Shifts in foci and priorities. Different relevance of requirements to changing goals yields conflicting prioritizations and is viewpoint-dependent

Software Process Improvement and Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 465-485

  Hoorn, Johan F ^a   Breuker, Mark E ^a   Kok, Evelien ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b Concern Information Management Police ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Business; Change; Goals; Prioritization; Requirements; Viewpoints

Indexed keywords

FINANCE; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; STATISTICAL METHODS; STUDENTS;

FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS; PRIORITIZATION ACTIVITY; STAKEHOLDERS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 33750289403     PISSN: 10774866     EISSN: 10991670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spip.290     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alexander I, RobertsonS. 2004. Understanding project sociology by modeling stakeholders. IEEE Software 21(1): 23-27.
2. AkaoY. 1990. Quality Function Deployment QFD: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Productivity Press: Cambridge, MA.
3. BISON. 2003. Mass confusion in telecom world paves the way for booming consulting franchise. Altruistic business consultants find recessionproof security in Schooley Mitchell. Bizjournals (January 3). http://bizjournals. bison.com/press/prl-303schooley.html. Accessed September 21, 2005.
4. Blackboard. 1997-2005. Blackboard Ine: Redmond, WA.
5. Boehm BW, Pappacio PN. 1988. Understanding and controlling software costs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14:1462-1477.
6. Breuker ME, Hoorn JF. 2004. The e-learning hoax Didactor versus Blackboard. (Tech. Rep.) Amsterdam: Free University, Information Management and Software Engineering.
7. Cockburn A, Highsmith J. 2001. Agile software development: The people factor. IEEE Computer 34(9): 131-133.
8. Cooper A, Reimann R. 2003. About Face 2.0; The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley: New York.
9. DavisAM. 1990. Software Requirements-Analysis and Specification. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
10. Didactor. 2003. The Mediator Group: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
11. Dillman DA. 1999. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley: New York.
12. Easterbrook S, Nuseibeh B. 1996. Using viewpoints for inconsistency management. BCS/IEEE Software Engineering Journal 11(1): 31-43.
13. eRA. 2002. Program portal scope document vl.4, Technical Report. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD, http://era.nih.gov/Docs/Pgm_Por_Scope_4-02. doc.
14. Frijda NH. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge University Press: New York.
15. Gervasi G, Zowghi D. 2005. Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 14:277-330.
16. Green S, Salkind N. 2003. Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. PrenticeHall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
17. Highsmith J, Cockburn A. 2001. Agile software development: The business of innovation. IEEE Computer 34(11): 120-122.
18. Hoom JF, Breuker ME. 2005. Panta rho. Personal before business in changing requirements priorities. In Proceedings ofSREP, Limerick, Ireland.
19. Hoorn JF, Breuker ME. 2005. Requirements Prioritization at a Financial Buy-out of IBM. (Tech. Rep.) Amsterdam: Free University, Information Management and Software Engineering.
20. Hoorn JF, Kok E. 2005. Requirements Validation of a capacity Management System at the Dutch Police force. (Tech. Rep.) Amsterdam: Free University, Information Management and Software Engineering.
21. Hoorn JF, Konijn EA, van Vliet H, van der Veer G. 2006. Requirements change: Fears determine the must haves; desires the won't haves. Journal of Systems and Software Accepted.
22. Hopkins J. 2002. Minority women go it alone in starting their own businesses. USA Today (October 22). http://www.usatoday.com/educate/Entrell.pdf. Accessed September 21,2005.
23. Karlsson J, Ryan K. 1997. A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software 14(5): 67-74 September/October 1997.
24. Lam W, Shankararaman V, Saward G. 1999. Requirements change: A dissection of management issues. In Proceedings of REFSQ, Heidelberg, Germany.
25. Lehman MM. 1996. Laws of software evolution revisited. Lecture notes in computer science, 1149. In Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop on Software Process Technology, London, UK.
26. Leite JCSP, Freeman PA. 1991. Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(12): 1253-1269.
27. Loucopoulos P, Kavakli E. 1995. Enterprise modelling and the Ideological approach to requirements engineering. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 4(1): 45-79.
28. Lowry R. 2005. Spearman rank order correlation coefficient. VassarStats. http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/ corr_rank.html. Accessed August 12,2005.
29. Moisiadis F. 2002. The fundamentals of prioritising requirements. In Proceedings of SETE, Sydney, Australia.
30. PollPoint, V7.6.1. 2004. PollPoint Online Survey's. http://www.pollpoint. nl. Accessed July 1.
31. Potts C, Takahashi K. 1993. An active hypertext model for system requirements. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Redondo Beach, CA.
32. Price J, Cybulski J. 2004. Influence of stakeholder communication on consensus making in requirements negotiation. In Proceedings of AWRE, Adelaide, Australia.
33. Sommerville I, Sawyer P. 1997. Viewpoints: Principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Annals of Software Engineering 3:101-130.
34. Strens MR, Sugden RC. 1996. Change analysis: A step towards meeting the challenge of changing requirements. In Friedrich-shafen, Germany. IEEE Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS'96).
35. Van Lamsweerde A. 2004. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A roundtrip from research to practice. In Proceedings of RE'04, Kyoto, Japan.
36. Wiegers KE. 1999. Software Requirements. Microsoft Press: Redmond, WA.