Advanced
CS/SE 6361.501, Spring 2012
Instructor:
Office: ECSS 3.204, ECS, UTD
E-mail: chung@utdallas.edu
Phone: 972-883-2178
Course web page:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~chung/RE/syllabus.htm
Office hours: T 1:00-3:00pm; or by appointment
Lectures: TR 11:30am-12:45pm, ECSS 2.311
TA: TBA (likely candidate: Rutvij
Mehta (rutvij.mehta@student.utdallas.edu
; Office ECSS 4.609?)
Course description: The course will discuss concepts for systematically
establishing, defining and managing the requirements for a large, complex,
changing and software-intensive systems, from technical, organizational and
management perspectives. The course will consider the past, present and future
paradigms and methodologies in requirements engineering. The course will cover
informal, semi-formal and formal approaches, while striking a balance between
theory and practice. The course will involve building models of both
requirements engineering process and requirements engineering product,
concerning both functional and non-functional
goals/requirements/specifications, using a systematic decision-making process.
The course
will be taught by Dr. Lawrence Chung (CS). The course will be conducted as a
mix of lectures and seminar-style discussions. Lectures are expected to be
highly dynamic and interactive. Besides active participation during class
discussions, students are expected to participate in a team-oriented
requirements engineering project.
Learning objectives: Upon successful completion of this course, students will:
• Understand the need for
requirements for large-scale systems.
• Understand the stakeholders involved
in requirements engineering.
• Understand requirements
engineering processes.
• Understand models of requirements.
• Understand functional
requirements.
• Understand non-functional
requirements.
• Understand scenario analysis
• Understand object-oriented and
goal-oriented requirements engineering.
Textbook: Lecture Notes (available on the course web page)
References:
“Requirements
Engineering on Google Scholar”:
§ Requirements Engineering: From System
Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications, Axel van Lamsweerde, John Wiley Sons
- Managing Software Requirements: A Use Case Approach, 2nd edition, Dean
Leffingwell, Don Widrig, Addison Wesley: Boston
- Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering, L. Chung, B. Nixon, E. Yu and J.
Mylopoulos,
Kluwer Academic Publishing, 2000 (An earlier version of a framework book chapter)
- Software Requirements: Objects, Functions, & States, A. M. Davis, Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, 1993.
- System and Software Requirements Engineering: Tutorial, R. H. Thayer and M. Dortman
(Editors),
IEEE Computer Society Press
- Problem Frames: Analyzing
and Structuring Software Development Problems, M.
Jackson, Addison-Wesley
Professional; 1st edition (December 15, 2000)
- Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques, G. Kotonya and I. Sommerville,
John Wiley Sons
- Requirements Engineering - A Good Practice Guide, I. Sommerville and P. Sawyer,
Wiley
- Scenarios, Stories, Use
Cases Through the Systems Development
Life-Cycle, I. Alexander and N. Maiden
(eds.), John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
- Requirements Engineerng: Frameworks for Understanding, R. Wieringa, Wiley, 1997
- Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues, J. Goguen, and M. Jirotka (Eds.), Academic Press, 1994.
- Requirements Engineering, L. Macaulay, Springer Verlag, 1996
- User-Centered Requirements Analysis, C. F. Martin, Prentice-Hall, 1994
- Information System Requirements: Determination and
Analysis,
D. Flynn, McGraw-Hill, 1992
- Are Your Lights On?: How to Figure Out What the Problem Really Is, D. C. Gause and G. M. Weinberg,
- Exploring Requirements, D. Gause and G. Weinberg, Dorset House, 1989
- Managing Systems Requirements: Methods, Tools, and Cases, S. J. Andriole, McGraw-Hill, 1996.
- System Requirements Analysis, J. O. Grady, McGraw Hill, 1993.
- Systems Engineering: Coping with Complexity, R. Stevens, K. Jackson, P. Brook, and S.
Arnold, Prentice Hall 1998.
