Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "RMF/Teaching"

< RMF
(Case Study)
(Case Study)
Line 48: Line 48:
 
! Eckhard
 
! Eckhard
 
! Ron
 
! Ron
 +
! Michael
 
|-
 
|-
 
| '''Requirements process:'''
 
| '''Requirements process:'''
Line 60: Line 61:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|  *
 
|  *
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Requirements in a Product Creation Process: up front (waterfall), ongoing (agile), ...
 
| Requirements in a Product Creation Process: up front (waterfall), ongoing (agile), ...
Line 66: Line 68:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  *
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Requirements process states (rigour): Draft -> Proposal -> … -> Approval , EU 8?
 
| Requirements process states (rigour): Draft -> Proposal -> … -> Approval , EU 8?
Line 72: Line 75:
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Versions vs variants, variability, EU 8
 
| Versions vs variants, variability, EU 8
Line 78: Line 82:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|  Adv
 
|  Adv
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Req communication and collaboration media (documents, general purpose comm. media, specialised tooling)
 
| Req communication and collaboration media (documents, general purpose comm. media, specialised tooling)
Line 83: Line 88:
 
|   
 
|   
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 +
|  **
 
|  **  
 
|  **  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 90: Line 96:
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|
 
|
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Elicitation, SI.2.2, EU 3
 
| Elicitation, SI.2.2, EU 3
Line 95: Line 102:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  **
 
|  **
 +
|  **
 
|  **  
 
|  **  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 102: Line 110:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  Int  
 
|  Int  
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Modelling, EU 6
 
| Modelling, EU 6
Line 108: Line 117:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  Adv
 
|  Adv
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Specification (documenting), SI.2.2, EU 4
 
| Specification (documenting), SI.2.2, EU 4
Line 114: Line 124:
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Verification, SI.2.3 ("correctness and testability"), EU 7
 
| Verification, SI.2.3 ("correctness and testability"), EU 7
Line 120: Line 131:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|
 
|
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Tracing, SI.2.3, SI.2.6, EU 8
 
| Tracing, SI.2.3, SI.2.6, EU 8
Line 126: Line 138:
 
|  ****
 
|  ****
 
|  **
 
|  **
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Communication, SI.2.3, SI.2.4, SI.2.5, SI.2.6
 
| Communication, SI.2.3, SI.2.4, SI.2.5, SI.2.6
Line 132: Line 145:
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Reviewing, SI.2.3
 
| Reviewing, SI.2.3
Line 138: Line 152:
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  **
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Feedback processing, SI.2.2
 
| Feedback processing, SI.2.2
Line 144: Line 159:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|   
 
|   
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Attributes management, EU 8
 
| Attributes management, EU 8
Line 150: Line 166:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|  *
 
|  *
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Change management, SI.2.3, EU 8
 
| Change management, SI.2.3, EU 8
Line 156: Line 173:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|  *  
 
|  *  
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Reuse management
 
| Reuse management
Line 162: Line 180:
 
|  ****
 
|  ****
 
|  Adv
 
|  Adv
 +
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Document generation with selective req-info content (views), SI.2.2, SI.2.5, SI.2.6, EU 8
 
| Document generation with selective req-info content (views), SI.2.2, SI.2.5, SI.2.6, EU 8
Line 168: Line 187:
 
|  ****
 
|  ****
 
|  *
 
|  *
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Requirements process KPI reporting
 
| Requirements process KPI reporting
Line 174: Line 194:
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
| Int
 
| Int
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| '''Requirements technology:'''
 
| '''Requirements technology:'''
Line 186: Line 207:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  **  
 
|  **  
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Core req-info vs req attributes (w.r.t. formulation, rationale, requirements process, reuse policies)
 
| Core req-info vs req attributes (w.r.t. formulation, rationale, requirements process, reuse policies)
Line 192: Line 214:
 
|  ****
 
|  ****
 
|  Int  
 
|  Int  
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Formulation of requirements: in natural language (EU 5), in formal language, in models, SI.2.3
 
| Formulation of requirements: in natural language (EU 5), in formal language, in models, SI.2.3
Line 198: Line 221:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|  Adv
 
|  Adv
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Formality (acceptance criteria) vs informality (providing context) in specifying requirements, SI.2.4
 
