requirements working group overview june 24-25, 2007 san diego, ca

18
Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Upload: gabrielle-graves

Post on 27-Mar-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Requirements Working GroupOverview

June 24-25, 2007

San Diego, CA

Page 2: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 2

Agenda1/24/2007 Sunday 2:00 pm-5:00 pm

RWG overview and plan for 2007Status of RAFTStatus of REGALAttendees try out RWG website and REGAL website for 30 minutesDiscussion of REGAL improvementDinner

1/25/2007 Monday 8:00 am – 5:00 pmRWG overview and plan for 2007 (Repeat for people not available on Sunday)Debrief of Local Chapter ActivitiesReview of requirements best practices submitted for REGALFinalize approved best practices for entering into REGALDevelop Plan for 2007-2008

1/26/2007 Tuesday 8:00 am- 9:00 amTelecon Debrief to Team members (Review RWG metrics & action items)

Page 3: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 3

Leadership

Chair: • Jeremy Dick, Oxford UK

Co-chairs:• Gauthier Fanmuy, Paris France

• Lily Birmingham, Washington DC

• Lou Wheatcraft, Texas

Members• 94

Page 4: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 4

RWG Vision and Mission

MISSION• To be the acknowledged leader in advancing the state of

requirements theory, education, and practice in the systems engineering community.

VISION• To capture and evolve the Requirements BOK, taking into

account stakeholders needs and real world constraints.

• To provide value-added technical products to assist the INCOSE membership to effectively implement and apply requirements practices in every context.

Page 5: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 5

Past ActivitiesSE Handbook v3 review

Provided comments and supported release date

REGAL (Requirements Guide for All)• Web-based best practice tool for requirements development and

management

• Developed Web-based engine with initial best practices

• Best Practices Collection and Review, On-going

RAFT (Requirements Assessment tool For Teams)• Project context implemented in Regal

• Filter best practices based-on project context, on-going

• Enhancement feature for REGAL, On-going

CONOPS: Supported AIAA Operation Concept Standard RevisionElicitation methods• Which elicitation techniques for which projects, starting

Page 6: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 6

What is REGAL

Web-based interactive solution to find best practices for requirements development and management.

Structured to align with the outline of Version 3 of the INCOSE SE Handbook

Intended to be a dynamic, growing Body of Knowledge for Requirements Engineers

Features of REGAL:• Users can se best practices within a project context.

• Users can comment and submit new best practices

• Users’ comments and newly submitted best practices will be monitored and implemented, if deemed valuable.

• Users can rate each best practice

Will be integrated into IPAL

Page 7: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 7

To access REGALAvailable to any INCOSE member at http://www.incose.org/regal/

Contact Lou Wheatcraft for login and password to access INCOSE website

([email protected])

Page 8: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 8

REGAL conceptsBest practices refer to SE Handbook activities• Benefits: helps practitioners to implement requirements engineering process

Not only a deposit of best practices, but a living database enriched by experience of practitioners:• allows practitioners to comment and submit best practice• Benefits: a continuous feed back on requirements engineering

Best practices are available in a context• allows practitioners to give an evaluation on a best practice• allows practitioners to define / select it’s context where best practices are

suitable (see RAFT project)• allows practitioners find best practices with a glossary of terms of SE standards• Benefits: help practitioners to select the right best practices applicable in their

context

Page 9: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 9

Roadmap

Page 10: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 10

Next phase

Schedule to define according to IS’07 and IW’08• Improve Man Machine Interface to enter good practices

• Project context (to align with RAFT)

• Glossary of terms

• Good practices Assessment

• Change Management

Make REGAL an INCOSE product and make it enriched by other WG

Page 11: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 11

What is RAFT

An enhancement to Regal for assessing requirements best practices

Web-based interactive solution to help users to select the most relevant practices and tools for the project• Define project characteristics and derive project needs

• Derive best practices benefits and constraints

• Develop algorithms and interfaces

Will be integrated into Regal

Page 12: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Project Context & Questions for RAFT