- Requirements Engineering and Rapid Development: A Rigorous,
Object-Oriented Approach, I. S. Graham, Addison-Wesley, 1998.
- Practical Software Requirements; A Manual Of Content And Style, B. L. Kovitz, Manning Publications, 1998
- User-Centered Requirements: The Scenario-Based Engineering Process, K. L. McGraw and K. Harbison, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
- The Complete Systems Analysis, J. Robertson and S. Robertson, Dorset House, 1998.
- Applying Use Cases: A Practical Guide, G. Schneider and J. P. Winters,
Addison-Wesley, 1998.
- Object-Oriented Analysis and Design, with Applications, G. Booch,
Benjamin-Cummings, 1994
- Object-Oriented Methods: A Foundation, J. Martin and J. Odell,
Prentice-Hall, 1995
- The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson and
G. Booch, Addison-Wesley, 1998
§ The Unified Modeling Language User Manual, G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh and
I. Jacobson, Addison-Wesley, 1998.
A number of important articles are cited in lecture
notes.
Prerequisites: CS 5354 (SE 5354)
Software Engineering, or CS 3353 (SE 3354).
Computer usage:
*A tool you might want to consider
using.
Project: There will be a 2-phase project.
Each project phase should be submitted by the expected due date in the beginning of the class that day – one hardcopy per team and all the softcopies should be available on the team web site. Project phases should be submitted with project phase #, class/section, team name; team URL; (rotating) team leader(s); and for each member of the team: student name, student ID, student email address, percentage of contribution and signature, written on the first page. There should also be a description of all the meeting conducted, and for each meeting: date, location, agenda, participants, and summary.
The project will be done by teams of approximately 8 students
(The team size will depend on the number of students in the course, and more on
this will be discussed in class). All students in a team will get the same mark
for the work they do unless they unanimously agree (in writing) to an unequal
division. You are to choose your own team members. An orphan will be assigned
to a team by the instructor.
For each deliverable, there should be at
least one team leader, who coordinates communication and deliverable
submission.
Project I under development should be
presented approximately 2 weeks before the final submission due date; Project
II under development should be presented approximately 2 weeks before the
submission due date.
The first or second
page of your deliverable should describe all the meetings your team had, while
indicating the participants in each of the meetings. This page should be signed
by all members of the team.
The last page of your
deliverable should describe why you believe your deliverable is at least as
good as, or better than, any other team’s work, based on your observation on
other teams’ presentations.
Tests:
There will
be two tests, one in the middle (test 1)
and the other at the end (test 2)
of the course..
Late work: Any assigned work will have 10 points
deducted for each week passed, if without pre-approval.
Grading:
|
Project
(2 x 15) |
30 % |
|
Test
1 |
25 % |
|
Test
2 |
40 % |
|
Class
Participation |
5 % |
Important Dates: The following dates are “agile”, and can be adjusted to
reflect the progress and interest of the class.
1.
January
17 (Tuesday) - First day of class for
this course
2.
January
26 (Thursday) - Preliminary
Project Plan (Team organization, Team
leaders/deliverable, Team web site URL, Tools, etc.)
http://wwwbruegge.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/twiki/bin/view/OOSE/SoftwareProjectManagementPlanTemplate;
some samples
3.
March
1 (Thursday)/March 6 (Tuesday) – Interim
Project I (Preliminary definition [PDF];
A scenario [PDF]) submission & presentation
4.
March
8 (Thursday) – Test 1
March 12 -- March 17, Spring
Break
5.
March
27 (Tuesday) – Final Project I
submission (and also possibly presentation)
*Devise your own template, but you could consider this as a reference
6.
April
17 (Tuesday) – Interim project II ([PDF]) submission (and also possibly presentation)
*A tool you might want to consider
using.
7.
April
26 (Thursday) – Test 2
8.
May
1/May 3 (Tuesday/Thursday) – Final
Project II submission, presentation and demo
(Each team should set up a time with the TA to do a demo).
