From Requirements Management to
Requirements Authoring –
An Experience Report from Airbus Group
Jean-Claude Roussel, Gerar...
2
3
50%50%
29%29%
21%21%
30%30%
52%52%
18%18%
20%20%
22%22%
58%58%
Requirements Engineering Capability
ProjectPerformances
C...
• 70% of defects are introduced during requirements phases
– It is important to write effective Requirements
• Experiences...
5
(source: INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook )
Why doing Requirements Engineering ?
Survey on Industrial Practices:
Most common defects on Requirements
6
Study in the scope of RAMP project (Requirements Ana...
A perfect…bad requirement !
Whatever the context, the system should be able to
switch-off as quickly as possible, to resta...
From Requirements Management
to Requirements Authoring
Requirements Quality Control:
Huge review effort for quality verifi...
Requirements Quality Control:
Huge review effort for quality verification
Requirements Quality Assurance:
Authoring “right...
A first answer :
Requirements Quality Analysis (RQA) Tool
– Tool delivered by TRC (The Reuse Company)
– Completely linked ...
From Requirements Analysis to Authoring
So far RQAV3 was a verification tool:
– Checking the quality of individual require...
Requirements Quality Analysis :
Product Improvement
DQA
V2.1
RQA
V3.1
RQS
V4 – V14
Semantics
Syntactic
+
Semantic
Syntacti...
The Requirements Quality Suite (RQS)
The Requirements Quality Suite (RQS) intends to tackle requirements quality
managemen...
Requirements Quality Metrics :
CCC Support
Consistency
(semantic)
Consistency
(inconsistent
units)
Completeness
(missing r...
Correctness :
Individual requirement supported metrics
– Size
– Readability
– Conditional vs. imperative
sentences
– Activ...
Consistency : Supported Metrics
Consistency applies to requirements sets
–Redundant requirements: Several requirements exp...
Completeness: Supported Metrics
Completeness applies to requirements sets
–Missing requirements: Lacks the existence of re...
RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool
• Main features:
– Assisting authors while they’re writing requirements
– Following a ag...
• Author assistance on the fly (typing requirement)
Pattern choicePattern choice
Valid paths to fulfill the selected patte...
• Author assistance on the fly (done requirement)
Pattern fulfilledPattern fulfilled
RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool
20
• Quality assessment on the fly
RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool
21
• Semantically similar requirements on the fly
There’s a requirement in the SKB very similar to the writing requirementThe...
• Inconsistent measurement units on the fly
There’s a requirement in the SKB conflicting with the writing requirementThere...
Knowledge Manager
• Main features:
– Vocabulary management
– Thesaurus management
– Requirements Patterns management
– Sem...
The System Knowledge Base: An ontology
P
a
g
e
25
Controlled vocabulary: valid
terms, forbidden terms…
Optionally can include a
Glossary (description for every
term)
Taxono...
Thank You!
Your Feedback is Important!
Access the Innovate agenda tool to complete your
session surveys from your smartpho...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

From requirements management to requirements authoring - Innovate 2014

970 views

Published on

The presentation suggests an improved way to produce high quality requirements at authoring stage, where the quality of the specification is calculated on the fly, while the analyst writes the requirements. The correctness of a single requirement, as well as the consistency and completeness of the specification is calculated and managed.

Published in: Software, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
970
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

