Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Requirement

A requirement is a need or expectation that is stated, generally implied, or obligatory, serving as an essential criterion that must be fulfilled to achieve a specific objective, satisfy a standard, or meet contractual obligations. In fields such as systems engineering and quality management, requirements are formalized statements that define the capabilities, conditions, or constraints necessary for a system, product, or process to perform effectively and reliably. For instance, the IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology describes a requirement as "a condition or capability needed by a user to solve a problem or achieve an objective," emphasizing its role in bridging user needs with technical solutions. Requirements can be categorized into types such as functional (specifying what a system must do), performance (detailing how well it must perform), and non-functional (addressing qualities like usability or security), each guiding development efforts to ensure compliance and stakeholder satisfaction. The process of eliciting, analyzing, and managing requirements is fundamental to disciplines like software engineering and project management, where incomplete or ambiguous requirements can lead to project failures, underscoring their critical importance in delivering successful outcomes.

Historical Development

Origins of the Term

The term "requirement" derives from the Latin verb requirere, composed of the prefix re- (meaning "again" or "repeatedly") and quaerere ("" or "to ask"), thus signifying "to seek again" or "to ask for." It entered English via Old French requerre, with the verb "require" first attested in the late to denote "to ask" or "to inquire." The noun "requirement" emerged in the mid-15th century (around the 1520s) as "a request or requisition," evolving by the 1660s to mean "something necessary" or "a need," and later (by 1841) "a necessary ." In technical contexts, the term first gained prominence in 19th-century , particularly with the expansion of railway infrastructure during the . Around the 1830s, as and other nations built extensive rail networks, contracts and specifications employed "requirements" to outline mandatory conditions for construction, such as materials, load-bearing capacities, and safety standards, ensuring compliance amid large-scale projects that demanded precision and accountability. A key milestone in formalizing the concept occurred in the 1930s through U.S. manuals, which introduced structured lists of requirements to estimate and plan for munitions and supplies in anticipation of . The War Department's Industrial Plan, for instance, emphasized calculating detailed requirements to address production lead times and during periods of limited budgets and isolationist policies. By the , this approach marked a significant shift toward systematic in weapon system design, as exemplified by the U.S. 's Ordnance Department. During , requirements were explicitly defined for projects like and development, specifying performance criteria, reliability thresholds, and integration needs to streamline and innovation under wartime pressures.

Evolution in Engineering Disciplines

Following , the concept of expanded significantly within , driven by the demands of complex space programs. NASA's establishment in 1958 marked a pivotal moment, as it incorporated structured requirements planning into early mission architectures, laying the groundwork for large-scale projects like the . This approach emphasized defining technical specifications upfront to manage risks in , with formal systems evolving between 1960 and 1968 to include detailed requirements for and performance. The 1960s saw the emergence of software engineering as a distinct discipline, where requirements practices were formalized to address the growing "software crisis" in computing systems. The 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering in Garmisch, Germany, played a crucial role by highlighting the need for rigorous requirements definition to mitigate delays and cost overruns in large-scale software development, such as IBM's OS/360 and the SABRE airline reservation system. Conference proceedings advocated for systematic documentation of requirements as a foundational step, influencing subsequent standards in software lifecycle management. A key milestone in this evolution was the introduction of the Waterfall model in 1970 by Winston W. Royce, which structured software development into sequential phases with a strong emphasis on initial requirements analysis. Royce's framework, drawn from experiences in large systems development, positioned requirements elicitation and specification as the critical starting point, followed by design, implementation, verification, and maintenance, to ensure traceability and reduce iteration. This model became widely adopted in engineering disciplines for its linear predictability, particularly in regulated sectors like defense and aerospace. By the 1980s, further formalized requirements practices through international standards, notably IEEE Std 830-1984, which provided guidelines for developing comprehensive specifications (). This standard outlined the content, qualities, and structure of an effective , including sections for functional requirements, external interfaces, and performance criteria, to promote clarity and verifiability across engineering teams. It represented a shift toward standardized templates that facilitated collaboration in multidisciplinary projects. As of , a recent advancement integrates with (MBSE) through updates to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, the international standard for system life cycle processes. The edition introduces a dedicated annex on MBSE, enabling formal modeling of requirements within digital environments to support simulation, analysis, and reuse across complex systems like autonomous vehicles and cybersecurity infrastructures. This evolution enhances traceability and adaptability, aligning requirements with digital twins and agile methodologies in modern engineering.

Fundamental Distinctions

Product Versus Process Requirements

Product requirements specify the characteristics, features, , and outputs of the end system or product, focusing on what it must achieve without prescribing how it is developed. For instance, a product requirement might state that "the application shall at least 1000 transactions per second under normal load" to ensure defined functionality and . These requirements guide the and of the deliverable, emphasizing operational, functional, and attributes such as , , and with standards like ratings. In contrast, process requirements define the methods, procedures, and constraints for how the development, , or work is conducted, rather than the properties of the final product. Examples include mandates for with systems like ISO 9001, which requires documented procedures for planning and control of product realization, or adherence to agile iteration cycles in software projects to ensure iterative reviews and adaptability. These requirements promote consistency, , and across the lifecycle, such as specifying protocols or during testing. The distinction between product and process requirements emerged prominently in the late through standards, with roots in 1970s advancements in planning like (MRP) systems, which emphasized process controls, contrasted against software 's focus on product specifications in early lifecycle models. Standards like (1994) formalized this by requiring detailed documentation of software products within structured development processes, bridging rigor with software flexibility. Product requirements benefit projects by directly aligning deliverables with needs and enabling precise , while process requirements enhance and but can introduce trade-offs, such as added overhead that may constrain innovative approaches by enforcing rigid methodologies. A representative example appears in , where product requirements define crash performance, such as meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216 for roof crush resistance to protect occupants during rollovers, ensuring the vehicle's structural integrity under specified loads. Meanwhile, process requirements govern testing protocols, like those in , which mandate systematic , verification methods, and throughout the electrical/electronic system development to achieve functional integrity levels (ASIL). This separation allows engineers to focus product specs on end-user protection while using process mandates to standardize without altering the safety outcomes.