At the time of the demo, a hardcopy should be submitted, which should include;
§ Final project plan
§ Project I
§ Project II
§ Any dependency/traceability between
Project I and Project II
all in one document.
·
Presentation
slides 1 & 2
! Please email the url to the instructor where all the files
can be found as a single zip file !
10.
January 17 (Tuesday) – May 1/May 3 (Tuesday/Thursday): communications and revisions of the project
plan
Guest Lecture: TBA
Course Outline (subject to evolution, hence it is
recommended that you download 1-2 modules at a time on a bi-weekly basis; Some
modules won’t be covered, due to lack of time)
Introduction to
Requirements Engineering: Why, What and How
[small-pdf]
- Requirements Engineering Journal
- Examples of requirements defects
-
The
Standish Report; About the
CHAOS report; The
“Chaos Report” Myth busters
- Getting requirements right avoiding the top 10 traps
-
Also see cases 2 and 3 below (patriot missile;
TCAS –transponder)
Requirements
Engineering Processes [small-pdf] {RE evolutionary process, RE basic process, RE in
software lifecycle, Process vs. product specifications }
Requirements
Analysis, Modeling and Specification [small-pdf]
{Problem analysis, Solution space, Requirements
prioritization}
Requirements Elicitation: Essential Concepts [small-pdf]{Critical issues, Desirable properties of requirements, Some
elicitation techniques}
Scenario
Analysis {Use cases, episodes,
scripts, completeness of scenarios, mis-use cases, anti-goals}
Enterprise
Requirements: Modeling Techniques
[small-pdf] {Business modeling with UML, Some conventional
enterprise modeling techniques}
Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering
Classical
problem solving technique
Non-Functional
Requirements: {Why, What – definitions and
classifications, How – product- and process-oriented approaches} [4-on-1] [white-background]
KAOS, Agent-oriented enterprise modeling
Other Possible Topics
Functional
Requirements: Formal Structural Models
A Formal OO-RML/Telos {Deficiencies of
SA, RML/Telos Essentials, A Formalization}
Metamodeling {Models, Metaclasse, Metamodels, Metamodels for UML
and other notations}
Functional Requirements: Behavioral
Models {Decision-oriented,
State-oriented, Function-oriented behavioral models}
Another possible topic: Requirements
Verification
Some sample case studies:
·
Case
1: http://techdirt.com/articles/20060818/1613226.shtml
·
case
2: patriot
missile: clock drift - 28 killed, over 90 injured real cost
of software failure Patriot
in the Persian Gulf War/Operation Desert Storm (January-February 1991)
·
case
3: TCAS -
transponder
·
case
4: NY subway
collision
·
case
5: U.S. Census Bureau
collision
·
case
6: Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate http://www3.uma.pt/filipejmsousa/ge/Hammer,%201990.pdf
·
case 7: Requirements
Engineering - The root cause behind the failure of ERP Systems http://www.hemantjha.in/content/3/requirements-engineering-the-root-cause-behind-the-failure-of-erp-systems.html
http://www.lsi.upc.edu/events/recots/papers/Daneva.pdf
·
other cases: http://lessons-from-history.com/node/89
http://www.isixsigma.com/industries/software-it/software-defect-prevention-nutshell/
http://www.itu.dk/~slauesen/Papers/PrevDefectsProceedings.pdf
Priorities: Class Discussions
!!, Lecture Notes !, Primary Reading and References!!!
Reusable course project material
Please do not reuse
bad software; please do not repeat someone else’s mistake.
