Specification of Requirements and Software Architecture for the Customisation of Enterprise Software: A Multi-case Study Based on the RE4SA Model

Spijkman, Tjerk; Brinkkemper, Sjaak; Dalpiaz, Fabiano; Hemmer, Anne-Fleur; Bospoort, Richard van de

doi:10.1109/rew.2019.00015

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Combining the two granularity levels of the RE4SA model provides a shared context view of the software for the functional and technical experts. Functional experts tend to employ a high-level overview (ES-module), while technical experts are mostly focused on the detailed level (US-feature) [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using both perspectives, the developers can determine the top-priority features and, optionally, the pre-requisite features. When customers have a customized version of a software product, the architecture of the new release can be compared to the architecture of the customer [32]. Through this comparison, incompatibilities can be detected, allowing for better planning in an upgrade project for a new release.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To facilitate good communication within the development team and support consistency, we propose the Requirements Engineering for Software Architecture (RE4SA) model. Figure 1 shows the four core concepts of the RE4SA model, and an example for each of the concepts from a case study [32]. RE4SA was assembled on the basis of tight collaboration with industrial partners in the software products domain and combines artifacts that we often found employed in their agile practices [24,32].…”

Section: The Re4sa Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 1 shows the four core concepts of the RE4SA model, and an example for each of the concepts from a case study [32]. RE4SA was assembled on the basis of tight collaboration with industrial partners in the software products domain and combines artifacts that we often found employed in their agile practices [24,32]. Like the Twin Peaks model, RE4SA links the RE and SA domains.…”

Section: The Re4sa Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-We present a refined version of the RE4SA model [32], which includes notations and relationships for linking RE and SA in agile development; -We introduce metrics that allow quantifying the relationship between the two domains. While meant for RE4SA, the metrics can be applied more in general to other notations for expressing requirements and architectures; -We report on two case studies that apply RE4SA for the purpose of architecture discovery and architecture recovery, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Explicit Alignment of Requirements and Architecture in Agile Development

Molenaar

Spijkman

Dalpiaz

et al. 2020

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context & Motivation]Requirements and architectural components are designed concurrently, with the former guiding the latter, and the latter restricting the former. [Question/problem] Effective communication between requirements engineers and software architects is often experienced as problematic. [Principal ideas/results] We present the Requirements Engineering for Software Architecture (RE4SA) model with the intention to support the communication within the development team. In RE4SA, requirements are expressed as epic stories and user stories, which are linked to modules and features, respectively, as their architectural counterparts. Additionally, we provide metrics to measure the alignment between these concepts, and we also discuss how to use the model and the usefulness of the metrics by applying both to case studies. [Contribution] The RE4SA model employs widely adopted notations and allows for explicitly relating a system's requirements and architectural components, while the metrics make it possible to measure the alignment between requirements and architecture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%