DOCSLIB.ORG

Whole Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Whole Thesis Elicitation of Requirements from Multiple Perspectives Steve Easterbrook June 1991 Department of Computing, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, London SW7 2BZ. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London - 1 - Abstract The success of large software engineering projects depends critically on the specification, which must represent the requirements of a large number of people with widely differing perspectives. Conventional approaches to software engineering do not address the process of identifying and integrating these perspectives, but instead concentrate on the maintenance of a single consistent description. This results in a specification which represents only one point of view, often the analyst’s, excluding suggestions which do not fit with this view. The processes which led to the adoption of this point of view will go unrecorded, making any rationale attached to such a specification incomplete. Other participants will not be able to validate it properly, as it does not relate to their requirements. This thesis integrates ideas drawn from the study of knowledge acquisition, computer-supported co-operative work and negotiation into a model of the specification activity which allows the capture of multiple perspectives, and resolution of conflicts between them. Perspectives are elicited separately, and each develops as an independent description of the requirements. If a description becomes inconsistent, it is split into separate perspectives which represent each side of the argument. Comparisons between perspectives can be made, and when conflicts are discovered, a process of computer-supported negotiation is invoked. This allows participants to teach each other about their perspectives, and elicit the issues on which those perspectives are based. Where resolution is required, new suggestions are evaluated using these issues. A set of tools has been developed to support the model, and the thesis illustrates how they might be used. Example analyses of case studies drawn from the software engineering literature are used to show how the tools can reconcile differing requirements descriptions. The model and associated tools form an environment in which a collection of perspectives can be maintained, and relationships between them explored. This environment facilitates the communication needed to resolve conflicts. Validation is supported by allowing items to be traced back, through the resolution process, to their originators. - 2 - Statement of Contribution This thesis describes a model for requirements elicitation from many sources. The model itself is the major research contribution of the thesis: it represents a novel approach to requirements engineering. There are two important innovations. The first of these is the idea of separately describing different perspectives. The second is the resolution of conflicts via a process of computer-supported negotiation. Parts of the model are drawn from other fields, including knowledge acquisition, computer-supported co-operative Work, organisational psychology, management science and decision theory. The way in which these fields are drawn together is novel, as is their application in the area of requirements engineering. Various aspects of the model have been described in papers published elsewhere. The model was first outlined at the third European workshop on knowledge acquisition [Easterbrook 1989]. Chapter 6 will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Knowledge Acquisition [Easterbrook 1991]. This thesis should be regarded as the definitive treatment of the model. - 3 - Acknowledgements This thesis wouldn’t have happened if various people hadn’t kept me going. First and foremost, Anthony Finkelstein supervised the whole thing, providing inspiration and guidance whenever it was needed. I owe a great deal to him. Various colleagues helped out along the way with feedback, discussion and/or distraction. Jeff Kramer, Jeff Magee, Tom Maibaum, Martin Sadler, and Manny Lehman all gave me good advice. Bharat Patel, Sati Sian, Stuart Kent, and many others at Imperial shared their ideas with me. Bill Robinson at Oregon helped me shape up my thoughts on conflict resolution. Mike Sharples and others at Sussex read and commented on various drafts. I am very grateful to Brian Gaines for making a stay at the University of Calgary possible. I also owe many thanks to Maurice and Lois Sharp, Debbie and Richard Leishman, Dan Freedman, Rosanna Heise, Mildred Shaw, Ian Witten, Brian Woodward, Bruce MacDonald, John Boose, and all the others at KSI who looked after me and entertained me. I was funded throughout by the SERC, under studentship number 87311891. The department at Imperial and the AISB provided me with various travel funds. Most importantly, my mum loaned me the money to buy a Macintosh, which proved vital (thanks mum!). Finally, there is one person who was there all the time, to understand and support me. This thesis is dedicated to my wife, Sarah. - 4 - Contents Abstract 2 Statement of Contribution 3 Acknowledgements 4 1 Introduction 8 1.1 Requirements Engineering.................................................................... 8 1.2 Multiple Perspectives.......................................................................... 9 1.3 Conflict and Negotiation ......................................................................9 1.4 Preview ........................................................................................10 2 Requirements Engineering 1 2 2.1 The Role of Requirements Engineering ....................................................12 2.1.1 Specifications........................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Constructing Specifications........................................................... 