From requirements management to requirements authoring - Innovate 2014

  1. 1. From Requirements Management to Requirements Authoring – An Experience Report from Airbus Group Jean-Claude Roussel, Gerard Auvray - Airbus Group Juan Llorens – The REUSE Company
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. 3 50%50% 29%29% 21%21% 30%30% 52%52% 18%18% 20%20% 22%22% 58%58% Requirements Engineering Capability ProjectPerformances Correlation between Project Performances and Requirement Engineering Capability Why doing Requirements Engineering ? Source : Report on SE Effectiveness Survey NDIA-IEEE-SEI/CMU-INCOSE Nov 2012
  4. 4. • 70% of defects are introduced during requirements phases – It is important to write effective Requirements • Experiences shown that about 25% of system Requirements are critical and can grammatically be improved – No Shall: 8 to 10% – Forbidden words: 10 to 15% – Subject, multiple objects, design: 15% – Incorrect grammar: 50%, … • Requirements error costs are high – Fixing requirements after delivery may cost up to 100 times the one for fixing a requirement error • Training, best practices and verifying requirements by reviews can help to get complete and consistent requirements: – But the process is costly and time consuming • Reduce the number of iterations between System Engineers and sub-contractors and improve the verification activities Why doing Requirements Engineering ? 4
  5. 5. 5 (source: INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook ) Why doing Requirements Engineering ?
  6. 6. Survey on Industrial Practices: Most common defects on Requirements 6 Study in the scope of RAMP project (Requirements Analysis and Modeling Process) in partnership with Airbus Group, RENAULT, EDF, ADN, CORTIM, ENSTA, IRIT, PARIS 1 UNIVERSITY (end 2010 over 22 industrials in several domains worldwide: interviews and questionnaires) 06/20/14 Requirements are mainly written in natural language QUALITY ISSUES ! 6
  7. 7. A perfect…bad requirement ! Whatever the context, the system should be able to switch-off as quickly as possible, to restart without inducing any perturbation and at the same time to inform the operator in a friendly and understandable manner…  Need to perform a Requirement Quality Analysis against all the set of the system Requirements to improve the requirement quality before any delivery. Requirement not SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realisable, Traceable) Ambiguous (What System ?) Several muddled requirements (switch-off, restart, inform) No use of shall Not measurable (quickly, same time,,..) Not testable (friendly, understandable,..) … 7
  8. 8. From Requirements Management to Requirements Authoring Requirements Quality Control: Huge review effort for quality verification My tailor is rich I should need RAT Requirements Writing: Working with requirements inside DOORS 8
  9. 9. Requirements Quality Control: Huge review effort for quality verification Requirements Quality Assurance: Authoring “right the first time” on top of DOORS My tailor is rich I should need RAT Requirements Writing: Working with requirements inside DOORS Requirements Quality Control: Smaller review effort for quality verification From Requirements Management to Requirements Authoring 9
  10. 10. A first answer : Requirements Quality Analysis (RQA) Tool – Tool delivered by TRC (The Reuse Company) – Completely linked with DOORS Tool – Focusing on Syntactic analysis (DQA) and Semantic analysis (RQA V4.1) – Tool evaluation – Airbus Group Innovations – Airbus Defense and Space – Close cooperation with TRC in order to improve the tool – Tool deployment – Limited in Airbus Defense and Space – R&T project focusing on how to improve the requirements quality analysis process – Operationally deployed in Airbus (Commercial Aircraft) • A320neo Cabin Flex 10
  11. 11. From Requirements Analysis to Authoring So far RQAV3 was a verification tool: – Checking the quality of individual requirements once they are written – Based on +25 metrics – Checking the consistency of the overall specification RQA has evolved towards the Requirements Quality Suite (RQS) inV4 – Supports the CCC approach (Correctness, Consistency and Completeness) – V4 is mainly focused on “authoring” – Includes RQA, Requirements AuthoringTool (RAT) and KM RAT:“The SMARTer* way to create requirements”: An assistant to Engineers during the authoring process Including a wide set of customizable boilerplates Helping Engineers during authoring with an intellisense system * SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realisable, Traceable 11
  12. 12. Requirements Quality Analysis : Product Improvement DQA V2.1 RQA V3.1 RQS V4 – V14 Semantics Syntactic + Semantic Syntactic Check Authoring Page 12 12
