Skip to main content
Log in

Improving the detection of requirements discordances among stakeholders

  • Original article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper introduces a technique to identify requirements discordances among stakeholders. This technique is validated in experiments. An extended version of the goal-oriented requirements elicitation method, named attributed goal-oriented analysis (AGORA), and its supporting tool are used. Two types of requirements discordances among stakeholders are defined: the first arises from the different interpretations by the stakeholders and the second is the result of different evaluations of preferences. Discordances are detected by the preference matrices in AGORA. Each preference matrix represents both preferences of each stakeholder and the estimated preferences of other stakeholders. A supporting tool for the AGORA method was developed. This tool is a groupware that seamlessly combines face-to-face meetings for goal elicitation and distributed individual sessions for scoring preference values. The experimental results showed that the proposed classification of discordances was sound and that the occurrences of the requirements discordances could be detected by preference matrices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20:3–50

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Rolland C, Ben Achour C, Cauvet C, Ralyte J, Sutcliffe A, Maiden N, Jarke M, Haumer P, Pohl K, Dubois E, Heymans P (1998) A proposal for a scenario classification framework. Requirements Eng 3(1):23–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Leite J, Hadad G, Doorn J, Kaplan G (2000) A scenario construction process. Requirements Eng 5(1):38–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sutcliffe A (1998) Scenario-based requirements analysis. Requirements Eng 3(1):48–65

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Anton A, Potts C (1998) The use of goals to surface requirements for evolving systems. In: Proceedings of 20th international conference on software engineering, pp 157–166

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boehm B, Grunbacher P, Briggs RO (2001) EasyWinWin: a groupware-supported methodology for requirements negotiation. In: 23rd international conference on software engineering, pp 720–721

  8. Chung L, Nixon B, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (1999) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. van Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Massonet P (1995) Goal-directed elaboration of requirements for a meeting scheduler: problems and lessons learnt. In: Proceedings of 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 194–203

  10. Kaiya H, Horai H, Saeki M (2002) AGORA: attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis method. In: IEEE joint international requirements engineering conference, pp 13–22

  11. Saeki M, Sureerat S, Tanaka A (2000) Supporting distributed individual task in cooperative specification development. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 10(3):319–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nuseibeh B, Kramer J, Finkelstein A (2003) Viewpoints: meaningful relationships are difficult! In: Proceedings of 25th international conference on software engineering, pp 676–681

  13. Spanoudakis G, Finkelstein A (1998) A semi-automatic process of identifying overlaps and inconsistencies between requirements specifications. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on object-oriented information systems (OOIS’98), pp 405–425

  14. Easterbrook S, Chechik M (2001) A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoint. In: Proceedings of 21st international conference on software engineering, pp 411–420

  15. Troyer L (2003) Incorporating theories of group dynamics in group decision support system (GDSS) design. In: International parallel and distributed processing symposium, p 108b

  16. Connolly T, Jessup L, Valacich J (1990) Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Manage Sci 36(6):689–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jessup L, Connolly T, Gallagher J (1990) The effects of anonymity on group process in an idea-generating task. MIS Quart 14(3):313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vitharana P, Ramamurthy K (2003) Computer-mediated group support, anonymity, and the software inspection process: an empirical investigation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(2):167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boehm B, Grunbacher P, Briggs RO (2001) Developing Groupware for Requirements Negotiation: Lessons Learned. IEEE Softw 18(3):46–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Robinson WN, Volkov S (1996) Conflict-oriented requirements restructuring. GSU CIS working paper 96-15, Georgia State University, Atlanta

  21. Robinson WN, Volkov S (1997) A meta-model for restructuring stakeholder requirements. In: Proceedings of 19th international conference on software engineering, pp 17–23

  22. van Lamsweerde A, Letier E (1998) Integrating obstacles in goal-driven requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of 20th international conference on software engineering, pp 53–63

  23. Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM, Minocha S, Manuel D (1998) Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1072–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Haumer P, Pohl K, Weidenhaupt K (1998) Requirements elicitation and validation with real world scenes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1036–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bresciani P, Perini A, Giorgini P, Giunchiglia F, Mylopoulos J (2004) Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Sytems, Kluwer, 8:203–236

  26. Yu ESK(1993) Modelling organisations for information system requirements. In: 1st IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 34–41

  27. Dimitromanolaki I, Loucopoulos P (2000) Goal-based conflict management in scenario analysis. In: 11th international workshop on database and expert systems applications, pp 831–835

  28. Robinson WN, Pawlowski SD (1999) Managing requirements inconsistency with development goal monitors. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(6):816–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Saaty TL (1990) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. RWS

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Maiden NAM, Pavan P, Gizikis A, Clause O, Kim H, Zhu X (2002) Making decisions with requirements: integrating i* goal modelling and the AHP. In: REFSQ’02 proceedings, Essen, Germany, pp 24–35

  32. Cornford SL, Feather MS, Kelly JC, Larson TW, Sigal B, Kiper JD (2000) Design and development assessment. In: Proceedings of the tenth international workshop on software specification and design (IWSSD’00), pp 105–114

  33. Fuxman A, Liu L, Pistore M, Roveri M, Mylopoulos J (2003) Specifying and analyzing early requirements: some experimental results. In: Proceedings of 11th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 105–114

  34. Leite JCSP, Franco APM (1993) A strategy for conceptual model acquisition. In: First IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 243–246

  35. Kato J, Saeki M, Ohnishi A, Nagata M, Kaiya H, Komiya S, Yamamoto S, Horai H, Watahiki K (2003) PAORE: package oriented requirements elicitation. In: Proceedings of 10th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 17–26

  36. Kaiya H, Saeki M, Ochimizu K (1995) Design of a hyper media tool to support requirements elicitation meetings. In: Proceedings seventh international workshop on computer-aided software engineering (CASE’95), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 250–259

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the reviewers and participants in REFSQ’04, especially Dr. Jorge J. Garcia-Flores, Prof. Daniel M. Berry, Dr. Charles B. Haley, Dr. Steven J. Bleistein, Dr. Erik Kamsties, Dr. Björn Regnell, and Dr. Vincenzo Gervasi for their discussions and insightful comments on the REFSQ workshop version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haruhiko Kaiya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaiya, H., Shinbara, D., Kawano, J. et al. Improving the detection of requirements discordances among stakeholders. Requirements Eng 10, 289–303 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0017-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0017-2

Keywords

Navigation