13 2.1.3 Validating Specifications ..............................................................14 2.1.4 Design Capture and Rationale ........................................................14 2.1.5 Exploration and Replay ...............................................................15 2.2 Difficulties.... .................................................................................15 2.2.1 Requirements Formulation............................................................ 16 2.2.2 Nature of the Knowledge Sources ...................................................16 2.2.3 Nature of the Knowledge Involved ..................................................17 2.2.4 Negotiation .............................................................................18 2.2.5 Conflict.................................................................................. 19 2.2.6 Uncertainty .............................................................................19 2.3 Objectives...................................................................................... 20 2.3.1 Framework .............................................................................20 2.3.2 Support Environment.................................................................. 21 2.3.3 Tools ....................................................................................22 2.4 Summary ......................................................................................22 3 Analytical Review 2 4 3.1 Requirements Engineering................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Software Life-Cycle ...................................................................24 3.1.2 Specification Languages ..............................................................25 3.1.3 Specification Processes ...............................................................26 3.2 Knowledge Acquisition ......................................................................31 3.2.1 Building Knowledge-Based Systems ...............................................31 3.2.2 Machine Learning ......................................................................32 3.2.3 Eliciting Conceptual Models.... ......................................................32 3.2.4 Specification as Knowledge Acquisition ............................................33 3.3 Critical Analysis ..............................................................................34 3.3.1 The Single Viewpoint Bias ...........................................................34 3.3.2 Conflict between Experts .............................................................35 3.3.3 Many viewpoints....................................................................... 36 3.4 Conflict Resolution ...........................................................................38 3.4.1 Terminology ............................................................................38 3.4.2 Mathematical and Economic Models................................................. 39 3.4.3 Behavioural Models ...................................................................44 3.4.4 Computational Models ................................................................48 - 5 - 3.5 Summary ........................................................................................51 4 Specification from Multiple Perspectives 5 3 4.1 Key Concepts .................................................................................53 4.1.1 Perspectives and Viewpoints .........................................................53 4.1.2 Conversation ...........................................................................55 4.1.3 Representations ........................................................................56
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stakerare: Using Social Networks and Collaborative Filtering for Large-Scale Requirements Elicitation
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, MANUSCRIPT ID 1 StakeRare: Using Social Networks and Collaborative Filtering for Large-Scale Requirements Elicitation Soo Ling Lim, and Anthony Finkelstein, Member, IEEE Abstract—Requirements elicitation is the software engineering activity in which stakeholder needs are understood. It involves identifying and prioritising requirements – a process difficult to scale to large software projects with many stakeholders. This paper proposes StakeRare, a novel method that uses social networks and collaborative filtering to identify and prioritise requirements in large software projects. StakeRare identifies stakeholders and asks them to recommend other stakeholders and stakeholder roles, builds a social network with stakeholders as nodes and their recommendations as links, and prioritises stakeholders using a variety of social network measures to determine their project influence. It then asks the stakeholders to rate an initial list of requirements, recommends other relevant requirements to them using collaborative filtering, and prioritises their requirements using their ratings weighted by their project influence. StakeRare was evaluated by applying it to a software project for a 30,000-user system, and a substantial empirical study of requirements elicitation was conducted. Using the data collected from surveying and interviewing 87 stakeholders, the study demonstrated that StakeRare predicts stakeholder needs accurately, and arrives with a more complete and accurately prioritised list of requirements compared to the existing method used in the project, taking only a fraction of the time. Index Terms—Requirements/Specifications, Elicitation methods, Requirements prioritisation, Experimentation, Human factors, Recommender systems, Social network analysis, Stakeholder analysis —————————— ! —————————— 1 INTRODUCTION OFTWARE systems are growing. The increase in size ments. S extends beyond mere lines of code or number of Information overload is inevitable in big projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Openabm-Covid19 - an Agent-Based Model for Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions Against COVID-19 Including Contact Tracing
