Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Comparison of requirements hand-off, analysis, and negotiation: case study


Fricker, S; Glinz, M (2010). Comparison of requirements hand-off, analysis, and negotiation: case study. In: 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'10), Sydney, Australia, 27 September 2010 - 1 October 2010, 167-176.

Abstract

Companies in the software business often distribute requirements engineering responsibilities over several roles. Product management has overall product responsibility and performs early-phase market-driven requirements engineering. Product development implements the product and performs late-phase solution-oriented requirements engineering. Such shared responsibility provides advantages in the utilization of specific knowledge, skills, and resources, but leads to problems of mutual understanding and coordination. Earlier research proposed a negotiation process, handshaking with implementation proposals, that allows product management and development to achieve agreed requirements understanding. The process found acceptance in industry, but the relative advantages compared with traditional requirements hand-off and analysis had not been understood yet. This paper fills this gap by describing a case of measuring requirements and design volatility and an architect's requirements understanding during requirements hand-off, analysis, and negotiation.

Abstract

Companies in the software business often distribute requirements engineering responsibilities over several roles. Product management has overall product responsibility and performs early-phase market-driven requirements engineering. Product development implements the product and performs late-phase solution-oriented requirements engineering. Such shared responsibility provides advantages in the utilization of specific knowledge, skills, and resources, but leads to problems of mutual understanding and coordination. Earlier research proposed a negotiation process, handshaking with implementation proposals, that allows product management and development to achieve agreed requirements understanding. The process found acceptance in industry, but the relative advantages compared with traditional requirements hand-off and analysis had not been understood yet. This paper fills this gap by describing a case of measuring requirements and design volatility and an architect's requirements understanding during requirements hand-off, analysis, and negotiation.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

72 downloads since deposited on 13 Feb 2011
4 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Conference or Workshop Item (Paper), refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:03 Faculty of Economics > Department of Informatics
Dewey Decimal Classification:000 Computer science, knowledge & systems
Event End Date:1 October 2010
Deposited On:13 Feb 2011 10:25
Last Modified:13 Aug 2017 05:49
Series Name:Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering
ISSN:1090-705X
Additional Information:© 2010 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2010.29
Other Identification Number:merlin-id:18

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Filetype: PDF (Published version) - Registered users only
Size: 695kB
View at publisher
Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 671kB

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations