[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Agile requirements handling in a service-oriented taxonomy of capabilities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To get to grips with information systems portfolio development, strategic decisions tend towards service orientation and cloud deployment. Functionality should be presented as services that can be consumed from secure clouds in a range of contexts, and service-oriented architectures should enable one to build and rebuild systems portfolios readily and rapidly. However, there is little practical guidance on how to organize and coordinate the multiple lines of work that developing, or modernizing to, a service-oriented portfolio entails. We outline a method framework that uses the structure of a service-oriented taxonomy of capabilities to organize requirements and development in terms of elaboration and refinement of requirements. The method compiles several best practices and supports independent, but integral, lines of work that can be organized in small-scale projects. We illustrate the framework on three cases that involve computer- and simulation-assisted business processes. We conclude that service-oriented capability taxonomies can be used to structure and discipline requirements handling at all levels, from enterprise strategy to technical systems. We suggest that our framework supports the development of capabilities and services that are persistent in the service-oriented sense relative to each other and to implementation. We suggest further that the framework supports collaborative work by facilitating shared conceptions across lines of work. We emphasize that empirical studies should be conducted to evaluate and refine the framework.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alberts DS, Hayes RE (2005) Campaigns of experimentation: pathways to innovation and transformation. Information age transformation series, DoD command and control research program

  2. Allen GW, Lutz R, Richbourg R (2010) Live, virtual, constructive, architecture roadmap implementation and net-centric environment implications. ITEA J 31(3)

  3. Allen GW, Schroeder L (2011) Utilization of service oriented architecture (SOA)-based commercial standards to address live, virtual, constructive (LVC) interoperability challenges. In: Proceedings of interservice/industry training, simulation, and education conference (I/ITSEC) 2011. National Training and Simulation Association

  4. Archer NP, Ghasemzadeh F (1999) An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. Int J Proj Manag 17(4):207–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Argyris C (1993) Knowledge for action. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Franscisco

    Google Scholar 

  6. Argyris C, Schön DA (1996) Organizational learning II. Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benestad HC, Hannay JE (2011) A comparison of model-based and judgment-based release planning in incremental software projects. In: Proceedings of 33rd international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2011). ACM, New York, pp 766–775

  8. Bloebaum TH, Hannay JE, Hedenstad O-E, Haavik S, Lillevold F (2013) Architecture for the Norwegian defence information infrastructure (INI)—remarks on the C3 Taxonomy. FFI-rapport 2013/01729, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI)

  9. Bruvoll S, Hannay JE, Svendsen GK, Asprusten ML, Fauske KM, Kvernelv VB, Løvlid RA, Hyndøy JI (2015) Simulation-supported wargaming for analysis of plans. In: NATO modelling and simulation group symposium on M&S support to operational tasks including War Gaming, Logistics, Cyber Defence (MSG-133)

  10. Chase T, Gustavson P (2005) RPR-BOM initiative: Providing a set of applicable BOMs to the M&S community. In: Proceedings of 2005 spring simulation interoperability workshop (SIW). Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)

  11. Chase T, Gustavson P, Root L (2006) From FOMs to BOMs and back again. In: Proceedings of 2006 spring simulation interoperability workshop (SIW). Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)

  12. Cohn M, Martin R (2005) Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  13. Coolahan JE, Allen GW (2012) LVC architecture roadmap implementation–results of the first two years. In: Proceedings 2012 spring simulation interoperability workshop (SIW). Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)

  14. Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ (1998) Portfolio management for new products. Perseus Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Danesh MH, Yu E (2015) Analyzing IT flexibility to enable dynamic capabilities. In: Advanced information systems engineering workshops, volume 215 of lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, New York, pp 53–65

