Requirements Analysis

Revision as of 16:31, 30 January 2016

Background:

Background reading material is given during Part 1 of the exercise.

What is the rationale for this activity?

As software development migrates from Waterfall to Agile / Iterative development models, it will be important to understand how requirements fits into each. Open source projects often have a less formal requirements gathering process than say a government contract job, but it is still there behind the covers. Students should be aware of how requirements are gathered in a distributed diverse community, versus a single central authority.

Directions:

In this activity you will dive into a real open source project, and study numerous requirements gathering development artifacts around two features of the project. First, you read some background material around requirements analysis. Next, you will learn about the ManageIQ project and community. Finally, you will delve into two particular features/issues/code sets in ManageIQ, illustrating the process, describing a timeline, and answering questions.

Part 1: Requirements Background

Read the following resources and reflect on a few questions. Note that you only need to read the pages or sections mentioned.

• Requirements analysis overview - Read the "Overview" and "Requirements analysis issues" sections; Understand how requirements fit into the wider "Software development process - core activities" in the table on the right. Where do requirements fit into the wider software development process? What other processes might requirements feed into?
• ACM's quick description - Read the bottom of Page 178 (Page 181 marked by the PDF reader). What challenges should you be aware of when utilizing requirements to drive software development?
• Atlassians agile requirements tips - Read from the top of the page through to the "Keeping requirements lean with a one-page dashboard" section. How do requirements gathering differ in agile-based projects compared to more plan-driven projects (like Waterfall methodology)?
• Skim this so you can quickly see one example of how to write requirements.

Optional: Requirements in open source - Teachers can decide if they also want to focus on requirements specific to open source. This would be advanced work versus students simply moving on into the below hands-on sections.

• Does open source have requirements? - Of special interest is the comments by "FortKnox" and "ivan256" where each of them gives differing views on waterfall vs an iterative approach to requirements management
• Productization and requirements in the enterprise and open source
• How are requirements determined in open source software projects?

Part 2: ManageIQ intro

In this activity, we will focus on the ManageIQ open source community. ManageIQ is a cloud-enabled management platform (CMP) that lets you monitor, start/stop, and analyze servers & applications in a corporate cloud infrastructure. So, for example, a company decides to make its own set of cloud resources inside their own company, in a big data-room. They have hundreds of machines helping their employees to run servers and web applications. They might use ManageIQ to help keep it all under control and running smoothly. ManageIQ is made in a communal open source fashion. Keep in mind, that this community used to be proprietary and closed - when Red Hat acquired them, they have slowly been moving toward open and communal ways. It is a good ongoing lesson in how to "go open".

ManageIQ development tools

Below is a list of the tools that are used and publicly available for use by the ManageIQ project. Click on each link and observe the various uses for each tool. Why do you think there are so many tools? Give examples of how the separate tools link together to each other on occasion.

• ManageIQ Github Issues and Creating new Issues
• ManageIQ Trello / Task board - This is like a complex To-Do list; It is how they track their various requirements/issues; Open and read the upper left box titled "How this board is used: What do these Lists mean????"
• Forum tool - They call it "Talk" and its where many eventual Features are first introduced and discussed.
• ManageIQ team - A listing of their team members. Though not directly related to requirements, you will see these team members names and handles across the various tools.
• How ManageIQ does Project Management - I asked on the talk forum for more information on how they project-manage their requirements and issues. Their [scrum masters (a person who leads a team of agile developers) answer is well worth a read.
• Sprint Review Meetings (taped on youtube!) - Sprint reviews are cyclical get-together meetings with stakeholders invited to show progress, review feedback, and change directions if needed.
• Ruby Gem Dependencies - This is a more technical tool used for tracking what other libraries their software depends on

Part 3: Compare two real requirements

Below are two features within the ManageIQ project. Requirements exist inside each features various artifacts (links below). Inspect the links in both and answer the questions below it. After the questions, you will choose one feature to describe, with diagrams and/or words, of what occurred in the progression of the requirement. See more below.

Two requirements examples:

Listed below are two features that the ManageIQ open source project took on and implemented, or are still implementing. Do take note that the git feature started in a forum and progressed to be implemented in chunks by the central ManageIQ developers, who are mostly hired by Red Hat. On the other hand, the chargeback feature was taken up and implemented by a team of community interns. A couple of banks that use ManageIQ combined resources with Red Hat to bring in a handful of student interns to work on this special chargeback feature. They operated separate, but in-sync with the central developers. This is of note, to see similarities and differences in how they tracked requirements and implemented their code.

Read the various links that follow two feature examples.