Functional Versus Non-Functional Requirements

Functional requirements define the specific behaviors, operations, inputs, outputs, and functions that a must perform to meet needs. These requirements describe what the system does, focusing on the core capabilities and interactions, such as processing or executing transactions. For instance, a might specify that "the shall allow to authenticate via and password, verifying credentials against a database and granting upon success." This type of requirement is verifiable through testing that confirms the exact functionality, often expressed in terms of actions or services provided. In contrast, non-functional requirements specify the qualities, constraints, and attributes of the , detailing how it performs rather than what it does. These encompass aspects like reliability, , , , and , typically quantified with metrics to ensure measurable outcomes. Examples include "the shall maintain an uptime of greater than 99.9% during operational hours" for reliability or "the average response time for user queries shall not exceed 2 seconds under normal load." Non-functional requirements are crucial for overall effectiveness, as failure to meet them can render a functionally complete unusable or inefficient. The distinction between functional and non-functional requirements is outlined in established standards such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018, which categorizes functional requirements as those describing system or element functions and behaviors, while non-functional requirements address quality attributes like and , often derived from implicit stakeholder needs. This framework aids in systematic by separating behavioral specifications from qualitative criteria, enabling targeted methods—such as for functionals and analysis or inspection for non-functionals. Challenges arise in distinguishing these categories due to overlaps and ambiguities, particularly in areas like where a requirement might blend specific operations (e.g., "the system shall encrypt data using AES-256") with broader qualities (e.g., "the system shall withstand attempts with zero successful breaches in testing"). Such blending can lead to misclassification, complicating and validation, and requires careful to ensure clarity. A practical illustration is an : a might state "the user shall be able to add selected products to a and view the updated cart contents," defining the core shopping interaction. Conversely, a could specify "the platform shall support up to 10,000 concurrent users with no more than 1% error rate in ," ensuring during peak traffic. This separation highlights how functionals drive feature development while non-functionals guide architectural decisions for robustness.

Classification and Types

Stakeholder and User Requirements

Stakeholder requirements represent high-level needs and expectations articulated by individuals or groups with an interest in the , such as sponsors, regulators, or business owners, often focusing on overarching goals like constraints or . According to ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018, these requirements emerge from the Stakeholder Needs and Requirements Definition , which translates stakeholder capabilities into verifiable statements to guide . For instance, a project sponsor might specify that a new must operate within a of under $1 million to align with organizational financial objectives. User requirements, a of stakeholder requirements, capture the perspectives and operational needs of end-users who directly interact with the , emphasizing and task efficiency. In , these are defined as documented needs specifying how users intend to employ the to achieve specific objectives, often expressed in or through scenarios. They are typically elicited through direct engagement to ensure the supports daily workflows, such as a requirement for rapid in time-sensitive environments. Elicitation of and requirements involves structured techniques to gather and refine these needs, including surveys for broad input, collaborative workshops for consensus-building, and use cases to model interactions. The BABOK Guide v3 outlines these methods as core practices in the and knowledge area, recommending their selection based on availability and to minimize misunderstandings. Personas and interviews further aid in representing diverse viewpoints, ensuring comprehensive coverage. Poor alignment on and user requirements contributes significantly to project outcomes, with the Standish Group's 2020 CHAOS Report estimating that around 66% of software projects fail or are challenged, frequently due to inadequate requirements gathering and . This underscores the need for iterative validation during to align expectations early. In healthcare , for example, stakeholders including regulators mandate HIPAA for , while end-users such as nurses prioritize intuitive interfaces for swift access to patient records, balancing legal imperatives with practical . These high-level requirements are subsequently translated into detailed system and software specifications to enable implementation, maintaining to preserve original intents.

System and Software Requirements

represent holistic technical specifications for an integrated , encompassing functional, performance, interface, and quality attributes that ensure the system-of-interest meets derived needs within its broader . These requirements address the system's role in the , including interactions with , software, and external environments, such as specifying that a system shall integrate with a legacy database via defined protocols to maintain data compatibility. According to the Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), are generated through analysis processes that transform high-level expectations into verifiable statements, forming the foundation for and activities. Software requirements, in contrast, provide detailed specifications tailored for code-level implementation, focusing on the behavioral and operational aspects of the software components within the system. These are typically documented in a (SRS) that outlines specific functions, data handling, user interfaces, and constraints, ensuring alignment with overall system objectives. The ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 standard guides the creation of such documents, emphasizing qualities like completeness, consistency, and verifiability to support development and testing of software intended for complex systems. Both and are derived through progressive refinement of initial inputs, involving , interface analysis, and allocation to subsystems, with completeness often measured by coverage ratios in artifacts that indicate the proportion of higher-level needs addressed. A matrix () facilitates this linkage, presenting a tabular mapping from requirements to and software specifications, as well as to design elements and tests, to ensure comprehensive coverage and change impact assessment. Tools like IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS enable automated creation and maintenance of such matrices, supporting multi-level in large-scale projects. For instance, in autonomous vehicle development, a system requirement might state that the vehicle shall detect obstacles at a minimum range of 100 meters under varying environmental conditions to ensure safe navigation, while a corresponding software requirement could specify that the achieves greater than 95% accuracy in object classification using data. These specifications derive from safety standards like and are traced back to user needs for reliable operation, highlighting the refinement process in safety-critical domains.

Quality Attributes

Characteristics of Effective Requirements

Effective requirements possess qualities that ensure they can be clearly understood, implemented, and verified, forming the foundation for successful projects. These characteristics have evolved from early templates like the Volere Requirements Specification Template, first published in 1995 and updated through recent editions as of 2022, such as edition 18, which emphasized clarity, completeness, and verifiability to address common pitfalls in requirement elicitation. According to the INCOSE Guide to Writing Requirements (2023), effective requirements align with SMART-like attributes: specific, meaning the statement has one clear without ; measurable, including quantifiable criteria for assessment; achievable, feasible within constraints like and resources; relevant, essential to the system's purpose and needs; and traceable, linked to higher-level needs or sources for accountability. These align with characteristics defined in ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018, such as complete, consistent, unambiguous, and verifiable. in a requirement is typically measured by whether it allows multiple interpretations among stakeholders, which can lead to implementation errors if not resolved through reviews. Beyond these, additional traits include unambiguous, ensuring precise language free of vague terms; complete, encompassing all necessary elements such as conditions, constraints, and performance measures without reliance on external assumptions; consistent, avoiding conflicts or varying terminology across the requirement set; feasible, realistic given available resources and risks; and verifiable, structured to be testable through methods like , , , or testing. For verifiability, a requirement must define success criteria that can be objectively confirmed, such as ranges for quantities rather than absolutes like "never fail," which are often impractical. For example, a poor requirement like "The system shall provide a fast response" is vague and unverifiable due to subjective interpretation of "fast," whereas an effective one states "The system shall respond to user queries in less than 500 milliseconds under a load of 1,000 concurrent users," which is specific, measurable, and testable. These characteristics not only facilitate robust but also support processes by enabling clear criteria for assessment.