| Formality (acceptance criteria) vs informality (providing context) in specifying requirements, SI.2.4
Line 204: Line 228:
 
|  **
 
|  **
 
|  Int  
 
|  Int  
 +
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Requirements frameworks (BABOK, Volere, IEEE…)
 
| Requirements frameworks (BABOK, Volere, IEEE…)
Line 210: Line 235:
 
|  -
 
|  -
 
|  Int
 
|  Int
 +
 
|-
 
|-
 
| V-horizontal traceability: traces among req-info-items at one level of stakeholders’ abstraction: requirements – requirements groups – dependences – reuse traces – change requests – test cases – test reports, SI.2.3, EU 8
 
| V-horizontal traceability: traces among req-info-items at one level of stakeholders’ abstraction: requirements – requirements groups – dependences – reuse traces – change requests – test cases – test reports, SI.2.3, EU 8
Line 216: Line 242:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|  Int
 
|  Int
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| V-vertical traceability: traces among req-info-items across various levels of stakeholders’ abstraction: business level – product level – component level, SI.2.3, SI.2.4, EU 8
 
| V-vertical traceability: traces among req-info-items across various levels of stakeholders’ abstraction: business level – product level – component level, SI.2.3, SI.2.4, EU 8
Line 222: Line 249:
 
|  ***
 
|  ***
 
|  Int
 
|  Int
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Baselining, EU 8
 
| Baselining, EU 8
Line 228: Line 256:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  **  
 
|  **  
 +
|  *
 
|-
 
|-
 
| '''Case practicality:'''
 
| '''Case practicality:'''
Line 241: Line 270:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  **
 
|  **
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Size: # req-info-items, # acceptance criteria, # test cases
 
| Size: # req-info-items, # acceptance criteria, # test cases
Line 247: Line 277:
 
|
 
|
 
|   
 
|   
 +
 
|-
 
|-
 
| # Functional requirements
 
| # Functional requirements
Line 253: Line 284:
 
|  -
 
|  -
 
|  *
 
|  *
 +
|  **
 
|-
 
|-
 
| # Extrafunctional (restrictions, technology, markets, maintenance …), quality, regulation, …  requirements
 
| # Extrafunctional (restrictions, technology, markets, maintenance …), quality, regulation, …  requirements
Line 259: Line 291:
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  *
 
|  *
 +
|  *
 
|}
 
|}
  

Revision as of 17:16, 29 July 2014

Requirements Management and Engineering (RE&M) is taught, both in industry and academia. The availability of open source RE-tools, and the RMF-based (fmStudio)[1] in particular, created some interest for using those tools for teaching.

Vision

Create (1) a set of teaching materials that is actively used; (2) which is embedded in a larger SE context; and (3) which explicitly focuses on applying RE.

Scope

The scope is the creation of teaching materials, centered around a case study, based on existing methods and tools. This is visualized in the following picture:

Teaching-overview.png

ISO 29110 looks promising as the foundation for the method. Eclipse-based tools in general, and ProR for requirements engineering in particular, will be used. We are currently looking for a suitable case study, ideally using something that already exists. The focus will be on the creation of shared teaching materials.

Objectives

  • Collaboration of Industry, Service Providers and Academia: These three groups can benefit vastly from each other: Industry relies on academia for skilled labor, while service provider deliver expertise to industry in the form of knowledge (consultants) and tools (vendors).
  • Standardization of basic RE (or SE) skills: Preparation of students with a basic set of skills that is relevant in industry, so employers know what to expect.
  • Teaching Materials: Ideally, one outcome of this effort is a set of adaptable teaching materials.

Initially, we will focus on teaching materials, specifically a case study (see next section).

Case Study

As the next step, we will focus on building up a case study/example. In the telco on July 25th, 2014, we decided that the case study shall involve software and hardware, and we narrowed it down to the following three:

  1. Coffee Maker: A long-time favorite, and there are at least three available (see "Case Study Examples" below)
  2. FAA Isolette: This is a complete example from a safety-critical domain.
  3. Rover: This one is driven by Gaël Blondelle from the Eclipse Foundation. On the plus side, it's great for the classroom, as the hardware is cheap. But in contrast to the others, there is nothing there yet.


