Share This Article:

Extending Extreme Programming User Stories to Meet ISO 9001 Formality Requirements

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:384KB) PP. 626-638
DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2011.411074    5,776 Downloads   9,585 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

For software organizations needing ISO 9001 certification, including those that have adopted agile methodologies, it is important that their software life cycle processes be able to manage the requirements imposed by this certification standard. However, the user stories in the XP agile methodology do not provide auditors with enough evidence that certain steps and activities have been performed in compliance with ISO 9001. This paper proposes an extension to the user story, based on four sub processes related to the CMMI-DEV model: 1) identification of the source of the user story; 2) categorization of the non functional requirements; 3) identification of the user story relationships; and 4) prioritization of the user stories. These sub processes are aligned with the XP release planning phase, and enhance the ability of user stories to accumulate the information that is mandatory for achieving ISO 9001 certification.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

M. Qasaimeh and A. Abran, "Extending Extreme Programming User Stories to Meet ISO 9001 Formality Requirements," Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 4 No. 11, 2011, pp. 626-638. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2011.411074.

References

[1] B. Makdee and P. Praneetpolgrang, “Roadmap in the Development of a Quality Model for Thai Software,” 3rd International Conference on Information and Communications Technology, Cairo, 2005, pp. 829-836. doi:10.1109/ITICT.2005.1609669
[2] L. Vijayasarathy and D. Turk, “Agile Software Development: A Survey of Early Adopters,” Journal of Information Technology Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2008, pp. 1-8.
[3] C. Schindler, “Agile Software Development Methods and Practices in Austrian IT—Industry Results of an Empirical Study,” International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modeling, Control and Automation, Vienna, Austria, 2008, pp. 321-326. doi:10.1109/CIMCA.2008.100
[4] A. Espinoza and J. Garbajosa, “Study to Support Agile Methods More Effectively through Traceability,” Computer Science Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011, pp. 53-69. doi:10.1007/s11334-011-0144-5
[5] M. Qasaimeh and A. Abran, “Investigation of the Capability of XP to Support the Requirements of ISO 9001 Software Process Certification,” Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research Management and Applications, Montreal, Canada, 2010, pp. 239-247. doi:10.1109/SERA.2010.38
[6] G. Wright, “Achieving ISO 9001 Certification for an XP Company,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Extreme Programming and Agile Methods, Agile Universe 2003, New Orleans, August 2003, pp. 43-50.
[7] A. Abran, P. Bourque, R. Dupuis, J. Moore and L. Tripp, “Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge,” IEEE Computer Society Press, 2004, pp. 1-228.
[8] M. Glinz and R. Wieringa, “Stakeholders in Requirements Engineering,” IEEE Software, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2007, pp.18-21. doi:10.1109/MS.2007.42
[9] A. Abran, K. T. Al-Sarayreh and J. Cuadrado-Gallego, “Measurement Model of Software Requirements Derived from System Maintainability Requirements,” 20nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, San Francisco, 1-3 July 2010, pp. 153-158.
[10] K. T. Al-Sarayreh and A. Abran, “A Generic Model for the Specification of Software Interface Requirements and Measurement of their Functional Size,” 8th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research Management and Applications, Montreal, 2010, pp. 217-222. doi:10.1109/SERA.2010.35
[11] H. Tracy, B. Sarah, V. June and W. David, “The Impact of Staff Turnover on Software Projects: The Importance of Understanding What Makes Software Practitioners Tick,” ACM Conference on Computer Personnel Doctoral Consortium and Research, New York, USA, 2008, pp. 30-39.
[12] L. Karlsson, P. Berander, B. Regnell and C. Wohlin, “Requirements Prioritization: An Experiment on Exhaustive Pair-Wise Comparison Versus Planning Game Partitioning,” Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering Conference, Keele, 2008, pp. 122-131.
[13] L. Lehtola, M. Kauppinen and S. Kujala, “Requirements Prioritization Challenges in Practice,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 497-508.
[14] Th. Bebensee, I. Weerd and S. Brinkkemper, “Binary Priority List for Prioritizing Software Requirements,” Proceedings of the 6th International Working, Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, 2010.
[15] S. Fricker and P. Grünbacher, “Negotiation Constellations: Method Selection Framework for Requirements Negotiation,” International. Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, 2008.
[16] P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, J. Ronkainen and J. Warsta, “Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis,” Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Publications, 2000, pp. 461-478.
[17] E. Forman and M. A. Selly, “Decision by Objectives,” George Washington University, 1996.
[18] J. Grandzol, “Improving the Faculty Selection Process in Higher Education: A Case for the Analytic Hierarchy,” Process Association for Institutional Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2005, pp. 1-13.
[19] P. Berander and A. Andrews, “Requirements Prioritization in Engineering and Managing Software Requirements,” Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2005, pp. 69-94.
[20] H.-G Yang and B.Vandenbosch, “Visibility as the Basis of a Framework for Identifying Strategic Information Systems,” Journal of Information Technology Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998, pp. 31-42.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.