Verification and Validation Techniques

Verification and validation are essential processes in to ensure that requirements are correctly specified and that the resulting fulfills needs. is the process of determining whether the products of a given satisfy the requirements established during that , focusing on confirming that the requirements are internally consistent, complete, and feasible through static and dynamic checks against specifications. In contrast, validation is the process of evaluating the final products to determine whether they satisfy the specified user needs in the operational environment. These processes are often integrated into lifecycles, such as in the IEEE Standard 1012 for , and (2024 revision), which outlines processes to detect errors early and improve quality. Common verification techniques include reviews, inspections, and walkthroughs, which are peer-based methods to scrutinize requirements documents for defects like ambiguities or inconsistencies. Inspections are formal and structured, involving checklists and roles like moderator and recorder to systematically examine requirements line-by-line for and logical errors. Walkthroughs, being more informal, facilitate knowledge sharing and early feedback without rigid preparation, often led by the author to simulate execution and identify issues. Expert reviews and analysis further support by having domain specialists assess feasibility, such as estimating resource needs or predicting performance based on requirements. In practice, these techniques help achieve low defect rates in requirements specifications, with defect density—measured as defects per unit size of the document—serving as a key metric; for instance, (CMMI) Level 3 processes emphasize monitoring this to target improvements in . Validation techniques emphasize dynamic evaluation to confirm alignment with user needs, including prototyping, simulations, and user . Prototyping involves creating executable models of requirements to gather feedback on functionality and , allowing iterative refinement before full . Simulations test requirements under various scenarios to validate non-functional aspects like or reliability, while user engages end-users in real-world-like exercises to ensure the meets operational expectations. In software contexts, beta testing validates overall through limited releases to representative users. These methods build on effective requirement characteristics, such as clarity and , to enable thorough assessment. Formal techniques enhance both by providing rigorous mathematical checks for logical consistency and completeness. , for example, uses tools like to verify requirements modeled in languages such as Promela against temporal properties, detecting deadlocks or inconsistencies in concurrent systems—particularly useful for mission-critical applications like . analysis links requirements to design, code, and tests, ensuring coverage and enabling of changes. Inconsistency analysis with tools based on , such as the Software Cost Reduction (SCR) approach, further validates requirements by identifying conflicts in tabular specifications derived from stakeholder inputs. These techniques, applied in high-stakes domains like projects, have demonstrated effectiveness in early error detection.

Documentation Practices

Requirement Specification Formats

Requirement specification formats provide standardized ways to document and communicate requirements, ensuring clarity, consistency, and verifiability in systems and software engineering. These formats range from informal natural language descriptions to highly structured templates and formal mathematical notations, each suited to different project needs and complexity levels. Natural language formats, such as user stories commonly used in Agile methodologies, express requirements in plain, conversational prose to facilitate stakeholder understanding and iteration. For instance, a user story might state: "As a registered user, I want to reset my password so that I can regain access to my account." Structured formats enhance this by organizing requirements into tables or predefined fields, including identifiers, descriptions, priorities, and rationale, to reduce ambiguity and support traceability. Formal formats, like the Z notation, employ mathematical constructs based on set theory and first-order predicate logic to precisely model system states and behaviors, enabling rigorous analysis and verification. Standards such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 guide the content and structure of requirement specifications by defining processes for eliciting, analyzing, and documenting requirements throughout the system . This standard outlines information items like requirement statements, attributes (e.g., priority, source), and relationships, emphasizing unambiguous, verifiable expressions without prescribing a single format. It promotes templates that include sections for functional and non-functional requirements, rationale, and verification methods to ensure completeness and consistency. The Volere Requirements Specification Template complements this by offering a comprehensive framework with over 80 fields across 11 main sections, covering project drivers, constraints, functional requirements, non-functional requirements (e.g., , ), and supporting elements like glossaries and matrices. Developed for and software systems, it uses checklists and examples to systematically capture atomic requirements while maintaining a knowledge model for interconnections. Best practices in requirement specification emphasize techniques that promote precision and behavioral clarity. Use cases serve as a key method for describing behavioral flows, encapsulating sequences of actions between actors and the system to achieve specific goals, often structured with elements like preconditions, main flow, alternatives, and postconditions. This approach aids in discovering requirements and deriving test cases by focusing on user interactions rather than implementation details. Additionally, modal verbs delineate obligation levels: "shall" indicates mandatory requirements, "should" denotes recommendations or desired outcomes, and "may" signifies optional permissions, aligning with IEEE guidelines to avoid ambiguity in specifications. These conventions, rooted in standards like the IEEE SA Style Manual, ensure requirements are testable and prioritized effectively. Tools facilitate the application of these formats in practice. supports Agile by treating requirements as customizable issue types, enabling prioritization, tracking, and integration with for documentation, which streamlines collaboration in iterative environments. ReqView, a dedicated requirements tool, aids structured and traceable specifications by supporting templates compliant with ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018, allowing formatted text, custom attributes, and bidirectional links for impact analysis, with via . A representative example is the (SRS) document, which typically follows an outline including an introduction (purpose, scope, definitions), overall description (product perspective, constraints), specific requirements (functional and non-functional, often in tables or use cases), supporting information (interfaces, appendices like glossaries), and verification criteria. This structure, as outlined in established guidelines, ensures comprehensive coverage while accommodating formats like or structured tables for functional requirements.

Tools and Standards for Documentation

Various software tools facilitate the creation, collaboration, and maintenance of requirements documentation by providing features for authoring, linking, and versioning requirements. Polarion, developed by , supports collaborative editing of requirements across distributed teams, enabling real-time co-authoring and workflow automation for approval processes in complex systems development. Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Next offers enterprise-level , allowing users to link requirements to design artifacts, tests, and code while supporting scalable management for large-scale projects. For open-source alternatives, ReqFlow provides analysis across documents, enabling efficient extraction and mapping of requirements without proprietary licensing costs. Regulatory standards guide the structure and processes for requirements documentation to ensure consistency and quality. The ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 standard outlines lifecycle processes for , including elicitation, analysis, specification, and validation, applicable to both systems and software products. In the automotive sector, Automotive SPICE (ASPICE) 4.0, released in 2023, incorporates REUSE processes to support the adaptation and integration of standard hardware, platforms, or product lines in requirements documentation, enhancing reusability and compliance in vehicle . Compliance in requirements documentation often involves features like audit trails and integration to meet regulatory demands for accountability and change tracking. Tools such as DOORS Next and Polarion include built-in audit trails that log all modifications to requirements, providing verifiable histories for audits, while integration with enables synchronization of requirements artifacts with code repositories for seamless development workflows. As of 2025, advancements in have introduced large language models (LLMs) into requirements tools for automated generation and analysis. IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Next now integrates with the Engineering AI Hub v1.0, which deploys task-level agents powered by LLMs to assist in drafting requirements, identifying inconsistencies, and suggesting refinements based on inputs. In EU GDPR-compliant projects, standards require requirements to be documented in traceable formats, ensuring data protection measures are explicitly linked to system components for and purposes under Article 5 of the GDPR.