The table below serves to compare possible case studies against objectives of an RE (Requirements engineering) education/course/training. Note that at this moment the list of objectives is only a proposal, adding or editing the list is welcome.

For better understanding of this proposal, a tiny bit of the RE theory adhered to:

RE consists of the activities of [2]:

  • RD – Requirements development: elicitation, analysis, modelling, specification (documenting), verification
  • RM – Requirements management: tracing, communication, reviewing, feedback processing, attributes management, change management, reporting, reuse.

The objectives of a comprehensive RE training is to illuminate all these activities more or less, but there are also other objectives, in the table bellow divided into "Requirements process" and "Requirements technology"; at the bottom, some practicality objectives too (as size of the case study).

The columns show the Relevance of the objective, as rated by various stakeholders.

Objective that the case illuminates \ Case Dusko Andrea Eckhard Ron Michael
Requirements process: ------- ------- ------- -------
Place of the RE process in the SE process (CMMI, …), SI.2.1, EU 2 ** *** * **
Requirements in a Product Creation Process: up front (waterfall), ongoing (agile), ... * * * *
Requirements process states (rigour): Draft -> Proposal -> … -> Approval , EU 8? * ** ** ** *
Versions vs variants, variability, EU 8 ** * *** Adv **
Req communication and collaboration media (documents, general purpose comm. media, specialised tooling) ** *** ** **
RE process interoperability with the V&V (Verification&Validation, aka testing) process, SI.2.3 ** ** ** **
Elicitation, SI.2.2, EU 3 * * ** ** **
Analysis, SI.2.2 ** ** * Int **
Modelling, EU 6 ** * * Adv **
Specification (documenting), SI.2.2, EU 4 ** * ** ** **
Verification, SI.2.3 ("correctness and testability"), EU 7 ** * *** **
Tracing, SI.2.3, SI.2.6, EU 8 ** ** **** ** **
Communication, SI.2.3, SI.2.4, SI.2.5, SI.2.6 * ** ** *
Reviewing, SI.2.3 * * ** ** **
Feedback processing, SI.2.2 * * *
Attributes management, EU 8 ** ** *** * **
Change management, SI.2.3, EU 8 ** ** *** * **
Reuse management ** * **** Adv
Document generation with selective req-info content (views), SI.2.2, SI.2.5, SI.2.6, EU 8 * ** **** * **
Requirements process KPI reporting ** ** Int *
Requirements technology: ------- ------- ------- -------
Requirements SMARTness, SI.2.3 ** * ** *
Core req-info vs req attributes (w.r.t. formulation, rationale, requirements process, reuse policies) ** * **** Int *
Formulation of requirements: in natural language (EU 5), in formal language, in models, SI.2.3 ** *** Adv *
Formality (acceptance criteria) vs informality (providing context) in specifying requirements, SI.2.4 * ** Int
Requirements frameworks (BABOK, Volere, IEEE…) * * - Int
V-horizontal traceability: traces among req-info-items at one level of stakeholders’ abstraction: requirements – requirements groups – dependences – reuse traces – change requests – test cases – test reports, SI.2.3, EU 8 ** ** *** Int **
V-vertical traceability: traces among req-info-items across various levels of stakeholders’ abstraction: business level – product level – component level, SI.2.3, SI.2.4, EU 8 ** ** *** Int **
Baselining, EU 8 ** ** * ** *
Case practicality: ------- ------- ------- -------
Domain/application familiarity ** * ** **
Size: # req-info-items, # acceptance criteria, # test cases **
# Functional requirements ** * - * **
# Extrafunctional (restrictions, technology, markets, maintenance …), quality, regulation, … requirements ** * * * *

--- Notes: ---

  • Topics should be aligned with the ISO 29110 Profiles (Entry, Basic, Intermediate, Advanced). The initial Training cursus should be targeted at the Basic Profile.

Case Study Examples

Meetings

2014-Jul-25

  • Present were Andrea Herrmann, Dusko Jovanovic, Eckhard Jokisch and Michael Jastram.
  • We refined the Vision
  • We discussed choosing the case study:
  • The case study shall combine software and hardware
  • The choice was narrowed down to Coffee Maker, Isolette or Rover

Next Steps:

  • Dusko will update the table
  • Each participant will evaluate the various case studies
  • We'll eventually decide on a case study using a Doodle Poll
  • The decision shall be made within 1-2 weeks.