    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.16.20195925; this version posted September 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. OpenABM-Covid19 - an agent-based model for non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 including contact tracing 1,* 1,* 1 1 1 Robert Hinch ,​ William J M Probert ,​ Anel Nurtay ,​ Michelle Kendall ,​ Chris Wymant ,​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 1 1 1 1 Matthew Hall ,​ Katrina Lythgoe ,​ Ana Bulas Cruz ,​ Lele Zhao ,​ Andrea Stewart ,​ Luca ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 2 2 2 3 3 Ferretti ,​ Daniel Montero ,​ James Warren ,​ Nicole Mather ,​ Matthew Abueg ,​ Neo Wu ,​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 4 1,5 1 1,6 Anthony Finkelstein ,​ David G Bonsall ,​ Lucie Abeler-Dörner ,​ Christophe Fraser ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 Big​ Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2 ​ IBM United Kingdom, Portsmouth, UK ​ 3 Google​ Research, Mountain View, CA, USA 4 ​ Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK, and Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. 5 Oxford​ University NHS Trust, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 6 Wellcome​ Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. * these authors contributed equally to this work Abstract SARS-CoV-2 has spread across the world, causing high mortality and unprecedented restrictions on social and economic activity. Policymakers are assessing how best to navigate through the ongoing epidemic, with models being used to predict the spread of infection and assess the impact of public health measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous User Understanding in Software Evolution
    FAKULTAT¨ FUR¨ INFORMATIK DER TECHNISCHEN UNIVERSITAT¨ MUNCHEN¨ Dissertation Continuous User Understanding in Software Evolution Jan Ole Johanßen FAKULTAT¨ FUR¨ INFORMATIK DER TECHNISCHEN UNIVERSITAT¨ MUNCHEN¨ Forschungs- und Lehreinheit 1 Angewandte Softwaretechnik Continuous User Understanding in Software Evolution Jan Ole Johanßen Vollstandiger¨ Abdruck der von der Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik der Technischen Univer- sitat¨ Munchen¨ zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Florian Matthes Prufende/-r¨ der Dissertation: 1. Prof. Dr. Bernd Brugge¨ 2. Prof. Dr. Barbara Paech Die Dissertation wurde am 05.09.2019 bei der Technischen Universitat¨ Munchen¨ ein- gereicht und durch die Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik am 31.10.2019 angenommen. Abstract Explicit user feedback represents an important source of knowledge for software developers. However, there are deficiencies in current practices of user feedback capture and utilization as they do not address the users’ tacit knowledge. Our research goal is to establish continuous user understanding so that devel- opers can extract tacit knowledge of users for utilization in software evolution. We build on the foundations of continuous software engineering (CSE), which com- prises the frequent and rapid delivery of software increments to obtain instant and diverse user feedback. We argue that in particular implicit user feedback serves as a suitable means that contributes to the extraction of users’ tacit knowledge. We conducted a semi-structured interview study with 24 practitioners from 17 companies to explore how practitioners apply CSE during software evolution and how the availability of user feedback supports CSE. We identified five recommen- dations for continuous user feedback capture and utilization of requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Institute for Security Science and Technology Preface
    Celebrating 10 years of challenge-led security science at Imperial College London Institute for Security Science and Technology Preface Sir Keith O’Nions Former President & Rector of Imperial College London Ten years ago the security challenges facing From its inception ISST was an interdisciplinary individuals, the wider population and our digital institute drawing participation and interest from and physical infrastructures were receiving across Imperial’s faculties, and building cross increasing attention. The UK government was cutting programmes. It drew on one of Imperial’s developing a comprehensive National Security great and enduring strengths – a willingness of Framework and it was clear that universities with researchers to cross the boundaries of departments their capacity for interdisciplinary research had and faculties and bring their talents to bear on new a much bigger role to play. opportunities and challenges. It also developed a Imperial had recognised this opportunity series of international connections from the outset and in mid-2008 I was invited, following more using both the networks of its founding members than eight years in government roles, to join and the help and generosity of its board of advisors. the College and establish a security institute. Today, a decade on, the need for multidisciplinary I was delighted to accept. The formation of the research in security science and technology within Institute of Security Science and Technology universities is as great as ever. It is a pleasure thus became Imperial’s response to this need to see ISST continuing to grow and flourish with and opportunity. The Institute’s initial strategy increasingly ambitious programmes in both research was straightforward – to become a portal for and teaching.