  13. 13. The Requirements Quality Suite (RQS) The Requirements Quality Suite (RQS) intends to tackle requirements quality management by offering a set of tools and processes. RQS models requirements quality using the CCC approach (Correctness, Consistency and Completeness) Requirements Quality Analyzer (RQA): to setup, check and manage the quality of a requirements specification. Requirements Authoring Tool (RAT): to assist authors in the process of creating requirements with the right level of quality knowledgeMANAGER (kM): to manage knowledge around a requirements specification: -the ontology it is based on -the structure of the requirements to be used in the project -the communication between authors and domain architects. 13
  14. 14. Requirements Quality Metrics : CCC Support Consistency (semantic) Consistency (inconsistent units) Completeness (missing req.) Correctness (individual metrics) Completeness (missing links) Page 14 14
  15. 15. Correctness : Individual requirement supported metrics – Size – Readability – Conditional vs. imperative sentences – Active vs. passive voice – Optional sentences – Ambiguous sentences – Subjective sentences – Implicit sentences – Abuse of connectors – Negations – Speculative sentences – Use of false friends – Design terms – Flow terms – Number of domain nouns and verbs – Acronyms – Hierarchical levels – Volatility – Number of dependences – Forbidden Words – Standard Requirement (match pattern) Page 15 15
  16. 16. Consistency : Supported Metrics Consistency applies to requirements sets –Redundant requirements: Several requirements expressing the same need at the same level of abstraction. –Inconsistent units: Different requirements in the same module/block/project uses different metric units. –Inconsistent Content: Different requirements present value restrictions that are not compatible. 16
  17. 17. Completeness: Supported Metrics Completeness applies to requirements sets –Missing requirements: Lacks the existence of requirements expressing the same need at the different level of abstraction in different modules/blocks of the same project. –Missing Links Lacks the existence of links between requirements expressing the same need at the different level of abstraction in different modules/blocks of the same project. 17
  18. 18. RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool • Main features: – Assisting authors while they’re writing requirements – Following a agreed upon set of patterns • Other (on the fly) features: – Quality assessment (correctness based on individual metrics) on the fly – Consistency analysis on the fly – Missing links on the fly – Inconsistent units analysis on the fly 18
  19. 19. • Author assistance on the fly (typing requirement) Pattern choicePattern choice Valid paths to fulfill the selected patterns Ontology terms to keep fulfilling the selected patterns RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool 19
  20. 20. • Author assistance on the fly (done requirement) Pattern fulfilledPattern fulfilled RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool 20
  21. 21. • Quality assessment on the fly RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool 21
  22. 22. • Semantically similar requirements on the fly There’s a requirement in the SKB very similar to the writing requirementThere’s a requirement in the SKB very similar to the writing requirement RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool 22
  23. 23. • Inconsistent measurement units on the fly There’s a requirement in the SKB conflicting with the writing requirementThere’s a requirement in the SKB conflicting with the writing requirement RAT : Requirements Authoring Tool 23
  24. 24. Knowledge Manager • Main features: – Vocabulary management – Thesaurus management – Requirements Patterns management – Semantic indexing and retrieval services • Ontology construction: – By reusing existing vocabulary, thesauri, ontologies – By creating a semantic graph out of existing documentation – By “elicitating” with the help of experts – By attending the suggestions provided by end users 24
  25. 25. The System Knowledge Base: An ontology P a g e 25
  26. 26. Controlled vocabulary: valid terms, forbidden terms… Optionally can include a Glossary (description for every term) Taxonomy: terms hierarchically organized Thesaurus: hierarchies, associations, synonyms… Light Ontology: syntactic and Semantic groupings for Terms and Actions (verbs). Domain terms and verbs Full-Ontology: patterns and requirements structures Pattern Management Full-Ontology: boilerplates and requirements structures Knowledge (Ontology) Management Page 26 Knowledge Manager
  27. 27. Thank You! Your Feedback is Important! Access the Innovate agenda tool to complete your session surveys from your smartphone, laptop or conference kiosk. 27

×