Management and Change Control

Processes for Requirement Changes

In , formal processes for handling changes to requirements are essential to maintain project stability and control scope during the development lifecycle. These procedures typically involve structured mechanisms to evaluate, approve, or reject modifications, ensuring that alterations align with project goals without introducing undue disruption. Key elements include dedicated bodies, standardized submission protocols, and reference points like baselines to gauge the necessity and timing of updates. A central component of these processes is the (CCB), a comprising subject matter experts, such as software engineers and project managers, tasked with reviewing change requests. The CCB evaluates proposed modifications to requirements, deciding whether to accept, reject, or defer them based on criteria like alignment with overall objectives and potential risks to the project timeline. To assess urgency, the CCB compares requests against established baselines, which represent approved snapshots of requirements at specific milestones; changes deemed non-urgent may be postponed until the next review cycle to preserve development momentum. The request process begins with the submission of a formal form by stakeholders, which must include detailed rationale for the proposed modification—such as evolving business needs or technical discoveries—and an assigned priority level. Priorities are often categorized numerically, with denoting critical changes that require immediate action due to severe impacts on , , or core functionality, followed by P1 for high urgency and lower levels for routine adjustments. This structured documentation ensures transparency and facilitates efficient by the CCB, minimizing ad-hoc alterations that could derail progress. Baselines serve as frozen sets of requirements established at key project milestones, such as the end of or design phases, providing a stable reference for all subsequent work. According to (CMMI) practices, baselining involves formal approval of requirement documents to track and control changes systematically, preventing unauthorized deviations while allowing controlled evolution. In CMMI's process area, baselines are integrated with to monitor variations, ensuring that any post-baseline changes undergo rigorous review to uphold integrity. In agile methodologies, processes for requirement changes adapt traditional controls to embrace and flexibility, often managing modifications through dynamic rather than rigid boards. Changes are incorporated via prioritized items, with sprint reviews at the end of each serving as checkpoints to validate adjustments based on feedback and demonstrated progress. This approach, outlined in the framework, allows frequent refinements—typically every 1-4 weeks—while maintaining discipline through defined acceptance criteria and grooming sessions. Research indicates that approximately 25% of requirements undergo changes during the development phase, highlighting the prevalence of even with robust processes in place; exceeding this threshold often signals the need for process reevaluation to avoid escalating costs or delays. Such changes, if unmanaged, can contribute to issues like requirements creep, underscoring the importance of proactive controls.

Impact Analysis and Traceability

Impact analysis in involves systematically evaluating the effects of proposed changes to requirements, using techniques such as forward tracing to identify downstream impacts on , , and testing artifacts, and backward tracing to assess upstream dependencies from needs. This process helps mitigate risks by revealing ripple effects, such as how a modification to a might necessitate updates to related test cases or validation procedures. According to , effective impact analysis reduces the uncertainty in change propagation, enabling teams to prioritize adjustments based on their and severity. Requirements traceability complements impact analysis by maintaining explicit links between requirements and associated lifecycle elements, ensuring that changes can be tracked bidirectionally—from high-level user needs to detailed code and tests. , often implemented as tabular or graphical structures, map these relationships, allowing stakeholders to verify coverage and detect gaps during . For example, a matrix might link a requirement to specific modules and test scripts, facilitating quick identification of affected areas when alterations occur. Seminal work emphasizes that such matrices enhance by providing a clear throughout the project. Tools like and support these practices through integrated workflows, where requirements are captured as Jira issues linked to Confluence documentation pages, enabling automated alerts for change notifications and dynamic views. This allows teams to generate reports on dependencies, streamlining without manual reconfiguration. Quantitative methods further refine this by employing dependency graphs, where nodes represent requirements or artifacts and weighted edges quantify relationship strength or risk, aiding in scoring potential change impacts for prioritization. In practice, altering a requirement, such as increasing response time thresholds, may propagate to invalidate related suites, requiring re-execution of coverage tools to confirm with updated specifications; this underscores the value of in minimizing overlooked effects. Systematic reviews highlight that robust reduces project rework in complex systems, though adoption varies by .

Common Challenges

Requirements Creep and Scope Management

Requirements creep, also known as , refers to the uncontrolled and gradual expansion of a project's requirements or features beyond the originally defined scope, often without formal approval or evaluation of impacts on schedule, budget, or resources. This phenomenon typically arises from incremental additions that accumulate over time, leading to significant project disruptions; according to PMI's 2018 Pulse of the Profession report, 52% of projects experienced within the previous 12 months, contributing to average budget overruns of approximately 27% in IT projects affected by such expansions. Common causes of requirements creep include ambiguous or poorly defined initial , which allows for misinterpretations and unintended expansions; lack of formal processes for managing requirements, enabling unauthorized changes; inconsistent methods for gathering input, resulting in fuzzy boundaries and extraneous demands; insufficient involvement from sponsors and stakeholders, leading to ad-hoc additions driven by external pressures; and extended durations, which increase exposure to evolving requests. pressure often exacerbates this by pushing for new features without assessing trade-offs, while poor fails to distinguish essential from desirable elements, allowing low-value additions to proliferate. Additionally, gold-plating by development teams—where extra functionalities are added unrequested in an effort to exceed expectations—contributes to by diverting resources from core objectives without client input. Effective management of requirements creep involves establishing clear scope baselines early in the lifecycle, which serve as a reference point for all changes and help maintain focus on approved deliverables. The prioritization method is a widely adopted technique for this purpose, categorizing requirements into Must-have (essential for success), Should-have (important but not vital), Could-have (desirable if time and resources permit), and Won't-have (excluded for the current ), thereby aiding in controlled expansion and alignment with business priorities. This approach, originating from the (DSDM), ensures that only justified additions are considered, reducing the risk of uncontrolled growth. Mitigation strategies emphasize proactive controls, such as implementing regular review meetings to reassess against baselines and maintaining detailed change logs to track all proposed modifications, their rationale, and approvals. A formal process is critical, requiring impact analysis before approving any alterations to prevent haphazard inclusions. In agile environments, time-boxing—setting fixed durations for iterations like sprints—further contains creep by limiting the negotiable within each cycle, forcing prioritization and deferral of non-essential items to future iterations. These practices, when combined with ongoing communication, help sustain viability amid evolving demands. A prominent illustrating the perils of requirements creep is the (DIA) automated baggage handling system project in the 1990s, where initial plans excluded automation but later incorporated it at the insistence of in 1991, leading to exponential growth as additional airlines and complexities were added without robust controls. Poor definition, communication gaps with s like , and inadequate resulted in requirements roughly doubling, causing a two-year delay from 1993 to 1995 and cost escalations from $2.08 billion to $4.8 billion—a 130% overrun—along with $35 million in rushed modifications and ongoing technical failures. The project's eventual partial abandonment for a conventional system underscored the need for early feasibility studies, alignment, and structured change processes to avert such cascading failures.

