

  • Lubars, M., Potts, C., and Richter, C. 1993. A review of the state of the practice in requirements modelling, Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering, San Diego, CA, IEEE Computer Society Press.

  • Macaulay, L. A. 1996. Requirements engineering applied computing, Springer.

  • Meadows, D. M. 1982. Lessons from global modelling and modellers features, Vol. 14, pp. 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melone, N. P. 1990. A theoretical assessment of the user-satisfaction construct in information systems research, Manage. Res. 36(1):76–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft, J. D. W. 1979. An integrated approach to industrial dynamics. Working Paper, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. 1984. Participation from Aristotle to today. In Bemelmans, Th., Ed. Beyond productivity: information system development for organisational effectiveness, North-Holland, pp. 95–105.

  • Newman, M., and Robey, D. 1992. A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Qu. June, pp. 249–266.

  • Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. 1993.Capability maturity model for software, Version 1.1 Software Engineering Institute, CMUrSEIr-87-TR-24.

  • Pohl, K. 1993. The three dimensions of requirements engineering, in Rolland, C., Bodart, F., and Cauvet, C., Eds. 5th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer-Verlag, pp. 275–292.

  • Richardson, G. P. 1996. Modelling for management I and II: simulation in support of systems thinking, Aldershot, UK, Dartmouth.

  • Richardson, G. P., and Pugh, A. L., III. 1981. Introduction to system dynamics modelling with DYNAMO, Cambridge, MA, MIT, Productivity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. 1978. Exploratory and normative technological forecasting: a critical appraisal, in Roberts, E. B., Ed. Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, Portland, Productivity, pp. 373–387.

  • Roberts, F. S. 1979. Measurement theory with application to decision making, utility, and the social sciences, Addison Wesley.

  • Senge, P. M. 1993. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation, Century Business.

  • Sommerville, I., and Sawyer, S. 1997. Requirements engineering: a good practice guide, Wiley.

  • Swanson, C. V. 1971. Evaluating the quality of management information, Working paper, Sloan School of Management, MIT Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vazquez, M., Liz, M., and Aracil, J. 1996. nowledge and reality: some conceptual issues in system dynamics modelling. Syst. Dynam. Rev. 12l(1).

  • von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General systems theory—foundations, development, applications, New York, George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Court, I., Ross, M., Staples, G., and King, F. 1997. Mutual transformation of the capability levels between the current SPA models, Technical Report SI-RCSE-WANG97-SP123, pp. 1–12.

  • Wiegner, N. 1948. Cybernetics, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieringa, R. J. 1995. Requirements engineering: frameworks for understanding, John Wiley.

  • Williams, D. W., and Kennedy, M. S. 1997. A viewpoints conceptual framework for improving the organisational information requirements: a system dynamics perspective. In Barlas, Y., Dicker, V. G., and Polat S., Eds. 15th international system dynamics conference, Istanbul, Turkey, Vol. 2, pp. 475–479, System Dynamics Society.

  • Wolstenholme, E. F. 1990. System enquiry-a system dynamics approach, Chichester, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolstenholme, E. F., Gavin, A., Watts, K. M., and Henderson, S. 1990. The design of dynamic methodology for the assessment of computerised information systems, in Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., and Sterman, J. D., III, Eds. Proc. of the 1990 International System Dynamics Conference, pp. 1346–1354.

  • Yadav, S. B., Bravoco, R. R., Chatfield, A. T., and Rajkumar, T. M. 1988.Comparison of analysis techniques for information requirement.

  • Zahedi, F. 1995. Quality information systems, Danvers, MA, Boyd & Frazer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics, South Bank University, Borough Road, London, SE1 OAA, UK

    D. W. Williams, T. Hall & M. Kennedy

Authors
  1. D. W. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, D.W., Hall, T. & Kennedy, M. A Framework for Improving the Requirements Engineering Process Management. Software Quality Journal 8, 133–147 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008956910828

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008956910828

Search

Navigation