Where Are We on the "Fend off the Alligators - Drain the Swamp" Continuum?

D. C. Gause, Savile Row
{"title":"Where Are We on the \"Fend off the Alligators - Drain the Swamp\" Continuum?","authors":"D. C. Gause, Savile Row","doi":"10.1109/ISRE.2001.948570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary form only given, as follows. Over the past ten years, we have seen many useful developments in software specification tools, languages, processes, and practices as well as the creation of a number of excellent requirements management tools. Numerous books and articles have been produced on requirements elicitation and development. We have leamed to explicitly specify complex synchronous and asynchronous processes using Petri nets, state diagrams, and structured decision tables. We are exploring the use of fuzzy logic and imprecise probabilities to improve our management of uncertainty in the design process. But, WAIT JUST A MINUTE! Where is the industry with respect to all of this? In spite of this dramatic progress, are there remaining holes and/or opportunities in our practice of Requirements Engineering? We find the industry to be all over the map as the answer to the former and an emphatic YES as an answer to the latter. We take a friendly look at the industry in terms of 1) requirements practices already in place - from none to some to plenty, 2) what the industry means by \"requirements,\" and 3) what companies say to their stockholders and customers versus what their end products reflect. We will suggest a few simple ideas for enhancing the value of requirements over the full life cycle of the product. We will propose a more moderate strategy for realizing, in a practical way, greater opportunity through requirements engineering. We feel that, with modest but consistent effort, we can experience relatively large benefits. We suggest charming the alligators.","PeriodicalId":90955,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings. IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference","volume":"73 1","pages":"266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings. IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISRE.2001.948570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary form only given, as follows. Over the past ten years, we have seen many useful developments in software specification tools, languages, processes, and practices as well as the creation of a number of excellent requirements management tools. Numerous books and articles have been produced on requirements elicitation and development. We have leamed to explicitly specify complex synchronous and asynchronous processes using Petri nets, state diagrams, and structured decision tables. We are exploring the use of fuzzy logic and imprecise probabilities to improve our management of uncertainty in the design process. But, WAIT JUST A MINUTE! Where is the industry with respect to all of this? In spite of this dramatic progress, are there remaining holes and/or opportunities in our practice of Requirements Engineering? We find the industry to be all over the map as the answer to the former and an emphatic YES as an answer to the latter. We take a friendly look at the industry in terms of 1) requirements practices already in place - from none to some to plenty, 2) what the industry means by "requirements," and 3) what companies say to their stockholders and customers versus what their end products reflect. We will suggest a few simple ideas for enhancing the value of requirements over the full life cycle of the product. We will propose a more moderate strategy for realizing, in a practical way, greater opportunity through requirements engineering. We feel that, with modest but consistent effort, we can experience relatively large benefits. We suggest charming the alligators.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们在“击退鳄鱼-排干沼泽”的连续体中做了什么?
仅给出摘要形式,如下。在过去的十年中,我们看到了软件规范工具、语言、过程和实践方面的许多有用的发展,以及许多优秀需求管理工具的创建。已经出版了许多关于需求引出和开发的书籍和文章。我们已经学会了使用Petri网、状态图和结构化决策表显式地指定复杂的同步和异步过程。我们正在探索使用模糊逻辑和不精确概率来改进我们对设计过程中不确定性的管理。但是,等一下!在所有这些方面,这个行业处于什么位置?尽管有了这些戏剧性的进展,在我们的需求工程实践中是否还存在漏洞和/或机会?我们发现,对于前一个问题,整个行业的答案都是不同的,而对于后一个问题,我们的答案则是肯定的。我们从以下几个方面对这个行业进行了友好的审视:1)已经存在的需求实践——从没有到有,再到很多;2)这个行业所说的“需求”意味着什么;3)公司对股东和客户说了什么,以及他们的最终产品反映了什么。我们将提出一些简单的想法,以在产品的整个生命周期中增强需求的价值。我们将提出一个更适度的策略,以一种实际的方式,通过需求工程实现更大的机会。我们认为,通过适度但持续的努力,我们可以获得相对较大的收益。我们建议引诱鳄鱼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Idea Generation Tool for Designing Behavior Change Games 29th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2021, Notre Dame, IN, USA, September 20-24, 2021 Welcome Message from the RE'19 Chairs Welcome Message from the RE18 Chairs You versus users - who owns your roadmap? (keynote)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1