Paper: What\rqs Wrong with Requirements Specification? An Analysis of the Fundamental Failings of Conventional Thinking about Software Requirements, and Some Suggestions for Getting it Right
We know many of our IT projects fail and disappoint. The poor state of requirements methods and practice is frequently stated as a factor for IT project failure. In this paper, I discuss what I believe is the fundamental cause: we think like programmers, not engineers and managers. We do not concentrate on value delivery, but instead on functions, on use-cases and on code delivery. Further, management is not taking its responsibility to make things better. In this paper, ten practical key principles are proposed, which aim to improve the quality of requirements specification.
%0 Journal Article
%1 gilb_paper:_2010
%A Gilb, Tom
%D 2010
%J Journal of Software Engineering and Applications
%K Definition; Delivery Methods; Quality; Requirements Value requirements;
%P 827--838
%R 10.4236/jsea.2010.39096
%T Paper: What\rqs Wrong with Requirements Specification? An Analysis of the Fundamental Failings of Conventional Thinking about Software Requirements, and Some Suggestions for Getting it Right
%U http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=2671
%X We know many of our IT projects fail and disappoint. The poor state of requirements methods and practice is frequently stated as a factor for IT project failure. In this paper, I discuss what I believe is the fundamental cause: we think like programmers, not engineers and managers. We do not concentrate on value delivery, but instead on functions, on use-cases and on code delivery. Further, management is not taking its responsibility to make things better. In this paper, ten practical key principles are proposed, which aim to improve the quality of requirements specification.
@article{gilb_paper:_2010,
abstract = {We know many of our {IT} projects fail and disappoint. The poor state of requirements methods and practice is frequently stated as a factor for {IT} project failure. In this paper, I discuss what I believe is the fundamental cause: we think like programmers, not engineers and managers. We do not concentrate on value delivery, but instead on functions, on use-cases and on code delivery. Further, management is not taking its responsibility to make things better. In this paper, ten practical key principles are proposed, which aim to improve the quality of requirements specification.},
added-at = {2013-02-28T11:13:35.000+0100},
author = {Gilb, Tom},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2af1ec464ae232bee5b185e25cc1158cd/fritzsolms},
doi = {10.4236/jsea.2010.39096},
interhash = {59ad5a54cea2561ea8e1fe05a664c607},
intrahash = {af1ec464ae232bee5b185e25cc1158cd},
journal = {Journal of Software Engineering and Applications},
keywords = {Definition; Delivery Methods; Quality; Requirements Value requirements;},
lccn = {0000},
month = sep,
pages = {827--838},
timestamp = {2013-02-28T11:13:49.000+0100},
title = {{Paper: What{\rq}s Wrong with Requirements Specification? An Analysis of the Fundamental Failings of Conventional Thinking about Software Requirements, and Some Suggestions for Getting it Right}},
url = {http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=2671},
year = 2010
}