Page 13: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 13

WP 2: Project characteristics (1 of 2)

Process

•Defined development process used in the enterprise (no, yes)

•Regulations (standards, authorities etc.) to satisfy (no, yes)

•Common information model (no, yes)

People

•RE experience (including education) of project members (<1y, <3y, <10y, 10y+)

•Cultural/language background of project members (single culture, multi-cultural)

Organisation

•Dispersion of project teams (in one site, multiple sites)

•Control of project (central control, collaborative/federated control)

•Common data base (no, yes)

Page 14: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 14

Size

•Number of people working for the project (<10, <100, <1000, 1000+)

•Planned duration of the project (<6m, <2y, <5y, 5y+)

Business Case

•Business criticality of the project for the enterprise (no, yes)

•Time, quality and cost criticality of the project (delivering on time, delivering to the quality, delivering within cost)

Proposed system

•Degree of innovation of the proposed system (new, derivative, reuse)

•Mission, business or safety criticality of the proposed system (no, yes)

•Number of expected variants of the proposed system (single product, portfolio)

WP 2: Project characteristics (2 of 2)

Page 15: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 15

WP 2: 15 project related questions

•Does your enterprise use a defined development process?

•Does your project have to satisfy any internal or external standards or regulations?

•Is there a common information model across the whole project?

•What is the average RE experience (including education) of those project

•Are the project members predominantly of one or several cultural/language backgrounds?

•Are the project members co-located or in several sites?

•Is the project centrally controlled or collaborative in nature?

•Does your project use a central data base to store requirements?

•How many people are working for your project?

•What is the planned duration of your project?

•Is your project critical to the survival of the enterprise?

•What is the most critical aspect of your project?

•How innovative is the proposed system?

•Is the proposed system mission, business or safety critical?

•How many variants of the proposed system do you expect?

Page 16: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 16

RWG 2006-2007 PlanREGAL (Requirements Guide for All)

• Continue collecting best practices to reach 100 by IW, and 150 by IS’07

• Add features for user comments and rating by IS’07

• Add Glossary terms & mapping by IS’07

RAFT (Requirements Analysis Tool For projects)

• Launch kick-off meeting in Sept 2006

• Develop mock-up in REGAL to filter best practices (perhaps based on project context AIAA Operation Concept Standard Revision)

SE Handbook – Provide Appendix for requirements by Dec ‘06

Documentation Review

• Review from requirements perspective for AP233, 15704, 19439, 19440, EI 632A, IEEE 1220/1233, 15288

• Review INCOSE papers• Review Aerospace Recommended Practice 4754a (Guidance for development,

validation and verification of aircraft systems)

IPAL input

• Review/comment Taxonomy and determine the link mechanism between REGAL and IPAL

• Collect asset data files and populate IPAL for requirements (beyond REGAL)

SE Certification – Review and add questions for SE certification based on SE Handbook v3

Reached 95%On target

Not achieved

AchievedOn target

Unrealistic

In progress

Not started

Not started

Page 17: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 17

Progress at IW 2007General:• held 15 hours of meetings

• included 3 hour telecon to absent members in Europe and elsewhere

• upto 11 people present

• recruited 7 new members

REGAL:• reviewed 15 proposed requirements practices

RAFT:• brainstormed questions to determine project characteristics

new initiatives:• set up an initiative for collecting requirements for the ideal

requirements management tool

• proposed collaboration with the V&V working group for joint use of best practice database in REGAL

Page 18: Requirements Working Group Overview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

Page 18

Proposed RWG 2007-2008 PlanREGAL (Requirements Guide for All)

• Change Management

• Best practices collection

RAFT (Requirements Assessment tool For Teams)

• Develop within Regal

Guide on writing requirements

Collaboration between industry and academia regarding “Requirements”• Elicitation methods, metrics, methods to improve RE

SE Handbook

Documentation Review

IPAL input

SE Certification

Other discussion with the Board• Open part of REGAL to non –INCOSE members

• Enlarge the concept of REGAL to other WG

To be discussed and finalized at IW07 in San Diego