Getting to the shalls: Facilitating Sensemaking in Requirements Engineering

被引：6

作者：

Chakraborty, Suranjan ^{[1
]}

Rosenkranz, Christoph ^{[2
]}

Dehlinger, Josh ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, 7800 York Road, Towson, 21218, MD

[2] Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Pohligstr 1, Cologne

来源：

ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems | 2015年 / 5卷 / 03期

关键词：

Grounded theory methodology; Linguistic analysis; Nonfunctional Requirements Framework; Qualitative analysis;

D O I：

10.1145/2629351

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Sensemaking in Requirements Engineering (RE) relies on knowledge transfer, communication, and negotiation of project stakeholders. It is a critical and challenging aspect of Information Systems (IS) development. One of the most fundamental aspects of RE is the specification of traceable, unambiguous, and operationalizable functional and nonfunctional requirements. This remains a nontrivial task in the face of the complexity inherent in RE due to the lack of well-documented, systematic procedures that facilitate a structured analysis of the qualitative data from stakeholder interviews, observations, and documents that are typically the input to this activity. This research develops a systematic and traceable procedure, for non-functional requirements the Grounded and Linguistic-Based Requirements Analysis Procedure (GLAP), which can fill this gap by incorporating perspectives from Grounded Theory Method, linguistic analysis of language quality, Volere typology, and the Nonfunctional Requirements Framework without significantly deviating from existing practice. The application of GLAP is described along with empirical illustrations using RE data from a redesign initiative of a library website of a public university in the United States. An outlook is given on further work and necessary evaluation steps. © 2015 ACM.

引用

共 69 条

[1]

Abran A., Moore J.W., Bourque P., Dupuis R., ), (2004)

[2]

Appan R., Browne G.J., The impact of analyst-induced misinformation on the requirements elicitation process, MIS Quarterly, 36, 1-3, pp. 85-106, (2012)

[3]

Benbasat I., Goldstein D.K., Mead M., The case research strategy in studies of information systems, MIS Quarterly, 11, 3, pp. 369-386, (1987)

[4]

Berry D.M., The inevitable pain of software development: Why there is no silver bullet, Radical Innovations of Software and Systems Engineering in the Future, pp. 50-74, (2004)

[5]

Berry D.M., Kamsties E., Ambiguity in requirements specification, Perspectives on Software Requirements, pp. 191-194, (2003)

[6]

Boehm B., Bose P., Horowitz E., Lee M.J., Software requirements negotiation and renegotiation aids, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 243-253, (1995)

[7]

Boehm B., Grunbacher P., Briggs R.O., Developing groupware for requirements negotiation: Lessons learned, IEEE Software, 18, 3, pp. 46-55, (2001)

[8]

Brooks F.P., No silver bullet: Essence and accident in software engineering, IEEE Computer, 20, 4, pp. 10-19, (1987)

[9]

Chae B., Poole M.S., The surface of emergence in systems development: Agency, institutions, and large-scale information systems, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 1, pp. 19-36, (2005)

[10]

Chakraborty S., Dehlinger J., Applying the grounded theory method to derive enterprise system requirements, Proceedings Ofthe10th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligences, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD'09), pp. 333-338, (2009)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 →