IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v17y2014i4p462-478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Requirements Entropy Framework in Systems Engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Michael W. Grenn
  • Shahram Sarkani
  • Thomas Mazzuchi

Abstract

This paper introduces a requirements entropy framework (REF) for measuring requirements trends and estimating engineering effort during system development. The REF treats the requirements engineering process as an open system in which the total number of requirements R transition from initial states of high requirements entropy HR, disorder and uncertainty toward the desired end state of HR min as R increase in quality. The cumulative requirements quality Q reflects the meaning of the requirements information in the context of the SE problem. The distribution of R among N discrete quality levels is determined by the number of quality attributes accumulated by R at any given time in the process. The number of possibilities P reflects the uncertainty of the requirements information relative to HR min . The HR is measured or estimated using R, N and P by extending principles of information theory and statistical mechanics to the requirements engineering process. The requirements information I increases as HR and uncertainty decrease, and ΔI is the additional information necessary to achieve the desired state from the perspective of the receiver. The HR may increase, decrease or remain steady depending on the degree to which additions, deletions and revisions impact the distribution of R among the quality levels. Current requirements volatility metrics generally treat additions, deletions and revisions the same and simply measure the quantity of these changes over time. The REF measures the quantity of requirements changes over time, distinguishes between their positive and negative effects in terms of Q,HR, and ΔI, and forecasts when a specified desired state of requirements quality will be reached, enabling more accurate assessment of the status and progress of the engineering effort. Results from random variable simulations suggest the REF is an improved leading indicator of requirements trends that can be readily combined with current methods. The additional engineering effort ΔE needed to transition R from their current state to the desired state can also be estimated. Simulation results are compared with measured engineering effort data for Department of Defense programs, and the results suggest the REF is a promising new method for estimating engineering effort for a wide range of system development programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael W. Grenn & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2014. "The Requirements Entropy Framework in Systems Engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 462-478, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:17:y:2014:i:4:p:462-478
    DOI: 10.1111/sys.21283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/sys.21283
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/sys.21283?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Gulu Gambhir, 2001. "An investigation of facilitator‐assisted and CONOPS‐based requirements elicitation methods using a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 272-286.
    2. Sarah A Sheard & Ali Mostashari, 2009. "Principles of complex systems for systems engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 295-311, December.
    3. Rick Botta & Zach Bahill & Terry Bahill, 2006. "When are observable states necessary?," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 228-240, September.
    4. Donna H. Rhodes & Ricardo Valerdi & Garry J. Roedler, 2009. "Systems engineering leading indicators for assessing program and technical effectiveness," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 21-35, March.
    5. A. Terry Bahill & Steven J. Henderson, 2005. "Requirements development, verification, and validation exhibited in famous failures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14.
    6. Barry Boehm & Ricardo Valerdi & Eric Honour, 2008. "The ROI of systems engineering: Some quantitative results for software‐intensive systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 221-234, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. A. Terry Bahill, 2012. "Diogenes, a process for identifying unintended consequences," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 287-306, September.
    2. Thomas Walworth & Mike Yearworth & Laura Shrieves & Hillary Sillitto, 2016. "Estimating Project Performance through a System Dynamics Learning Model," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 334-350, July.
    3. Ricardo Valerdi & Matthew Dabkowski & Indrajeet Dixit, 2015. "Reliability Improvement of Major Defense Acquisition Program Cost Estimates—Mapping DoDAF to COSYSMO," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 530-547, October.
    4. Jared Fortune & Ricardo Valerdi, 2013. "A framework for reusing systems engineering products," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 304-312, September.
    5. Alan B. Marchant, 2010. "Obstacles to the flow of requirements verification," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Blake Roberts & Thomas Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2016. "Engineered Resilience for Complex Systems as a Predictor for Cost Overruns," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 111-132, March.
    7. Li Zheng & Claude Baron & Philippe Esteban & Rui Xue & Qiang Zhang, 2017. "A framework to improve performance measurement in engineering projects," Post-Print hal-01709535, HAL.
    8. Alejandro Salado & Roshanak Nilchiani, 2014. "A Categorization Model of Requirements Based on Max‐Neef's Model of Human Needs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 348-360, September.
    9. Christos Ellinas & Neil Allan & Anders Johansson, 2016. "Exploring Structural Patterns Across Evolved and Designed Systems: A Network Perspective," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 179-192, May.
    10. Clement Smartt & Susan Ferreira, 2011. "Advancing systems engineering in support of the bid and proposal process," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 255-266, September.
    11. Dawn Gilbert & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Complexity in a Systems Engineering Organization: An Empirical Case Study," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 422-435, September.
    12. Alejandro Salado & Roshanak Nilchiani, 2015. "Adaptive Requirements Prioritization (ARP): Improving Decisions between Conflicting Requirements," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 472-490, October.
    13. Charlotte N. Dunford & Mike Yearworth & Darren M. York & Patrick Godfrey, 2013. "A view of Systems Practice: Enabling quality in design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 134-151, June.
    14. Li Zheng & Claude Baron & Philippe Esteban & Rui Xue & Qiang Zhang, 2017. "Mapping Systems engineering leading indicators with leading indicators in construction industry projects," Post-Print hal-01709556, HAL.
    15. Rick Botta & Zach Bahill & Terry Bahill, 2006. "When are observable states necessary?," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 228-240, September.
    16. Pedro Parraguez & Steven Eppinger & Anja Maier, 2016. "Characterizing Design Process Interfaces as Organization Networks: Insights for Engineering Systems Management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 158-173, March.
    17. Mary J. Simpson & Joseph J. Simpson, 2010. "Formal, theoretical aspects of systems engineering: Comments on “Principles of Complex Systems for Systems Engineering” [Syst Eng 12 (2009), 295–311]," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 204-207, June.
    18. Mohamad Kassab & Giuseppe Destefanis, 2017. "Requirements Effort Estimation: The State of the Practice," Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, issue 43, pages 87-102.
    19. Justin W. Eggstaff & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2014. "The Development of Progress Plans Using a Performance‐Based Expert Judgment Model to Assess Technical Performance and Risk," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 375-391, December.
    20. Golnaz Vakili & Foroozossadat Tabatabaee & Siavash Khorsandi, 2013. "Emergence of cooperation in peer‐to‐peer systems: A complex adaptive system approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 213-223, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:17:y:2014:i:4:p:462-478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.