1 / 18

Requirements Working Group Overview

Requirements Working Group Overview. June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA. Agenda. 1/24/2007 Sunday 2:00 pm-5:00 pm RWG overview and plan for 2007 Status of RAFT Status of REGAL Attendees try out RWG website and REGAL website for 30 minutes Discussion of REGAL improvement Dinner

aurora
Télécharger la présentation

Requirements Working Group Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Requirements Working GroupOverview June 24-25, 2007 San Diego, CA

  2. Agenda 1/24/2007 Sunday 2:00 pm-5:00 pm • RWG overview and plan for 2007 • Status of RAFT • Status of REGAL • Attendees try out RWG website and REGAL website for 30 minutes • Discussion of REGAL improvement • Dinner 1/25/2007 Monday 8:00 am – 5:00 pm • RWG overview and plan for 2007 (Repeat for people not available on Sunday) • Debrief of Local Chapter Activities • Review of requirements best practices submitted for REGAL • Finalize approved best practices for entering into REGAL • Develop Plan for 2007-2008 1/26/2007 Tuesday 8:00 am- 9:00 am • Telecon Debrief to Team members (Review RWG metrics & action items)

  3. Leadership • Chair: • Jeremy Dick, Oxford UK • Co-chairs: • Gauthier Fanmuy, Paris France • Lily Birmingham, Washington DC • Lou Wheatcraft, Texas • Members • 94

  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.

  5. Past Activities • SE 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 Revision • Elicitation methods • Which elicitation techniques for which projects, starting

  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

  7. To access REGAL • Available to any INCOSE member at http://www.incose.org/regal/ • Contact Lou Wheatcraft for login and password to access INCOSE website (louw@complianceautomation.com)

  8. REGAL concepts • Best 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

  9. Roadmap

  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

  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

  12. Project Context & Questions for RAFT

  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)

  14. WP 2: Project characteristics (2 of 2) • 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)

  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?

  16. RWG 2006-2007 Plan Reached 95% • REGAL (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 On target Unrealistic Achieved On target Not achieved In progress Not started Not started

  17. Progress at IW 2007 • General: • 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

  18. Proposed RWG 2007-2008 Plan • REGAL (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

More Related