Conflicting Standards and Taxonomies

In , various taxonomies exist to classify requirements, leading to inconsistencies that complicate specification and evaluation. One prominent taxonomy is FURPS+, introduced by Robert Grady at , which categorizes non-functional requirements into Functionality (features and capabilities), (ease of use), Reliability (dependability), (speed and efficiency), Supportability (, installability, and ), with the "+" denoting additional attributes like constraints or legal requirements. This model emphasizes practical grouping for but has been critiqued for its simplicity and overlap in categories. In contrast, the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 quality model provides a more structured, internationally standardized framework with eight product quality characteristics: functional suitability, efficiency, compatibility, , reliability, , , and portability, each broken down into sub-characteristics for precise measurement and evaluation. The divergence arises because FURPS+ focuses on high-level, project-oriented groupings often used in agile or proprietary contexts, while ISO 25010 prioritizes comprehensive, lifecycle-applicable metrics, resulting in mismatches when mapping, such as FURPS+'s broad "Supportability" encompassing aspects of ISO 25010's separate and portability. Standards from different bodies further exacerbate conflicts, particularly in defining non-functional requirements. The IEEE Std 29148-2018, which guides systems and requirements, defines as the ease of modification, correction, or improvement, encompassing modifiability, , and reusability within a broader systems context. Conversely, ISO/IEC 25010 delineates through sub-characteristics like , reusability, analyzability, modifiability, and , but integrates it more tightly with overall product quality evaluation, potentially narrowing its scope compared to IEEE's emphasis on operational and environmental factors in large-scale systems. These differences stem from IEEE's engineering-focused, U.S.-centric origins versus ISO's global consensus approach, leading to challenges where, for instance, a requirement compliant with one may require reinterpretation under the other. Overlapping frameworks from distinct domains add to the fragmentation. The BABOK Guide (version 3.0) from the International Institute of (IIBA) structures requirements classification around business needs, , and techniques, prioritizing to organizational goals in a context. In comparison, the INCOSE (version 5.0, 2023) adopts a systems-oriented , classifying requirements into needs, , and derived technical specifications, with emphasis on across complex, interdisciplinary projects. While BABOK excels in bridging and IT, it often overlooks deep technical decomposition, whereas INCOSE's approach may undervalue metrics, creating confusion in projects where analysts and must align classifications. These conflicting standards and taxonomies pose significant challenges in multinational projects, where teams from diverse regulatory environments must reconcile varying interpretations, often resulting in increased specification errors, delays, and costs. is advancing through initiatives, such as the 2024 IEEE/ISO/IEC 24748-2 standard, which provides unified guidance on applying ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 for processes, including , to bridge gaps between IEEE and ISO frameworks. A notable example is in security requirements, where NIST SP 800-53 classifies controls into families like and / for federal systems, focusing on technical safeguards, while GDPR (Article 32) emphasizes risk-based measures for personal data processing, prioritizing legal compliance and data subject rights, leading to overlapping yet distinct classifications that require dual mapping in transatlantic projects.

Contemporary Issues

Disputes on Requirement Necessity in Agile Contexts

The debate surrounding the necessity of detailed upfront requirements in software development has gained prominence within agile contexts, pitting traditional methodologies against iterative approaches. Proponents of traditional methods, such as the waterfall model, insist on comprehensive specifications to mitigate risks, ensure stakeholder alignment, and provide a clear roadmap for implementation, arguing that incomplete requirements lead to costly rework and project failure. Conversely, agile advocates, as articulated in the Agile Manifesto of 2001, emphasize responding to change over adherence to a plan, promoting emergent requirements that evolve through iterative development cycles, frequent feedback, and collaboration with stakeholders to better accommodate uncertainty and deliver value incrementally. Barry Boehm's 1988 spiral model offers a foundational bridge between these viewpoints, proposing a risk-driven process that integrates elements of traditional planning with iterative prototyping and evaluation, allowing requirements to be refined progressively across multiple cycles rather than fixed at the outset, thereby influencing the evolution of agile practices. illustrates the nuanced impacts of agile on requirement management: studies indicate that agile methodologies reduce requirements creep by fostering flexible and incremental , with organizations achieving up to 28% higher rates compared to traditional approaches. However, this flexibility often heightens ambiguity, as lightweight artifacts like user stories may lack the precision of formal documents, resulting in varied interpretations and downstream defects, a challenge acknowledged in systematic reviews of agile . The 18th State of Agile Report (2025) highlights ongoing challenges in agile practices effectively. In pipelines, which build on agile foundations, the principle of "just enough" requirements manifests through user stories and behavioral-driven development, enabling teams to focus on minimal viable increments that align with operational needs and facilitate . Disputes intensify in regulated sectors like pharmaceuticals, where agile's reduced documentation conflicts with mandatory requirements under FDA guidelines, prompting hybrid models that incorporate traceability matrices to ensure compliance without sacrificing iterative speed. By 2025, the emergence of AI-driven adaptive has intensified these debates, with tools automating elicitation, ambiguity detection, and real-time refinement of requirements, thereby challenging the imperative for static, comprehensive upfront specifications in favor of dynamic, context-aware that enhance agile adaptability.

Process Corruptions and Ethical Considerations

Process corruptions in often involve deliberate manipulation to benefit vendors or stakeholders, such as inflating requirements in contracts to secure higher payments or extend project scopes. A notable parallel is the bribery case, where institutionalized involved manipulating contracts to favor vendors through illicit payments exceeding €1.4 billion across global deals. Ethical dilemmas in requirements elicitation frequently arise from biases introduced by excluding diverse stakeholders, resulting in systems that perpetuate discrimination. When requirements gathering overlooks input from underrepresented groups, such as in AI-driven hiring tools, the resulting specifications can embed historical prejudices, leading to discriminatory outcomes like biased loan approvals or facial recognition failures for people of color. In surveillance technologies, privacy concerns are amplified during requirements definition, where inadequate specifications for data minimization can enable mass monitoring without consent, eroding civil liberties and enabling misuse by authorities. Professional frameworks address these issues by mandating fairness and accountability in requirements processes. The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (2018) requires computing professionals to "be fair and take action not to discriminate," explicitly guiding requirements engineers to ensure inclusive elicitation and avoid biased specifications that could harm vulnerable populations. Complementing this, the EU AI Act (effective 2024) imposes ethical traceability requirements for high-risk AI systems, including detailed documentation of requirements evolution, risk assessments, and to prevent violations and biases from propagating into deployment. High-profile cases underscore the severe impacts of requirements failures on data ethics. The Cambridge Analytica scandal exemplified how lax requirements for data and in APIs allowed the unauthorized harvesting of 87 million users' profiles, enabling targeted political manipulation and eroding trust in digital systems. Such lapses not only triggered regulatory fines exceeding $5 billion but also highlighted how incomplete ethical requirements can facilitate societal harm, including election interference. To mitigate these corruptions and ethical risks, organizations employ regular audits of requirements documents and processes to detect manipulations or biases early. Forming diverse teams in phases ensures broader perspectives, reducing the likelihood of discriminatory specifications by incorporating varied inputs. An emerging approach in involves leveraging for creating immutable logs of requirements changes, providing tamper-proof in collaborative environments to enhance and prevent retroactive alterations.

