Skip to main content

Collaborative Resolution of Requirements Mismatches When Adopting Open Source Components

  • Conference paper
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2012)

Abstract

[Context and motivation] There is considerable flexibility in requirements specifications (both functional and non-functional), as well as in the features of available OSS components. This allows a collaborative matching and negotiation process between stakeholders such as: customers, software contractors and OSS communities, regarding desired requirements versus available and thus reusable OSS components. [Problem] However, inconclusive research exists on such cooperative processes. Not much empirical data exists supporting the conduction of such research based on observation of industrial OSS adoption projects. This paper investigates how functional and non-functional requirement mismatches are handled in practice. [Results] We found two common approaches to handle functional mismatches. The main resolution approach is to get the components changed by the development team, OSS community or commercial vendor. The other resolution approach is to influence requirements, often by postponing requirements. Overall, non-functional requirements are satisfactorily achieved by using OSS components. Last but not least, we found that the customer involvement could enhance functional mismatch resolution while OSS community involvement could improve non-functional mismatch resolution. [Contribution] Our data suggests that the selecting components should be done iteratively with close collaboration with stakeholders. Improvement in requirement mismatch resolution to requirements could be achieved by careful consideration of mismatches size, requirements flexibility and components quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hauge, Ø., Ayala, C.P., Conradi, R.: Adoption of Open Source Software in Software-Intensive Industry - A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology 52(11), 1133–1154 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alves, C.: COTS-Based Requirements Engineering. In: Cechich, A., Piattini, M., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) Component-Based Software Quality. LNCS, vol. 2693, pp. 21–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Parra, A., Seaman, C., Basili, V., Kraft, S., Condon, S., Burke, S., Yakimovich, D.: The Package-Based Development Process in the Flight Dynamics Division. In: 22nd Software Engineering Workshop, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, pp. 21–56 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alves, C., Finkelstein, A.: Negotiating Requirements for COTS-Based Systems. In: 8th Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Essen (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Li, J., Conradi, R., Bunse, C., Torchiano, M., Slyngstad, O., Morisio, M.: Development with Off-the-Shelf Components: 10 Facts. IEEE Software 26(2), 80–87 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Morisio, M., Seaman, C.B., Basili, V.R., Parra, A.T., Kraft, S.E., Condon, S.E.: COTS-based software development: processes and open issues. Journal of System and Software 61(3), 189–189 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohamed, A., Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A.: COTS Selection: Past, Present, and Future. In: 14th IEEE Int. Conf. on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, Tucson, pp. 103–114 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rolland, C.: Requirements Engineering for COTS based Systems. Information and Software Technology 41, 985–990 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mohamed, A., Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A.: MiHOS: an approach to support handling the mismatches between system requirements and COTS products. Requirement Engineering 12(3), 127–143 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stol, K.-J., Ali Babar, M.: A Comparison Framework for Open Source Software Evaluation Methods. In: Ågerfalk, P., Boldyreff, C., González-Barahona, J.M., Madey, G.R., Noll, J. (eds.) OSS 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 319, pp. 389–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Morisio, M., Seaman, C.B., Parra, A.T., Basili, V.R., Kraft, S.E., Condon, S.E.: Investigating and improving a COTS-based software development. In: 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, pp. 32–41 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Höst, M., Oručević-Alagić, A., Runeson, P.: Usage of Open Source in Commercial Software Product Development – Findings from a Focus Group Meeting. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds.) PROFES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6759, pp. 143–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Peach, B., Reuschenbach, B.: Open Source Requirements Engineering. In: 14th International Requirements Engineering Conference, Minnesota, pp. 252–259 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Maiden, N.A.M., Ncube, C.: Acquiring Requirements for Commercial Off-The-Shelf Package Selection. IEEE Software 15(2), 46–56 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lauesen, S.: COTS tenders and integration requirements. Requirements Engineering 11(2), 111–122 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li, J., Conradi, R., Slyngstad, O.P.N., Bunse, C., Torchiano, C.M., Morisio, M.: An Empirical Study on Decision Making in Off-the-shelf Component-based Development. In: Proc. 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, Shanghai, pp. 897–900 (May 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Jacobs, S.: Introducing Measurable Quality Requirements: A Case Study. In: 4th ISRE 1999, pp. 172–179. IEEE Comput. Soc. (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cruzes, D.S., Dybå, T.: Recommended Steps for Thematic Synthesis in Software Engineering. In: 5th Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Banff (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ayala, C.P., Hauge, Ø., Conradi, R., Franch, X., Li, J.: Selection of Third Party Software in Off-The-Shelf-Based Software Development - An Interview Study with Industrial Practitioners. Journal of Systems and Software 84, 620–637 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Berntsson Svensson, R., Gorschek, T., Regnell, B.: Quality Requirements in Practice: An Interview Study in Requirements Engineering for Embedded Systems. In: Glinz, M., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2009. LNCS, vol. 5512, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Anh, N.D., Cruzes, D.S., Conradi, R., Höst, M., Franch, X., Ayala, C. (2012). Collaborative Resolution of Requirements Mismatches When Adopting Open Source Components. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7195. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28714-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28714-5_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28713-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28714-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics