A method for assessing confidence in requirements analysis

Context: During development managers, analysts and designers often need to know whether enough requirements analysis work has been done and whether or not it is safe to proceed to the design stage. Objective: This paper describes a new, simple and practical method for assessing our confidence in a set of requirements. Method: We identified 4 confidence factors and used a goal oriented framework with a simple ordinal scale to develop a method for assessing confidence. We illustrate the method and show how it has been applied to a real systems development project. Results: We show how assessing confidence in the requirements could have revealed problems in this project earlier and so saved both time and money. Conclusion: Our meta-level assessment of requirements provides a practical and pragmatic method that can prove useful to managers, analysts and designers who need to know when sufficient requirements analysis has been performed.

‘Some Misconceptions about Requirements for the Post-2013 CAP’, ‘Supplementary written evidence’, and minutes of evidence of 19 January

Written evidence, and minutes of evidence, to the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs enquiry into The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013

A note on estimating market–based minimum capital risk requirements: a multivariate GARCH approach

Internal risk management models of the kind popularized by J. P. Morgan are now used widely by the world’s most sophisticated financial institutions as a means of measuring risk. Using the returns on three of the most popular futures contracts on the London International Financial Futures Exchange, in this paper we investigate the possibility of using multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models for the calculation of minimum capital risk requirements (MCRRs). We propose a method for the estimation of the value at risk of a portfolio based on a multivariate GARCH model. We find that the consideration of the correlation between the contracts can lead to more accurate, and therefore more appropriate, MCRRs compared with the values obtained from a univariate approach to the problem.

An extreme value theory approach to calculating minimum capital risk requirements

This paper investigates the frequency of extreme events for three LIFFE futures contracts for the calculation of minimum capital risk requirements (MCRRs). We propose a semiparametric approach where the tails are modelled by the Generalized Pareto Distribution and smaller risks are captured by the empirical distribution function. We compare the capital requirements form this approach with those calculated from the unconditional density and from a conditional density - a GARCH(1,1) model. Our primary finding is that both in-sample and for a hold-out sample, our extreme value approach yields superior results than either of the other two models which do not explicitly model the tails of the return distribution. Since the use of these internal models will be permitted under the EC-CAD II, they could be widely adopted in the near future for determining capital adequacies. Hence, close scrutiny of competing models is required to avoid a potentially costly misallocation capital resources while at the same time ensuring the safety of the financial system.

Understanding stakeholder requirements on an NHS hospital project: application of semiotics-rooted theories.

Hospitals represent complex and difficult contexts for AEC (architecture, engineering and construction) professionals to engage with due to their functional complexity and diversity of stakeholder interests (i.e. patient, visitor, medical specialist). Hospital designers need to take note of changing NHS policy contexts (e.g. the possible empowerment of general practitioners to shape services), technological advances in medical equipment design and the potential health needs of future generations. It is imperative for hospital designers and architects to align their processes and methodologies (e.g. briefing and requirements capture) to the needs and desires of their clients so that a medical facility design is produced which is truly aligned to the requirements of the hospital stakeholders. Semiotics, the “study” or “discipline” of signs aims to investigate the nature of signs (their inception, representation and meaning), whilst semiotics-rooted theories are concerned with investigating how meaning and understanding is mobilized between persons and between organisations. This paper details a semiotics-rooted research approach for investigating the interactions between hospital designers and stakeholders on a forthcoming NHS hospital project in the UK. A semiotics grounded study will potentially provide a deeper understanding of how meaning and understanding is established between hospital project stakeholders and construction professionals.