Presentations – Fall 2005
Presentations – Summer 2006
Presentations – Fall 2006
Presentations – Spring
2007
Presentations – Fall
2007
Presentations – Fall 2008
Presentations – Spring
2009
Presentations – Summer
2009
Presentations – Fall
2009
Presentations – Spring
2010
Presentations – Fall
2010
Presentations – Spring 2011
IEEE standard (IEEE standard – temporarily broken)
Document Templates – general IEEE
http://www.utdallas.edu/~chung/SP/RequirementsAnalysisDocumentTemplate.htm
Case Studies on Temporal
Logic
A UML Tutorial by Bruegge (A copy)
Sample Project
Descriptions
Course
Project - Part I [PostScript] [PDF]
Course
Project - Part II – [PostScript] [PDF]
Course
Project - Part III – old, to be updated [PostScript]
[PDF]
Sample Tests
Sample
Test 1 [PostScript] [PDF]
Sample
Test 2 [PostScript] [PDF]
Sample
Test 3 and Answer [PostScript] [PDF]
Sample
Test 4 [PostScript] [PDF]
Sample
Test 5 [PostScript] [PDF]
Cheating/Dishonesty:
The University of Texas System Policy on Academic
Honesty (The Regents and Regulations, Part One, Chapter VI, Section 3,
Paragraph 3.22):
Any student who commits an act of
scholastic dishonesty is subject to discipline. Scholastic dishonesty includes
but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the submission for
credit of any work or materials that are attributable in whole or in part to
another person, taking an examination for another, any act designed to give
unfair advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts.
UNIVERSITY POLICIES
Off-campus Instruction and Course Activities- Off-campus, out-of-state, and foreign instruction and activities
are subject to state law and
University policies and procedures regarding
travel and risk-related activities. Information regarding these rules and
regulations may be found at
the website address http://www.utdallas.edu/BusinessAffairs/Travel_Risk_Activities.htm. Additional information is available from the
office of
the school dean. Below is a description of any
travel and/or risk-related activity associated with this course.
Student Conduct & Discipline- The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at
Dallas have rules and regulations for the orderly
and efficient conduct of their business. It is
the responsibility of each student and each student organization to be
knowledgeable about the rules
and regulations which govern student conduct and
activities. General information on student conduct and discipline is contained
in the UTD
publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided
to all registered students each academic year.
The University of Texas at Dallas administers
student discipline within the procedures of recognized and established due
process. Procedures are
defined and described in the Rules and
Regulations, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Part 1, Chapter
VI, Section 3, and in Title
V, Rules on Student Services and Activities of
the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Copies of these rules
and regulations are
available to students in the Office of the Dean
of Students, where staff members are available to assist students in
interpreting the rules and
regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).
A student at the university neither loses the
rights nor escapes the responsibilities of citizenship. He or she is expected
to obey federal, state, and
local laws as well as the Regents’ Rules,
university regulations, and administrative rules. Students are subject to
discipline for violating the
standards of conduct whether such conduct takes
place on or off campus, or whether civil or criminal penalties are also imposed
for such conduct.
Academic Integrity- The faculty expects from its students a high
level of responsibility and academic honesty. Because the value of an academic
degree depends upon the absolute integrity of
the work done by the student for that degree, it is imperative that a student
demonstrate a high
standard of individual honor in his or her
scholastic work.
Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not
limited to, statements, acts or omissions related to applications for
enrollment or the award of a degree,
and/or the submission as one’s own work or
material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic dishonesty
involves one of the following
acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or
falsifying academic records. Students suspected of academic dishonesty are
subject to disciplinary
proceedings.
Plagiarism, especially from the web, from
portions of papers for other classes, and from any other source is unacceptable
and will be dealt with
under the university’s policy on plagiarism (see
general catalog for details). This course will use the resources of
turnitin.com, which searches
the web for possible plagiarism and is over 90%
effective.
Email Use- The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the
value and efficiency of communication between faculty/staff and students
through
electronic mail. At the same time, email raises
some issues concerning security and the identity of each individual in an email
exchange. The
university encourages all official student email
correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email address and that
faculty and staff
consider email from students official only if it
originates from a UTD student account. This allows the university to maintain a
high degree of
confidence in the identity of all individual
corresponding and the security of the transmitted information. UTD furnishes
each student with a free
email account that is to be used in all
communication with university personnel. The Department of Information
Resources at U.T. Dallas
provides a method for students to have their
U.T. Dallas mail forwarded to other accounts.
