The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.02 - March/April (2010 vol.27)
pp: 72-80
Samuel Fricker , University of Zurich and Fuchs-Informatik AG
Tony Gorschek , Blekinge Institute of Technology
Armin Schmidle , ABB Switzerland
ABSTRACT
Requirements engineering focuses on good specification practices but has yet to find working solutions for effective requirements communication. Inadequate communication and tacit assent to a demanding customer's requests make it hard to fully understand a project's requirements. A negotiation process, called handshaking with implementation proposals, has been used to communicate requirements effectively—even in situations where almost no written requirements exist and where distance separates the customer from developers. Handshaking is an efficient, flexible technique that uses architectural options to understand requirements, to make implementation decisions that create value, and to establish the foundation for a stable project. This article describes the communication challenges, solutions, and lessons learned in developing the handshaking process and applying it in industrial practice.
INDEX TERMS
software engineering, requirements specification, software design, software methodologies
CITATION
Samuel Fricker, Tony Gorschek, Carl Byman, Armin Schmidle, "Handshaking with Implementation Proposals: Negotiating Requirements Understanding", IEEE Software, vol.27, no. 2, pp. 72-80, March/April 2010, doi:10.1109/MS.2009.195
REFERENCES
1. S. Fricker, T. Gorschek, and P. Myllyperkiö, "Handshaking between Software Projects and Stakeholders Using Implementation Proposals," Proc. 13th Int'l Working Conf. Requirements Eng.: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 07), Springer, 2007, pp 144–159.
2. R. Kazman et al., "The Architecture Trade-off Analysis Method," Proc. 4th IEEE Int'l Conf. Eng. of Complex Computer Systems (CCC 98), IEEE CS Press, 1998, pp. 68–78.
3. A. Griffin and J. Hauser, "Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of the Literature," J.Product Innovation Management, vol. 13, no. 3, 1996, pp. 191–215.
4. S. Fricker, T. Gorschek, and M. Glinz, "Goal-Oriented Requirements Communication in New Product Development," Proc. Int'l Workshop on Software Product Management, IEEE CS Press, 2008, pp. 27–34.
5. S. Gordon and J. Bieman, "Rapid Prototyping: Lessons Learned," IEEE Software, vol. 12, no. 1, 1995, pp. 85–95.
6. C. Larman and V. Basili, "Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History," Computer, vol. 36, no. 6, 2003, pp. 47–56.
7. J. Tyree and A. Akerman, "Architecture Decisions: Demystifying Architecture," IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 2, 2005, pp. 19–26.
8. A. Dutoit et al., Rationale Management in Software Engineering, Springer, 2006.
9. S. Fricker and P. Grünbacher, "Negotiation Constellations—Method Selection Framework for Requirements Negotiation," Proc. 13th Int'l Working Conf. Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Springer, 2008, pp. 37–51.
10. L. Bucciarelli, "Between Thought and Object in Engineering Design," Design Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, 2002, pp. 219–231.
11. A. van Lamsweerde, "Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour," Proc. 5th IEEE Int'l Symp. Requirements Eng. (RE 01), IEEE CS Press, 2001, pp. 249–261.
12. S. Fricker, Pragmatic Requirements Communication: The Handshaking Approach, Shaker Verlag, 2009; www.ifi.uzh.ch/rerg/research/handshaking.
7 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool