TRIZ의 모순 해결 이론을 이용한 창의적 요구사항 충돌 해결

Creative Resolution for Requirement Conflict Using Conflict Resolution Theory of TRIZ

  • 정지영 (서강대학교 컴퓨터공학과) ;
  • 김진태 (소프트웨어공학엑스퍼트그룹(주)) ;
  • 박수용 (서강대학교 컴퓨터공학과)
  • 투고 : 2010.01.14
  • 심사 : 2010.03.09
  • 발행 : 2010.05.15

초록

요구사항 충돌은 시스템의 기능의 오작동이나 프로젝트 전체의 실패를 가져올 수 있다. 현재 요구사항 충돌연구는 식별에 치중되어 있고 해결에 관한 연구는 우선순위에 의하여 선택을 하는 것이 대부분이다. 요구사항 충돌을 해결하기 위해 본 논문에서는 TRIZ의 이론을 적용하여 창의적인 아이디어를 제시할 수 있도록 돕는 요구사항 충돌 해결 원리(CRRC)를 제안한다. TRIZ는 모순을 해결하여 아이디어를 내는 데 특화된 이론으로 200만 건 이상의 특허 사례를 바탕으로 만들어졌다. CRRC는 요구사항 충돌을 분류하고 유형에 적합한 TRIZ이론을 소프트웨어에 맞게 적용하였다. 대조 실험 적용 결과 CRRC를 제공하면 다양한 종류의 창의적인 요구사항 충돌 해결 방안을 제시할 수 있었다.

The Conflicts between requirements may cause a failure of functions or even project. Currently, most of researches have focused on identifying requirements and some researchers have tried to resolve requirements conflicts but it was only based on requirement priority. This paper proposes the Creative Requirements Conflict Resolution (CRRC) to resolve requirement conflicts in a creative way using TRIZ methodology. TRIZ, which means the theory of solving inventor's problems, is made based on the analysis of over 2 million patent cases and helpful for developing a creative solution to resolve conflicts. CRRC classifies requirement conflicts into groups and then apply TRIZ theory related to each group. At the result of control experiment, CRRC provides the various kinds of creative solution for requirement conflicts.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barry Boehm and Hoh In, "Identifying Quality Requirement Conflicts," IEEE software, March, pp.25-36, 1996.
  2. Alan M. Davis, "Software Requirements Analysis & Specification," Prentice Hall, pp.23-24, 1990.
  3. Glass, Robert L., "Requirements Tracing," In Modern Programming Practices, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp.59-62, 1982.
  4. Genrich Saulovich Altshuller, "Innovation Algorithm," 현실과 미래, 2002.
  5. 김효준, 생각의 창의성: Theory of Inventive Problem Solving TRIZ, 도서출판 지혜, 2004.
  6. Isabel Sofia Brito, Filipe V., Ana M. and Rita A. Ribeiro, "Handling Conflicts in Aspectual Requirements Composition," Transactions on AOSD III, LNCS 4620, pp.144-166, 2007.
  7. Minseong Kim, Sooyong Park, Vijayan Sugumaran, Hwasil Yan, "Managing requirements conflict in software product lines: A goal and scenario based approach," Data & Knowledge Engineering 61, pp.417-432, 2008.
  8. Axel van Lamsweerde, "Managiing Conflicts in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineeriing, vol.23, no.11, November 1998.
  9. A.van Lamsweerde, and L.Wollemet, "Inferring Declarative Requirements Specifications from Operational Scenarios," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol.24, no.12, Dec.1998. to appear.
  10. W.N. Robinson, V.Volkove, Requirements Conflict Restructuring, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 1999.
  11. Egyed,A., Barry Boehm, USC, "Analysis of Software Requirements Negotiation Behavior Patterns," USC-CSE-96-504, 1996.
  12. Kevin C. Rea: "TRIZ and Software - 40 Principle Analogies, Parts 1 and 2," TRIZ Journal, Sept. and Nov. 2001.
  13. Osamu Shigo: "Program Engineering - Implementation, Design, Analysis, and Testing," Science- Sha, Oct. 2002.
  14. Karl E. Wiegers, Software Requirements: Practical T Techniques for Gathering and Managing Requirements Throughout the P, Microsoft Press, 2003.
  15. Stephen Withall, Software Requirement Patterns, Microsoft Press, 2007.
  16. Buschmann et el, Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture, Wiley, 1996.
  17. 황인창, 이대용, 이청호, 알기쉬운 통계학, 비앤엠북스, 1998.