1. Git Integration Feature
   • Initial Discussion that started it. Read this in full and dont worry about understanding the technical side of it.
   • They created a Github Issue (bug). Notice how it links from the above discussion.
   • Code that was implemented - Just take a look here, no need to understand it. Again, notice the connection.
   • More code - Again, just peak; Notice how the code links to the Issue.
   • There is even more code, and likely more to come, that will link back to this feature. Take note that this code is implemented across a pretty lengthy time-period.
2. Chargeback Feature
   • This discussion seems to kick off an initial inquiry; Note the timing and note user "sergio_ocon" who later leads the team of interns to implement this
   • These set of more formal requirements were brought together after the above discussion. Note the many additional pages linked-to off to the right in a small table of contents. Do not worry about the technical descriptions or details - simply get a feel for how they organize the requirements and content.
   • Their github repository actually contains their requirements, specifications, documentation, and code. Note the links to various other resources.
   • This list of bugs are all related to chargeback. This is an example of this student-intern team linking their work back to issues that the central manageIQ project has logged. Open source communities can be separate yet connected.
   • This trello board tracks their development progress. It is separate from the wider ManageIQ communities trello board (linked above).
   • This blog summarizes development milestones made on the various requirements, as well as more human-oriented commentary on the process and politics involved in the resources they used to implement this (student interns hired by customers to work on open source).

Questions

Answer the below questions after having read through the above two examples:

• In what tools does the ManageIQ community keep its requirements? Do you find them in multiple places?
• Recall the forum post by ManageIQ's Scrum Master. What two tools does the central development team seem to rely on the most for tracking requirements and development progress?
• Where did the git feature start its requirements? Where did they originate from? The development team? A customer? A user? Why do you think this person reported their issue?
• What does the above question tell you about where communities can get their requirements? Why is it good that requirements are sometimes sourced from outside parties?
• Why might getting requirements from otherwise uninvolved parties be an advantage for open source communities?

Diagram

• Now, choose one of the examples to document and explain a timeline of how the requirements progressed across the life of the feature.
• You may choose to:
  1. simply write out the progression (in 3-5 paragraphs), or
  2. to illustrate it with a visual timeline or block diagram such as a flow chart
     • Examples of diagrams include this requirements function timeline (though you might heavily alter its categories),
     • this year-to-dev-function timeline, or
     • this simple flowchart.
     • Note that these diagram are just examples of how you might build a diagram structurally - the content, or even how you illustrate it, is completely up to you.
     • It may help to add notes to your diagram to answer below topics.
• When writing or diagraming, try to answer the following:
  • What is the progression that the requirements take from inception/idea to issue to specifications to code? How are requirements used in each of the development steps?
  • Where did the requirement start its life? What did it look like? Who reported it?
  • Repeat this for each major step of the life (talk forum to issue to code). How do they all relate / link to each other?
• Finally, reflect on your exploration of this feature and its requirements with 1-2 paragraphs. Did you find that the process was helpful to the developers? Did you find it difficult or easy to follow? What were the ultimate outcomes of the entire process?

Deliverables:

Students will deliver:

1. For Part 1, their answers to the following questions:
   • Where do requirements fit into the wider software development process? What other processes might requirements feed into?
   • What challenges should you be aware of when utilizing requirements to drive software development?
   • How do requirements gathering differ in agile-based projects compared to more plan-driven projects (like Waterfall methodology)?
2. For Part 2, their answers to the following questions:
   • Why do you think there are so many tools?
   • Give examples of how the separate tools link together to each other on occasion.
3. For Part 3, their answers to the following questions:
   • In what tools does the ManageIQ community keep its requirements? Do you find them in multiple places?
   • Recall the forum post by ManageIQ's Scrum Master. What two tools does the central development team seem to rely on the most for tracking requirements and development progress?
   • Where did the git feature start its requirements? Where did they originate from? The development team? A customer? A user? Why do you think this person reported their issue?
   • What does the above question tell you about where communities can get their requirements? Why is it good that requirements are sometimes sourced from outside parties?
   • Why might getting requirements from otherwise uninvolved parties be an advantage for open source communities?
4. Their diagram or write-up:
   • See description above
   • Be sure to include a 1-2 paragraph reflection of your experience at the end.

Assessment:

How will the activity be graded?

How will learning will be measured?

Include sample assessment questions/rubrics.

Comments:

What should the instructor know before using this activity?

What are some likely difficulties that an instructor may encounter using this activity?

Additional Information:

Suggestions for Open Source Community:

Suggestions for an open source community member who is working in conjunction with the instructor.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License