  16. De Reyck B, Grushka-Cockayne Y, Lockett M, Calderini SR, Moura M, Sloper A (2005) The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects. Int J Proj Manag 23(7):524–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Denne M, Cleland-Huang J (2003) Software by numbers: low-risk, high-return development. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  18. Denne M, Cleland-Huang J (2004) The incremental funding method: data-driven software development. IEEE Softw 21(3):39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Drake DL, Martins IX, Roca RA, Carr F (2011) Live-virtual-constructive service-oriented architecture. Service-oriented architecture application to live-virtual-constructive simulation: approach, benefits, and barriers. Technical report NSAD-R-2011-025. National Security Analysis Department, The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory

  20. Drake DL, Morse KL (2012) Use of SOA for distributed simulation: a way forward. In: Proceedings of 2012 spring simulation interoperability workshop (SIW). Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)

  21. Edgren MG (2012) Cloud-enabled modular services: a framework for cost-effective collaboration. In: NATO modelling and simulation group symposium on transforming defence through modelling and simulation-opportunities and challenges (MSG-094)

  22. Elonen S, Artto KA (2003) Problems in managing internal development projects in multi-project environments. Int J Proj Manag 21:395–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Erdogmus H (2003) Let’s scale agile up. Agile Times 2(1):6–7

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ericsson KA (2006) The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In: Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR (eds) The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, chapter 38. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 683–703

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Hannay JE, Benestad HC (2010) Perceived productivity threats in large agile development projects. In: Proceedings of 4th international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM). IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp 1–10

  26. Hannay JE, Brathen K, Hyndøy JI (2015) On how simulations can support adaptive thinking in operations planning. In NATO modelling and simulation group symposium on M&S support to operational tasks including War Gaming, Logistics, Cyber Defence (MSG-133)

  27. Hannay JE, Brathen K, Mevassvik OM (2013) Simulation architecture and service-oriented defence information infrastructures—preliminary findings. FFI-rapport 2013/01674, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI)

  28. Hannay JE, Mevassvik OM, Skjeltorp A, Brathen K (2014) Live, virtual, constructive (LVC) simulation for land operations training: concept development & experimentation (CD&E). In NATO modelling and simulation group symposium on integrating modelling and simulation in the defence acquisition lifecycle and military training curriculum (MSG-126)

  29. Hannay JE, Skjeltorp A, Holen JE, Blix JE, Mevassvik OM, Olafsen HK (2014) Live, virtual, constructive (LVC) simulation for land training: system description and technical evaluation. FFI-rapport 2014/01597, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI)

  30. IEEE Standards Association. 1516–2010 - IEEE Standard for modeling and simulation (M&S) High Level Architecture (HLA). http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1516-2010.html, 2010. Accessed Sept 2012

  31. Jarvis P (1999) The practitioner-researcher. Jossey-Bass Publishers, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  32. Klein G (1997) Developing expertise in decision making. Think Reason 3(4):337–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuhl F, Weatherly R, Dahmann J (1999) Creating computer simulations—an introduction to the high level architecture. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Lang B, Gerz M, Meyer O, Sim D (2011) An enterprise architecture for the delivery of a modular interoperability solution. In: Semantic and Domain-based Interoperability: Proceedings of RTO information systems technology panel (IST) symposium. NATO Research and Technology Organisation

  35. Lee JW, Kim SH (2001) An integrated approach for interdependent information system project selection. Int J Proj Manag 19(2):111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Levesque LL, Wilson JM, Wholey DR (2001) Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. J Organ Behav 22:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mathieu JE, Goodwin GF, Heffner TS, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol 85(2):273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McAfee A (2012) When too much IT knowledge is a dangerous thing. MIT Sloan Management Review

  39. Möller B, Gustavson P, Lutz R, Löfstrand B (2007) Making your BOMs and FOM modules play together. In: Proceedings of 2007 fall simulation interoperability workshop (SIW). Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)

  40. NATO Communications and Information Agency. The C3 Taxonomy. http://www.act.nato.int/article-8a, 2015. Accessed Jan 2015

  41. NATO Consultation, Command and Control Board. NATO Architecture Framework Version 3. http://www.nhqc3s.nato.int/ARCHITECTURE/_docs/NAF_v3/ANNEX1, 2007. Accessed Jan 2013