References

  1. [1]
    Foreword - Supplementary information - ISO
    3, a requirement is defined as an "expression, in the content of a document, that conveys objectively verifiable criteria to be fulfilled and from which no ...
  2. [2]
    IEEE/ISO/IEC 29148-2018
    Nov 30, 2018 · IEEE/ISO/IEC 29148-2018 is an international standard for requirements engineering in systems and software, covering processes and products ...
  3. [3]
    IEEE Definition of "Requirement" - Cauvin
    Feb 12, 2006 · Here are the IEEE definitions of "requirement": 1. a condition or capability needed by a user to solve a problem or achieve an objective.
  4. [4]
    4.2 Technical Requirements Definition - NASA
    Jul 26, 2023 · Functional requirements define what functions need to be performed to accomplish the objectives. Performance requirements define how well the ...Inputs · Process Activities · Example of Functional and...
  5. [5]
    Requirement Types - AcqNotes
    Feb 8, 2024 · A requirement is a statement that identifies a product or process operational, functional, or design characteristic or constraint.
  6. [6]
    Requirement - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
    ### Etymology of "Requirement"
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Engineering Development on Early Main Line Railways By Dr ...
    The scale of railway construction work in the mid-19th century was immense. ... and construction methods were largely driven by the growing requirements for.
  8. [8]
    None
    No readable text found in the HTML.<|control11|><|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Program and Project Management Improvement Initiatives
    Apr 1, 2007 · The Apollo Era: 1958–1969. NASA's first formal system of program/project management was introduced in three stages between 1960 and 1968 in ...
  10. [10]
    (PDF) Software Engineering: As it was in 1968. - ResearchGate
    The 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering identified a software crisis affecting large systems such as IBM's OS/360 and the SABRE airline reservation ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Managing the Development of Large Software Systems
    MANAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LARGE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS. Dr. Winston W. Rovce. INTRODUCTION l am going to describe my pe,-.~onal views about managing large ...
  12. [12]
    IEEE 830-1984 - IEEE SA
    IEEE 830-1984 is a guide for software requirements specifications, describing the content and qualities of a good SRS and sample outlines.
  13. [13]
    IEEE/ISO/IEC 15288-2023
    May 16, 2023 · This document establishes a common framework of process descriptions for describing the life cycle of systems created by humans.
  14. [14]
    Appendix C: How to Write a Good Requirement - NASA
    Jul 26, 2023 · Are requirements free of personnel or task assignments? (Don't mix personnel/task with product requirements: update the SOW or Task Order ...C. 2 Editorial Checklist · Product Requirement · Traceability
  15. [15]
    System Requirements Definition - SEBoK
    Every requirement represents an engineering decision as to what the SoI must do, or a quality the system must have, to meet the needs from which they were ...Process for Generating System... · Transforming Needs to System... · Traceability
  16. [16]
    Systems Engineering Process | www.dau.edu
    The DoD systems engineering process is a collection of technical management processes and technical processes applied through the acquisition lifecycle.
  17. [17]
    The History of ERP | NetSuite
    Aug 11, 2020 · ERP history started with material requirements planning (MRP) systems in the 1960s, when J.I. Case, a manufacturer of tractor and construction ...Missing: contrast | Show results with:contrast
  18. [18]
    MIL-STD-498 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTATION
    The purpose of this standard is to establish uniform requirements for software development and documentation.
  19. [19]
    Product Requirements: A Systems Engineering Perspective
    The product requirements define the guiding principles that take a client's product from concept to production. Defining the Product Requirements Document (PRD) ...
  20. [20]
    ISO 26262 Software Compliance in the Automotive Industry - Parasoft
    ISO 26262 is a functional safety standard for the entire automotive product development process, covering electrical and electronic systems.
  21. [21]
    Automotive Safety Standards: Industry Insights for Vehicle Rollover ...
    Mar 20, 2025 · Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) establish minimum requirements for rollover protection, including Standard 216 for roof crush ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Assessment of Safety Standards for Automotive Electronic Control ...
    This report assesses six safety standards for automotive electronic control systems, including ISO 26262, MIL-STD-882E, and others, across 11 dimensions.
  23. [23]
    [PDF] automotive software testing as per iso 26262 standard - Embitel
    ISO 26262 testing includes unit, integration, and system/functional testing, with static and dynamic verification, and methods like walk-through, static code ...
  24. [24]
    CS 410/510 - Software Engineering class notes
    Functional requirements describe functionality or system services. They depend on the type of software, expected users and the type of system where the software ...
  25. [25]
    Functional and Non Functional Requirements - GeeksforGeeks
    Oct 18, 2025 · Functional Requirements focuses on the behavior and features of the system. Non-Functional Requirements focuses on the performance, usability, ...Missing: 29148:2018 | Show results with:29148:2018
  26. [26]
    Functional and Non-Functional Requirements for Ecommerce Website
    Rating 4.6 (21) Jun 8, 2023 · Non-functional requirements for online shopping website examples: Products should be easily found and have an appealing display on the website.Functional vs Non-Functional... · Non-Functional Requirements... · NFR #2: Security
  27. [27]
    IEEE/ISO/IEC 29148-2018 - IEEE SA
    Nov 30, 2018 · It defines the construct of a good requirement, provides attributes and characteristics of requirements, and discusses the iterative and ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK® Guide) v3 | IIBA
    other techniques based on community feedback. • Images and graphics created for all sections. • Core team has reviewed and approved the revised document. • All ...
  29. [29]
    Why Software Development Projects Fail - 3Pillar Global
    The Standish Group's 2020 CHAOS report estimates that around 66% of software projects fail. Those are pretty troubling stats if you consider the vital role ...Missing: alignment | Show results with:alignment
  30. [30]
    How to Choose HIPAA Compliance Software
    The best HIPAA compliance software is a tool that helps a covered entity navigate the complexities of HIPAA by simplifying and automating compliance.
  31. [31]
    IEEE 830-1998 - IEEE SA
    This recommended practice is aimed at specifying requirements of software to be developed but also can be applied to assist in the selection of in-house and ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] IEEE Recommended Practice For Software Requirements Speci ...
    Functional requirements should define the fundamental actions that must take place in the software in ... Table B.2—Coverage of generic description requirements ...
  33. [33]
    Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) for Systems Engineers
    Oct 19, 2022 · A requirements traceability matrix is a simple tool documenting relationships between requirements and related project artifacts. It is usually ...Requirements Traceability... · How to Use Requirements...<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    IBM Engineering Requirements Management
    DOORS is a proven requirements management solution that has been successfully used by teams in complex, high-compliance systems engineering programs.Features · Options · Doors Next
  35. [35]
    Managing ADAS development requirements | Applied Intuition
    Dec 17, 2020 · Learn about different approaches to defining ADAS development requirements, from those of traditional system engineering to those of ...
  36. [36]
    Meeting Compliance Standards for Autonomous Driving Software ...
    Compliance includes standards like ISO 26262, ISO 21448, and AUTOSAR, plus testing real-world scenarios, and ensuring safety and regulatory compliance.
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Guide to Writing Requirements - incose