Withdrawal from Class- The administration of this institution has set
deadlines for withdrawal of any college-level courses. These dates and
times are published in that semester's course
catalog. Administration procedures must be followed. It is the student's
responsibility to handle
withdrawal requirements from any class. In other
words, I cannot drop or withdraw any student. You must do the proper paperwork
to ensure that
you will not receive a final grade of
"F" in a course if you choose not to attend the class once you are
enrolled.
Student Grievance Procedures- Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on
Student Services and Activities, of the
university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.
In attempting to resolve any student grievance
regarding grades, evaluations, or other fulfillments of academic
responsibility, it is the obligation
of the student first to make a serious effort to
resolve the matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or committee
with whom the
grievance originates (hereafter called “the
respondent”). Individual faculty members retain primary responsibility for
assigning grades and
evaluations. If the matter cannot be resolved at
that level, the grievance must be submitted in writing to the respondent with a
copy of the
respondent’s School Dean. If the matter is not
resolved by the written response provided by the respondent, the student may
submit a written
appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is
not resolved by the School Dean’s decision, the student may make a written
appeal to the Dean of
Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the
deal will appoint and convene an Academic Appeals Panel. The decision of the
Academic
Appeals Panel is final. The results of the
academic appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.
Copies of these rules and regulations are
available to students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff
members are available to assist
students in interpreting the rules and
regulations.
Incomplete Grade Policy- As per university policy, incomplete grades will
be granted only for work unavoidably missed at the semester’s end
and only if 70% of the course work has been
completed. An incomplete grade must be resolved within eight (8) weeks from the
first day of the
subsequent long semester. If the required work
to complete the course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by
the specified
deadline, the incomplete grade is changed
automatically to a grade of F.
Disability Services- The goal of Disability Services is to provide
students with disabilities educational opportunities equal to those of their
nondisabled
peers. Disability Services is located in room
1.610 in the Student Union. Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to
6:30
p.m.; Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30
p.m.; and Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The contact information for the Office of
Disability Services is: The University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22, PO Box
830688, Richardson, Texas
75083-0688, (972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY)
Essentially, the law requires that colleges and
universities make those reasonable adjustments necessary to eliminate
discrimination on the basis
of disability. For example, it may be necessary
to remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders or animals (in the case
of dog guides) for
students who are blind. Occasionally an
assignment requirement may be substituted (for example, a research paper versus
an oral presentation
for a student who is hearing impaired). Classes
enrolled students with mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in
accessible facilities.
The college or university may need to provide
special services such as registration, note-taking, or mobility assistance.
It is the student’s responsibility to notify his
or her professors of the need for such an accommodation. Disability Services
provides students with
letters to present to faculty members to verify
that the student has a disability and needs accommodations. Individuals
requiring special
accommodation should contact the professor after
class or during office hours.
Religious Holy Days- The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a
student from class or other required activities for the travel to and
observance of a religious holy day for a
religion whose places of worship are exempt from property tax under Section
11.20, Tax Code, and
Texas Code Annotated.
The student is encouraged to notify the
instructor or activity sponsor as soon as possible regarding the absence,
preferably in advance of the
assignment. The student, so excused, will be
allowed to take the exam or complete the assignment within a reasonable time
after the absence: a
period equal to the length of the absence, up to
a maximum of one week. A student who notifies the instructor and completes any
missed exam or
assignment may not be penalized for the absence.
A student who fails to complete the exam or assignment within the prescribed
period may
receive a failing grade for that exam or
assignment.
If a student or an instructor disagrees about
the nature of the absence [i.e., for the purpose of observing a religious holy
day] or if there is similar
disagreement about whether the student has been
given a reasonable time to complete any missed assignments or examinations,
either the student
or the instructor may request a ruling from the
chief executive officer of the institution, or his or her designee. The chief
executive officer or
designee must take into account the legislative
intent of TEC 51.911(b), and the student and instructor will abide by the
decision of the chief
executive officer or designee.