From: Abd-El-Kader Sahraoui (kader@laas.fr)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 17:45:45 EST
Hi all,
Dr Ramos is right for RE initial process (elicitation ), but it comes to
formalising the requirement by using the so called " methods, Arbi
mentionned; which concerns modelling, there are some specific methods that
can be adapted to each type of software; there were many taxonomies
developped in this respect (SEI report by G. Woods); there are many in
industry who prone the UML; but too complex (too much BOXology).
Ciao
AEK Sahraoui
> Dear Arbi,
>
> I am not sure if we have to change the techniques and tools for
> handling RE activities. My feeling is that it is not really necessary.
> The changing is in the way we apply them, especially the techniques used
> for requirements elicitation. This stage of the requirements engineering
> process is the least technical of all and requires from the RE engineer
> more sensitivity to the organizational context in which the system is to
> be used (in the case of business applications). Let me see if I find a
> way to explain this better.
>
>
> A business application is much more than a computer-based system that
> automatically performs a certain processing on inputs to produce
> outputs. It does more than supporting business activities. It mediates
> relationships, it creates shared meanings about the organization and the
> performed activities, in empowers or impoverishes human action, prepares
> people for new learning and new needs. I could tell a lot of interesting
> and real stories of how systems can be used in non expected ways.
>
> I have been using many of the techniques developed to facilitate a
> participative RE process. I also use viewpoints and scenarios to
> represent and discuss the shared knowledge. I add new symbols and text
> to highlight specific contextual issues that the notations do not
> include, such as informal communication and relationships, different
> interests, scarce resources, professional needs and expectations,
> anxieties and symbols, etc. Rich pictures and systems notation of SSM
> (Peter Checkland) are very useful too.
>
> As far as I can understand it (and be sure I am pretty ignorant on
> this issue), the elicitation of embedded systems is more technical than
> this and the use of techniques may not need to be so flexible or
> enriched with human details.
>
> Regards,
> Isabel Ramos
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-re-online@it.uts.edu.au
> [mailto:owner-re-online@it.uts.edu.au] On Behalf Of Arbi Ghazarian Sent:
> May 10, 2003 2:26 AM
> To: re-online@it.uts.edu.au
> Subject: [re-online] Different RE methods for differnt types of software
> systems?
>
> Dear colleague
>
> What does the group think about the following question:
> should we change the techniques and tools for handling RE activities
> based on the type of the software system?
> For example, is it possible to use the same methods, techinques and
> tools for both business applications and embeded syetms?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Arbi Ghazarian
> arbi.ghazarian@lerox.at
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To send a message to this mailing list send it to
> re-online@it.uts.edu.au. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email
> majordomo@it.uts.edu.au with the message `unsubscribe re-online' in the
> BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon May 19 2003 - 09:00:11 EST