  42. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Modelling and Simulation Group. NATO Modelling and Simulation Master Plan (version 2.0). http://ftp.rta.nato.int/Public/Documents/MSG/NATO_MS_Master_Plan_Web. 2012

  43. Oberndorfner M, van Gest J (2011) Modelling and simulation events enabled by the distributed networked battle labs framework. In: NATO modelling and simulation group symposium on enhance or replace: finding the right live vs. synthetic balance (MSG-087)

  44. Petty MD, Gustavson P (2012) Combat modeling with the high level architecture and base object models. In: Tolk A (ed) Engineering principles of combat modeling and distributed simulation, chapter 19. Wiley, New York, pp 413–448

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Pulakos ED, Arad S, Donovan MA, Plamondon KE (2000) Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. J Appl Psychol 85(4):612–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pullen JM, Corner D, Brook A, Wittman R, Mevassvik OM, Alstad A (2012) MSDL and C-BML working together for NATO MSG-085. In: Proceedings of 2012 spring simulation interoperability workshop (SIW). Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)

  47. Sandkuhl K, Koc H (2014) On the applicability of concepts from variability modelling in capability modelling: experiences from a case in business process outsourcing. In: Advanced information systems engineering workshops, volume 178 of lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, New York, pp 65–76

  48. Schwaber K (2004) Agile project management with scrum. Microsoft Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Shadrick SB, Lussier JW (2009) Training complex cognitive skills: a theme-based approach to the development of battlefield skills. In: Ericsson KA (ed) Development of professional expertise, chapter 13. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 286–311

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Shadrick SB, Lussier JW, Hinkle R (2005) Concept development for future domains: a new method for knowledge elicitation. Technical report 1167, US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

  51. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization. Standard for: Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL). http://www.sisostds.org/DigitalLibrary.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=30830, 2008. Accessed Aug 2012

  53. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization. Standard for Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) phase 1. http://www.sisostds.org/DigitalLibrary.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=41767, 2014. Accessed July 2014

  54. Sisson B, Gustavson P, Crosson K (2006) Adding aggregate services to the mix: an SOA implementation use case. In: Proceedings of 2006 spring simulation interoperability workshop (SIW). Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)

  55. Sliger M, Broderick S (2008) The software project manager’s bridge to agility. Addison Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sulaiman T, Barton B, Blackburn T (2006) AgileEVM—earned value management in scrum projects. In: Proceedings of IEEE AGILE 2006. IEEE Computer Society, New York, pp 7–16

  57. Takeuchi H, Nonaka I (1986) The new new product development game. Harvard business review, pp 137–146

  58. The open group. SOA reference architecture technical standard. https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/C119, 2011. Document number C119

  59. The open group. TOGAF Version 9.1 Enterprise Edition–an introduction. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/, 2011. Accessed Jan 2013

  60. Tolk A (2012) Integration of M&S solutions into the operational environment. In: Tolk A (ed) Engineering principles of combat modeling and distributed simulation, chapter 15. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 295–327

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Tolk A (2012) Terms and application domains. In: Tolk A (ed) Engineering principles of combat modeling and distributed simulation, chapter 4. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 55–78

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. World Wide Web consortium. Web services architecture. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch, 2004. Accessed Sept 2012

  63. Zdravkovic J, Pastor O, Loucopoulos P (2015) Preface to the 2nd int’l workshop on advances in services DEsign based on the notion of CApabiliy—ASDENCA 2015. In: Advanced information systems engineering workshops, volume 215 of lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, New York, pp 53–65

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FFI (Norwegian Defence Research Establishment), PB. 25, 2027, Kjeller, Norway

    Jo Erskine Hannay, Karsten Brathen & Ole Martin Mevassvik

Authors
  1. Jo Erskine Hannay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karsten Brathen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ole Martin Mevassvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo Erskine Hannay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hannay, J.E., Brathen, K. & Mevassvik, O.M. Agile requirements handling in a service-oriented taxonomy of capabilities. Requirements Eng 22, 289–314 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0244-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0244-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation