Matthias Jarke
Kalle Lyytinen
Abstract
Walking on water, and programming according to specifications is easy—as long as both of them are frozen. --Robert Glass
This introduction discusses the changing nature of complexity associated with requirements engineering (RE) tasks and how it has shifted from managing internal complexity to adapting and leveraging upon external and dynamic complexity. We note several significant drivers in the requirements knowledge that have resulted in this change and discuss in light of complexity theory how the RE research community can respond to this. We observe several research challenges associated with “new complexity” and highlight how the articles included in the special issue advance the field by defining complexity more accurately, observing more vigilantly new sources of complexity, and suggesting new ways to manage complexity in terms of economic assessments, knowledge flows, and modeling for adaptability.
- B. W. Boehm. 1988. A spiral model of software development and enhancement, Computer 21, 5, 61-- 72. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- British Computer Society. 2004. The Challenges of Complex IT Projects. British Computer Society, Royal Academy of Engineering. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/complexity.pdf.Google Scholar
- F. Brooks. 1975. The Mythical Man Month. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. H. C. Cheng and J. M. Atlee. 2009. Current and future research directions in requirements engineering. In Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 14. Springer, 11--43.Google Scholar
- P. Cilliers. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
- J. Cleland-Huang, M. Jarke, L. Liu, and K. Lyytinen (Eds.). 2012. Requirements management: Novel perspectives and challenges, Report from Dagstuhl Seminar 12442. Dagstuhl Reports 2, 10.Google Scholar
- M. Fisher, M. Abbott, and K. Lyytinen. 2013. The Power of Customer MisBehavior. Palgrave & McMillan, London and New York.Google Scholar
- P. Frederick and F. Brooks. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. C. Z. Gotel and C. W. Finkelstein. 1994. An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Requirements Engineering. 94--101.Google Scholar
- S. Hansen, N. Berente, and K. Lyytinen. 2009. Requirements in the 21st century: Current practice and emerging trends. In Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 14. Springer, 44--87.Google Scholar
- O. Hanseth and K. Lyytinen. 2010. Design theory for adaptive complexity in information infrastructures. Journal of Information Technology 25, 1, 1--19.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Jacobsen, M. Christerson, P. Jonsson, and G. Övergaard. 1997. Object-oriented software engineering: A use case-driven approach. In Scenario-Based Design, J. Carroll (Ed.): Wiley.Google Scholar
- M. Jarke, X. T. Bui, and J. M. Carroll. 1998. Scenario management: An interdisciplinary approach. Requirements Engineering Journal 3, 3--4, 155--173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Jarke, P. Loucopoulos, K. Lyytinen, J. Mylopoulos, and W. Robinson. 2011. The brave new world of design requirements: Four key principles. Information Systems 36, 6, 992--1008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Jarke and K. Lyytinen (Eds.). 2010. Special Issue on High Impact Requirements Engineering Wirtschaftsinformatik/BISE 53, 2.Google Scholar
- K. Lyytinen, P. Loucopoulos, J. Mylopoulos, and B. Robinson. 2009. Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 14. Springer.Google Scholar
- T. O’Reilly. 2005. What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. IEEE Software 30.Google Scholar
- B. Ramesh and M. Jarke. 2001. Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27, 1, 58--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. T. Ross. 1977. Structured analysis (SA): A language for communicating ideas. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-3, 1, 16--34. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. T. Ross and K. E. Schoman Jr. 1977. Structured analysis for requirements definition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-3, 1, 6--15. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Sambamurthy and R. W. Zmud. 2003. Research commentary: The organizing logic for an enterprise's IT activities in the digital era—a prognosis of practice and a call for research. Information Systems Research 11, 2, 105--114. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. W. Wu, G. M. Rose, and K. Lyytinen. 2011. Recognizing and managing innovation points in large information technology projects. MIS Quarterly Executive 10, 3, 121--132.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Editorial: “Complexity of Systems Evolution: Requirements Engineering Perspective”
Recommendations
The brave new world of design requirements
Despite its success over the last 30 years, the field of Requirements Engineering (RE) is still experiencing fundamental problems that indicate a need for a change of focus to better ground its research on issues underpinning current practices. We posit ...
Towards new requirements engineering competencies
CHASE '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software EngineeringMany of the requirements engineering (RE) difficulties have been argued to be due to the evolving nature of design problems in dynamic environments, characterized by high levels of uncertainty, ambiguity and emergence. It has also been argued that these ...
Guest Editors' Introduction: Stakeholders in Requirements Engineering
The growing attention being paid to stakeholders' needs and desires reflects the growing importance of requirements engineering(RE) in software and systems development. This introduction reviews the RE process: identifying the stakeholders in a project,...
Comments