    Jul 1, 2023 · This Guide has been prepared and produced by the Requirements Working Group. (RWG) of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
  38. [38]
    Volere Requirements Specification Template
    The complete Volere Requirements Template contains 80 pages of checklists, examples and guidance. The complete template also comes with two examples of ...Missing: 2022 | Show results with:2022
  39. [39]
    [PDF] IEEE standard for software verification and validation plans
    This standard provides uniform requirements for Software Verification and Validation Plans (SVVPs) to ensure errors are detected early and software quality is ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Requirements Validation Techniques and Factors Influencing them
    Requirements verification is to check whether software meets specifications by analysing the requirements through methods like inspection, walk through, reviews ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Measurement Within the CMMI - Software Engineering Institute
    Mar 9, 2004 · Level 3: Adds measures for process improvement and quality measures including defect density and productivity. Level 4: Creation and usage ...
  42. [42]
    The model checker SPIN
    Insufficient relevant content. The provided URL (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/588521) only contains a title and metadata without accessible full text or detailed information about the SPIN model checker’s use for requirements verification or its key features.
  43. [43]
    https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/software-engineering/software-engineering-classification-of-software-requirements/
  44. [44]
    Functional vs Technical Requirements Compared with Examples
    Dec 23, 2024 · Structured natural language specifications apply formatting rules to improve clarity. Below are the most common formats. User story – a textual ...What Are The Functional... · What Are The Technical... · Technical Requirements Vs...
  45. [45]
    Classification of Software Requirements - Software Engineering
    Sep 27, 2025 · There are many ways of expressing functional requirements e.g., natural language, a structured or formatted language with no rigorous syntax ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Z Formal Specification Language - An Overview
    Z is a model oriented formal specification language based on Zermelo-Fränkel axiomatic set theory and first order predicate logic. It is a mathematical ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Applying Requirements Management with Use Cases - IBM
    The Rational software development platform integrates software engineering best practices, tools, and services. With it, organizations thrive in an on ...<|separator|>
  48. [48]
    2021 IEEE SA Standards Style Manual - myProject
    Mandatory requirements set within an IEEE standard are clearly distinguished by using specific standard verbs—specifically, shall, should, may, and can. Shall, ...
  49. [49]
    Using Jira for Requirements Management - Atlassian Support
    Sep 26, 2025 · Learn how to use Jira for requirements management with Confluence integration, custom issue types, and Atlassian Marketplace apps.
  50. [50]
    ReqView: HW/SW Requirements Management Tool on Git
    ReqView is simple to use HW/SW requirements management tool supporting powerful version control in Git or Subversion.Integration With Jira · Pricing · Download · Requirements Specification...
  51. [51]
    How to Write a Software Requirements Specification (SRS) Document
    Jul 11, 2025 · An SRS document template, how to steps, best practices for SRS documentation, and an example of an SRS document in Perforce ALM.Missing: natural | Show results with:natural
  52. [52]
    Polarion REQUIREMENTS | Siemens Software
    Effectively gather, author, approve and manage requirements for complex systems across entire project lifecycles with Polarion REQUIREMENTS.
  53. [53]
    goeb/reqflow: Requirement Traceability Tool - GitHub
    Reqflow is a free and open-source tool for tracing requirements across documents. To launch Reqflow, create a file with a .req extension.
  54. [54]
    ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 - Systems and software engineering
    In stockThis document specifies the required processes implemented in the engineering activities that result in requirements for systems and software products.
  55. [55]
    [PDF] Automotive SPICE® - VDA QMC
    Key Changes in Automotive SPICE 4.0 ... reuse of a standard hardware, platform, or product line, respectively, or by ...
  56. [56]
    High-trust engineering domains and AI Agents: Introducing IBM ...
    Oct 6, 2025 · IBM ELM is preparing to launch AI agents to help engineering teams achieve greater speed, clarity and confidence.
  57. [57]
    Change Control Board - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    The CCB is the mechanism to decide on necessary changes—whether to change requirements, create a workaround, delay the project to fix the perceived problems ...
  58. [58]
    Change Control Board: Roles, Responsibilities & Processes
    Jun 1, 2022 · A change control board is a group that reviews project changes, deciding on their viability and impact on schedule and budget.
  59. [59]
    The Change Control Board - Jama Software
    Jul 1, 2013 · The CCB is the body of people, be it one individual or a diverse group, who decides which proposed requirement changes and newly suggested features to accept.
  60. [60]
    What Is A Change Request? Types, Scope, and Examples [2025]
    Sep 29, 2024 · A change request form is a form used to request, approve, and track project-related changes. Stakeholders request changes for many reasons.
  61. [61]
    Change Request: How to Submit, Manage and Execute
    May 14, 2025 · A change request acts as a formal document of a proposed change to a project and are a core component of the change management process.Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  62. [62]
    P0, P1, P2, P3, and P4 Priority Levels Explained - Fibery
    Jun 2, 2024 · P0, or Priority 0, sits at the very top. This level is assigned to tasks or issues that are absolutely critical and require immediate action.Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  63. [63]
    Requirement Baselines: Defining, Implementing, and Performing
    A requirement baseline is a formally approved, stable collection of requirements that serves as a reference point throughout the project lifecycle.
  64. [64]
    Requirements Management (REQM) (CMMI-DEV) - wibas
    Refer to the Configuration Management (CM) (CMMI-DEV) process area for more information about establishing baselines and tracking and controlling changes.
  65. [65]
    The 2020 Scrum Guide TM
    If a Product Backlog item does not meet the Definition of Done, it cannot be released or even presented at the Sprint Review. Instead, it returns to the Product ...
  66. [66]
    What is a Sprint Review in Agile? | Atlassian
    A sprint review meeting is a fundamental ceremony in Agile development, specifically within the Scrum framework. It marks the end of a sprint.
  67. [67]
    Product backlog: Tips for creation and prioritization - Atlassian
    What is a product backlog in agile or scrum? Learn about the best practices for managing and prioritizing a healthy product backlog.
  68. [68]
    25% of requirements change during development
    Research Finding: The average project experiences about a 25 percent change in requirements during development.Missing: rate | Show results with:rate
  69. [69]
    [PDF] P. Jönsson, and C. Wohlin, "Understanding Impact Analysis
    For exam- ple, Lindvall coined Requirements-Driven Impact Analysis (RDIA) to denote the activity of identifying the impact of new requirements on an existing ...
  70. [70]
    [PDF] Why and how of requirements tracing - IEEE Software
    These products serve as traceability inputs and outputs. During development phase x, outputs are used from phase x-1, its predecessor, as traceable elements.
  71. [71]
    [PDF] A Rule-Based Change Impact Analysis Approach in Software ... - arXiv
    Three activities for impact analysis in requirements models are supported. First, the requirements engineer proposes changes according to the change ...
  72. [72]
    [PDF] Requirements traceability state-of-the-art: A systematic review and ...
    – Requirements traceability assists in tracking the over- all progress of the project, e.g. one can measure how many requirements are implemented, how many are ...
  73. [73]
    Top Five Causes of Scope Creep - PMI
