Sources of Software Requirements Change from the Perspectives of Development and Maintenance

Changes to software requirements occur during initial development and subsequent to delivery, posing a risk to cost and quality while at the same time providing an opportunity to add value. Provision of a generic change source taxonomy will support requirements change risk visibility, and also facilitate richer recording of both pre- and post-delivery change data. In this paper we present a collaborative study to investigate and classify sources of requirements change, drawing comparison between those pertaining to software development and maintenance. We begin by combining evolution, maintenance and software lifecycle research to derive a definition of software maintenance, which provides the foundation for empirical context and comparison. Previously published change ‘causes’ pertaining to development are elicited from the literature, consolidated using expert knowledge and classified using card sorting. A second study incorporating causes of requirements change during software maintenance results in a taxonomy which accounts for the entire evolutionary progress of applications software. We conclude that the distinction between the terms maintenance and development is imprecise, and that changes to requirements in both scenarios arise due to a combination of factors contributing to requirements uncertainty and events that trigger change. The change trigger taxonomy constructs were initially validated using a small set of requirements change data, and deemed sufficient and practical as a means to collect common requirements change statistics across multiple projects.

A general framework for measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets

Hunter and Konieczny explored the relationships between measures of inconsistency for a belief base and the minimal inconsistent subsets of that belief base in several of their papers. In particular, an inconsistency value termed MIVC, defined from minimal inconsistent subsets, can be considered as a Shapley Inconsistency Value. Moreover, it can be axiomatized completely in terms of five simple axioms. MinInc, one of the five axioms, states that each minimal inconsistent set has the same amount of conflict. However, it conflicts with the intuition illustrated by the lottery paradox, which states that as the size of a minimal inconsistent belief base increases, the degree of inconsistency of that belief base becomes smaller. To address this, we present two kinds of revised inconsistency measures for a belief base from its minimal inconsistent subsets. Each of these measures considers the size of each minimal inconsistent subset as well as the number of minimal inconsistent subsets of a belief base. More specifically, we first present a vectorial measure to capture the inconsistency for a belief base, which is more discriminative than MIVC. Then we present a family of weighted inconsistency measures based on the vectorial inconsistency measure, which allow us to capture the inconsistency for a belief base in terms of a single numerical value as usual. We also show that each of the two kinds of revised inconsistency measures can be considered as a particular Shapley Inconsistency Value, and can be axiomatically characterized by the corresponding revised axioms presented in this paper.