Open Questions

What is the Scope?

Systems Engineering or Requirements Engineering? A number of participants pointed out that RE as a stand-alone discipline is losing importance in favor of Systems Engineering, of which RE is a sub-discipline. Therefore, at a minimum we should look into RE in the context of overall SE.

Next, the scope is clearly operational, not theoretical. The theory (methodology, process), should be given and can maybe be covered elsewhere.

What is the means?

What can we produce that provides value for this group? Suggestions include:

  • Templates (process-specific, for specific tools)
  • Case Studies (with artifacts for specific tols)
  • Tutorials (process-specific step-by-step instructions, for specific tools)
  • Slides (for teaching)
  • Reference Materials (e.g. tool-specific adaptation of a process)
  • Project (high level description of a goal with instructions on how to realize it)

What process/methodology would be suitable?

Before answering this question, we need to understand the scope. We should look for a slim-lightweight process for MBSE and focus on the RE-part of it.

Suggestion regarding the process: To use the ISO/IEC 29110 Systems and Software Life Cycle Profiles and Guidelines for Very Small Entities (VSEs). The standard is accompanied by a set of Deployment Packages (DP) that, taken together, structure a complete software or system lifecycle process package. The DPs provide an "out-of-the-box" process for those VSEs that cannot afford the time, the effort or the resources to attack the "Big League" standards like ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 or 15288 and the CMMi. Once all DPs have been covered, a basis for a complete VSE software or systems engineering certification program is assembled. To start, the Systems Engineering Requirement Engineering (RE) DP can be made available in Draft version and should be released sometimes in 2014 (as of July 2014). The DP provides a set of basic attributes to capture and manage requirements and to establish traceability links.

Suggestion regarding the Sample Project: Every training course needs a sample project to work out. For this Systems Engineering training curriculum, it is suggested to use the INCOSE Tool Vendor Disaster Relief Challenge.

What pre-requisites do we expect from anyone taking this training?

Before setting out to design and develop a training, we need to know what type of background students will bring in to the training session. The following are proposed:

  • the students are new to the world of Requirements Engineering, the equivalent of CMMi Level 0 or 1. They are trying to get themselves up to the equivalent of CMMi Level 2 capability, which would equate to fulfilling the CMMi Requirements Management (REQM) Process Area;
  • the students have read the ISO 29110 Systems and Software Life Cycle Profiles and Guidelines for Very Small Entities (VSEs);
  • the students have read some introductory material on Requirements Engineering such as Requirements Engineering Fundamentals
  • the students are familiar with the Eclipse environment and they have installed:

1) the Eclipse development toolset; 2) the Eclipse Requirements Management framework (RMF); 3) the FormalMind Studio application (which would include both the RMF and ProR).

  • the students have little or no formal training or experience in Requirements Engineering.

Questions/Issues:

  • Do students need to understand basics concepts of Change Management, sufficient to go through the creation, analysis, review and implementation of a Requirement Change Request?

How long should the training last?

  • at one extreme, some trainees look for a Quick Start package that will get them going within a few days. This end of the spectrum should satisfy the greatest number of potential trainees, who will probably be small business starting on a contract that requires doing basic Requirements Engineering;
  • at the other, some are looking for a comprehensive thorough training package that will prepare them for certification as an RE.

Interested Parties

Backlog

Contact / Initiator

Michael Jastram

Backup

During the initial discussions, two things became clear:

  • RM&E cannot be taught without taking the wider systems engineering (SE) context into account. In other words, RM&E must be considered a subdiscipline of SE, and must be treated that way.
  • A tool must follow the process/methodology, not the other way around. Therefore, the foundation for this effort must be a solid, leightweight SE develpment process that is appropriate for teaching and relevant in practice.

Ideas

  • Examples, Exercises, etc. (Herrmann) (example customer requirements specification, exercises and sample solutions)
  • Create a mind map, to understand the problem we're trying to solve (Daniel Gross)
  • use REQB-Syllabus as a starting point
  • alternately, use the International Requirements Engineering Board (IREB) Foundation Level RE Training Syllabus


Join the Discussion

This discussion was initiated via email - a bad place to keep a conversation going. For the time being, we will start a new discussion thread on LinkedIn.

Back to the top