    Oct 12, 2009 · Summary: Scope creep occurs when scope or requirements management doesn't occur. Changes to scope need to follow a clear process to prevent ...
  74. [74]
    Estimate at Completion: Are You Getting It Right? - TrueProject
    Apr 29, 2025 · A Project Management Institute (PMI) report reveals that around 50% of all projects exceed their budgets, averaging an overspend of 27%. Clearly ...<|separator|>
  75. [75]
    Controlling scope creep - PMI
    One of the oft-underrated external scope creep sources is poor understanding of the customer's requirements prior to the project scope definition and contract ...
  76. [76]
    The Difference Between Scope Creep and Gold Plating - Wrike
    Aug 21, 2024 · Scope creep adds features at client request, while gold plating adds features not requested by the client. Both involve adding extra features.
  77. [77]
    MoSCoW Prioritisation - DSDM Project Framework Handbook
    MoSCoW (Must Have, Should Have, Could Have and Won't Have this time) is a prioritisation technique for helping to understand and manage priorities.
  78. [78]
    Time-boxing in Agile Practices - Simpliaxis
    Apr 23, 2024 · Time-boxing encourages disciplined planning and execution, helping to prevent scope creep and ensure timely delivery of incremental value to ...
  79. [79]
    (PDF) Scope Creep in Large-Scale Projects: Lessons from Denver ...
    Sep 29, 2025 · The Denver International Airport (DIA)project provides an intriguing case study in understanding the importance of scope management in the ...
  80. [80]
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011 - Systems and software engineering
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011 defines a quality in use model and a product quality model, providing consistent terminology for specifying, measuring, and evaluating ...
  81. [81]
    What Is ISO 25010? | Perforce Software
    May 6, 2021 · ISO 25010 is a software quality standard describing models for software product and in-use quality, with two models: in-use and product quality.ISO 25010 Standard Overview · What are the ISO 25010...
  82. [82]
    [PDF] Rethinking the Notion of Non-Functional Requirements
    In this paper, we present arguments why this notion of non-functional require- ments is flawed and present a new classification of requirements which is based.
  83. [83]
    An Improved Taxonomy for Major Needs and Requirements Artifacts
    Dec 30, 2014 · BABOK® Guide) for the business analysis in developing the Business Requirements. ... INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook identifying ...
  84. [84]
    Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale ...
    This paper presents a multiple case study with seven large-scale systems companies, reporting their challenges, together with best practices from industry.
  85. [85]
    IEEE/ISO/IEC 24748-2-2024
    Mar 19, 2024 · This document provides guidance on the application of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288. It addresses the application of system, life cycle, organizational, project, process,
  86. [86]
    A Comparative Analysis of the NIST Privacy Framework vs. the EU's ...
    Jan 26, 2025 · This guide compares the NIST Privacy Framework and GDPR to understand their similarities and differences.Overview of the NIST Privacy... · Overview of the EU's GDPR · Comparative Analysis
  87. [87]
    Traditional Vs Agile Project Management: Comparing & Contrasting
    Feb 7, 2025 · Traditional project management excels in structured environments with clear goals, while agile shines in projects with evolving requirements.Introduction to Agile and... · Specific Examples of Agile and...
  88. [88]
    [PDF] A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement
    1987 highlighted the concern that traditional software process models were discouraging more effective approaches to software development such as prototyping ...
  89. [89]
    Agile Development Methodology Benefits: A Data-Driven Guide for ...
    Aug 26, 2025 · Last Updated on 2025-08-26. Companies using Agile report 28% higher success rates than those using traditional methods.
  90. [90]
    Eliminating Agile Requirements Ambiguity - XBOSoft
    Apr 1, 2014 · Ambiguity in requirements creates friction at every stage of Agile development. A single vague phrase can result in multiple interpretations, ...
  91. [91]
    18th State of Agile Report - Digital.ai
    The 18th State of Agile Report details notable trends and issues in Agile adoption and practice for organizations.Missing: creep | Show results with:creep
  92. [92]
    Project management intro: Agile vs. waterfall methodologies
    Agile project management is an iterative approach to delivering a project, which focuses on continuous releases that incorporate customer feedback.Missing: debates necessity<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    [PDF] The Agile Approach in Pharmaceutical Software Development
    Apr 28, 2017 · Conflicts in Agile. There are several conflicts which may occur when using the Agile approach in the pharmaceutical industry. One difficultly ...Missing: traceability disputes
  94. [94]
    [PDF] Towards Human-AI Synergy in Requirements Engineering - arXiv
    Oct 28, 2025 · The integration of AI into RE presents a unique opportunity to enhance automation and decision support, driving more efficient project outcomes ...
  95. [95]
    Scandals: A 'reset button' to drive change? - PMC - PubMed Central
    Aug 9, 2020 · One of the German investigators, Uwe Dolata, stated that “bribery was Siemens's business model” and “Siemens had institutionalized corruption.” ...Missing: contracts | Show results with:contracts
  96. [96]
    (PDF) Bias and Discrimination in AI: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective
    ... systems free. from biases do not discriminate, hence, reducing or eliminating. biases reduces or eliminates the potential for discrimination. However, whether ...<|separator|>
  97. [97]
    Police surveillance and facial recognition: Why data privacy is ...
    Apr 12, 2022 · Surveillance and data collection have disproportionately affected communities of color under both past and current circumstances and political regimes.
  98. [98]
    Spyware and surveillance: Threats to privacy and human rights ...
    Sep 16, 2022 · The report details how surveillance tools such as the “Pegasus” software can turn most smartphones into “24-hour surveillance devices”.<|separator|>
  99. [99]
    ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
    1.3 Be honest and trustworthy. 1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate. 1.5 Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, ...Code 2018 Update Project · Using the Code · The Software Engineering... · COPE
  100. [100]
    AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future - European Union
    The AI Act does not introduce rules for AI that is deemed minimal or no risk. The vast majority of AI systems currently used in the EU fall into this category.
  101. [101]
    High-level summary of the AI Act | EU Artificial Intelligence Act
    Feb 27, 2024 · In this article we provide you with a high-level summary of the AI Act, selecting the parts which are most likely to be relevant to you regardless of who you ...High Risk Ai Systems... · Requirements For Providers... · General Purpose Ai (gpai)
  102. [102]
    Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge ...
    Mar 17, 2018 · Whistleblower describes how firm linked to former Trump adviser Steve Bannon compiled user data to target American voters.
  103. [103]
    FTC Issues Opinion and Order Against Cambridge Analytica For ...
    Dec 6, 2019 · The Federal Trade Commission issued an Opinion finding that the data analytics and consulting company Cambridge Analytica, LLC engaged in deceptive practices.Missing: ethics | Show results with:ethics
  104. [104]
    Ethical Issues in Software Requirements Engineering - MDPI
    To mitigate this, ethical concerns must be considered in requirements engineering processes. In the requirements engineering phase, ethical principles may lead ...
  105. [105]
    Ethical Issues in Software Development | X-Team
    Dec 10, 2024 · Engineers must actively identify and mitigate biases by using diverse, representative datasets and involving people from varied backgrounds in ...Missing: strategies | Show results with:strategies
  106. [106]
    Four Blockchain Trends Dominating Headlines in 2025
    Jun 26, 2025 · From food provenance to semiconductor logistics, blockchain's transparent and immutable nature is proving ideal for tracing goods, verifying ...