Refinement of the Requirements Definition (Rd) Concept in System Development: Development of the Rd Areas

Abstract

Abstract. To alleviate problems in performing the definition of requirements, it is necessary to review and understand the practice of requirements definition (RD). Refinement of RD is necessary in order to improve the processes and effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to present some results of research performed to refine the RD concept in System Development. The objectives were to obtain an organized, coherent and unified representation of RD. Results of this research will enhance communication among the engineering communities, provide guidance in the effective development and management of requirements and provide the avenue for comparison, measurement, and improvement. Development of the RD representation consisted of identifying the areas of RD, primary functions of each area, and interfaces. The first step, identifying the RD areas, is presented in this paper. Documented RD representations were analyzed to determine a preliminary set of RD areas. A total of five areas were determined. Further research was performed to find evidence to reinforce the five areas determined. The procedures for developing the RD areas are presented. The RD areas identified were:

Study of Equivalence in Systems Engineering Within the Frame of Verification

“…Overall, the use of morphisms in the literature is largely limited to documentation of explicit use of morphism-based terms and vague sense of meaning, rather than being provided with mathematical rigor. For examples, the use of "self-morphing systems" [61]; "morphable architecture" [62]; homomorphism [63,64]; and "graph morphisms," "concept morphisms," and "infomorphism" [65] are all examples of use of morphic-based terms without providing a mathematical context and none of which are using morphisms to determine equivalence between problem spaces of functions and between verification models and system designs as was used for this dissertation. However, the literature review discovered one article that leveraged the use of the morphic term homeomorphism as a means to determine equivalence between topological spaces [66]; and, although it is relevant to determining equivalence between problem spaces of functions, the article did not provide mathematical rigor.…”

Formalizing the Representativeness of Verification Models using Morphisms

“…For example, references to "self-morphing systems" (Ring 2007) and "morphable architecture" (Ring 2001) are discussed with minimal insights into meaning. The concept of homomorphism seems to have been applied to categorically map processes of requirements definition used throughout the literature (White, Lacy, and O'Hair 1996). In another article, there are brief and abstract mentions of homomorphism to transform observation to possible representations of nature (Ferris 2009).…”

Initial Systems Theoretic Metamodel of Verification Artifacts

“…For example, a "morphable architecture" is categorized as an ability to change structure in short periods of time [17]. In other research, the concept of homomorphism is suggested to enable mapping between various processes of requirements definition [18], which is used as a means to categorize literature rather than verification artifacts as we will show in this article. Another example suggests that homomorphism provides a means to characterize a transformation between possible representations of nature from that which was observed in nature [19].…”