Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "RMF/Teaching"

< RMF
(→‎Interested Parties)
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Requirements Management and Engineering (RE&M) is taught, both in industry and academia.  Lately (mid 2014), I got more and more inquiries with respect to teaching RE&M as the underlying tool for exercises, projects and examples.  Therefore, I am trying to get interested parties together for this purpose.
+
== Outdated ==
 +
 
 +
The RMF/Teaching project is migrating to gitHub: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/
 +
 
 +
== Vision ==
 +
 
 +
Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/
 +
 
 +
== Scope ==
 +
 
 +
Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/
 +
 
 +
== Objectives ==
 +
 
 +
Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/
 +
 
 +
== 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:
 +
 
 +
# '''Coffee Maker:''' A long-time favorite, and there are at least three available (see "Case Study Examples" below)
 +
# '''FAA Isolette:''' This is a complete example from a safety-critical domain.
 +
# '''Rover:''' This one is driven by [https://polarsys.org/wiki/PolarSys_Rover_Demo 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_engineering]:
 +
* 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.
 +
 
 +
The objectives, where applicable, are related to the following two authoritative RE skill overviews:
 +
 
 +
* SI.m.n are subprocesses of the Software Implementation (SI) process as referred to in "DP-Software Requirements Analysis-V1_2.doc"  on [http://profs.etsmtl.ca/claporte/english/VSE/Deploy-Pack/]
 +
* EU are Education Units as referred to in the IREB-CPRE Foundation Level syllabus [http://www.ireb.org/fileadmin/IREB/Lehrplaene/IREB_cpre_syllabus_FL_en_v21.pdf]
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! 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
 +
|  **
 +
|  *
 +
|  *
 +
|  *
 +
|  *
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
The table in its current form including a visual evaluation is available as PDF [[File:teaching-evaluation.pdf]].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
--- 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 ===
 +
 
 +
Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/roadmap/
 +
 
 +
== Meetings ==
 +
 
 +
Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/posts/
 +
 
 +
== Open Questions ==
 +
 
 +
Now found in the gitHub issue tracker: https://github.com/jastram/teaching/labels/question
  
−
As a starting point, this page acts to collect information about this initiative, starting with interested party.  If we pick up momentum, we can continue to use this wiki or migrate to a more appropriate platform.
 
  
 
== Interested Parties ==
 
== Interested Parties ==
  
−
* Formal Mind GmbH (Michael Jastram)
+
Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/team/
−
* Herrmann & Ehrlich (Andrea Herrmann)[http://www.herrmann-ehrlich.de]
+
 
 +
== Backlog ==
  
 
== Contact / Initiator ==
 
== Contact / Initiator ==
  
 
[http://www.formalmind.com/contact Michael Jastram]
 
[http://www.formalmind.com/contact 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 [http://wymagania.net/materialy/REQB-Syllabus-Foundation-Leve-v.1.2.pdf REQB-Syllabus] as a starting point
 +
* alternately, use the International Requirements Engineering Board (IREB) [http://www.ireb.org/en/syllabi/foundation-level.html 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.

Latest revision as of 09:41, 1 September 2014

Outdated

The RMF/Teaching project is migrating to gitHub: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/

Vision

Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/

Scope

Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/

Objectives

Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/

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 [1]:

  • 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.

The objectives, where applicable, are related to the following two authoritative RE skill overviews:

  • SI.m.n are subprocesses of the Software Implementation (SI) process as referred to in "DP-Software Requirements Analysis-V1_2.doc" on [2]
  • EU are Education Units as referred to in the IREB-CPRE Foundation Level syllabus [3]
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 ** * * * *

The table in its current form including a visual evaluation is available as PDF File:Teaching-evaluation.pdf.


--- 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

Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/roadmap/

Meetings

Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/posts/

Open Questions

Now found in the gitHub issue tracker: https://github.com/jastram/teaching/labels/question


Interested Parties

Now found here: http://jastram.github.io/teaching/team/

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.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=RMF/Teaching&oldid=369785"

This page was last modified 09:41, 1 September 2014 by Michael Jastram. Based on work by Yijun Yu, Dusko Jovanovic and Ronald Houde and others.

Back to the top