    [Show full text]
  • A Collaborative Approach to Describe the Domain Language Through the Language Extended Lexicon
    Journal of Object Technology Published by AITO — Association Internationale pour les Technologies Objets http://www.jot.fm/ A Collaborative Approach to Describe the Domain Language through the Language Extended Lexicon Leandro Antonellia Gustavo Rossia Alejandro Oliverosb a. Lifia, Fac. de Informática, UNLP, Buenos Aires, Argentina b. INTEC-UADE and UNTREF, Buenos Airess, Argentina Abstract Software development is a succession of descriptions in different languages in which every description is based on a previous one. Since the requirements specification is one of the first descriptions, it is impor- tant to begin software development with requirements that are as correct and as complete as possible. Although some literature holds the belief that correctness and completeness are two attributes that requirements specifications must satisfy, we know that these attributes are very dif- ficult to meet. However, we have to find ways to diminish the level of incompleteness and deal with the possible conflicts that do arise in the requirements context. Defining the domain language before specifying the requirements is a way of coping with these problems. Nowadays, software systems involve many stakeholders and it is hard to engage all of them to produce a domain language specification. We rely on collaboration to foster the involvement and cooperation of the stakeholders, thus they are able to explore the differences constructively and provide a common understanding of the domain language beyond their own limited views. In this paper, we propose a strategy to capture the domain language in a collaborative way using the Language Extended Lexicon and we show a validation of the proposed strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Anticipating Change in Requirements Engineering
    2 Anticipating Change in Requirements Engineering Soo Ling Lim and Anthony Finkelstein Department of Computer Science, University College London [email protected] and [email protected] Abstract Requirements change is inevitable in the development and maintenance of software systems. One way to reduce the adverse impact of change is by antici- pating change during requirements elicitation, so that software architecture com- ponents that are affected by the change are loosely coupled with the rest of the system. This chapter proposes Change-oriented Requirements Engineering (CoRE), a method to anticipate change by separating requirements into layers that change at relatively different rates. From the most stable to the most volatile, the layers are: patterns, functional constraints, non-functional constraints, and busi- ness policies and rules. CoRE is empirically evaluated by applying it to a large- scale software system, and then studying the requirements change from develop- ment to maintenance. Results show that CoRE accurately anticipates the relative volatility of the requirements. Keywords: Requirements change management; shearing layers; goal modelling. 2.1 Introduction Requirements change is inevitable in the development and maintenance of soft- ware systems. As the environment and stakeholders’ needs continuously change, so must the system, in order to continue meeting its intended purpose. Studies show that requirements change accounts for a large part of the rework in devel- opment, in some cases up to 85% [4, 16, 34]. As such, it is one of the top causes of project failure [30], and often regarded as one of the most chronic problems in software development [14].
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Programme
    The will of the people? Science and innovation in a post-truth world 29 November 2017 2 3 Chapters Today, the Huxley Summit will bring together business leaders, scientists, senior Contents Agenda policy-makers and opinion-formers to discuss the challenges of creating innovations that are accepted and trusted by the public. We will look at how learnings from the Page 2 Agenda 11.00 Registration and GM crisis should inform companies, institutions, government, and public responses. networking The Summit will also look at how these learnings can be applied to the current Page 3 Chapters challenge of data ethics and explore the impact of artificial intelligence on society. There will be provocations and debates, plus time for networking and focussed 12.00 Chapter 1: Learning from discussions about how we navigate the future. Page 4 Welcome the past - what can society learn from GM? Page 7 The will of the people? Chapter 1: Science and innovation 13.20 Roundtable discussions Learning from the past - what can society learn from GM? in a post-truth world and lunch Despite a huge amount of scientific research into GM crops and their impact on Page 10 Advisory board human health and the environment, the public remain resistant to their widespread 14.50 Chapter 2: Current introduction to agriculture and industry. What learnings can be gleaned from this story? And what does this mean for the public, business leaders, scientists and policy- Page 11 Building a challenges - the data makers in relation to new technologies and scientific advances in the future? better world explosion and the commercial imperative Page 12 Speakers Chapter 2: 16.10 Coffee and networking Current challenges - the data explosion and the commercial Page 16 Sponsors and partners imperative 16.50 Chapter 3: Future Just over 10 years since the phrase ‘data is the new oil’ was coined, the new oil rush is Page 17 Attendees challenges - preparing for gaining momentum.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Specification and Verification of Web Sites
    Mar¶³a Alpuente, Santiago Escobar, Moreno Falaschi (Eds.) Automated Speci¯cation and Veri¯cation of Web Sites First International Workshop, WWV'05 March 14-15, 2005. Valencia, Spain Dpto. de Sistemas Informaticos¶ y Computacion¶ Universidad Politecnica¶ de Valencia Preface This report contains the pre-proceedings of the International Workshop on Au- tomated Speci¯cation and Veri¯cation of Web Sites (WWV'05), held in Va- lencia (Spain) during March 14-15, 2005. WWV'05 provided a common fo- rum for researchers from the communities of Rule-based programming, Auto- mated Software Engineering, and Web-oriented research, in order to facilitate the cross-fertilization and the advancement of hybrid methods that combine the three areas. This workshop is part of the activities of the EU-India project ALA/95/23/2003/077-054. The Program Committee of WWV'05 collected three reviews for each paper and held an electronic discussion during February 2005. Finally, the Program Committee selected 10 regular papers, 2 position papers, and 6 system descrip- tions or works in progress. In addition to the selected papers, the scienti¯c pro- gram included two invited lectures by Anthony Finkelstein from the University College London, UK, and Shriram Krishnamurthi from Brown University, USA. We would like to thank them for having accepted our invitation. We would also like to thank all the members of the Program Committee and all the referees for their careful work in the review and selection process. Many thanks to all authors who submitted papers and to all conference participants. We gratefully acknowledge all the institutions and corporations who have sup- ported this event.
    [Show full text]
  • A Multi-Perspective Framework for Method Integration
    Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine University of London Department of Computing A Multi-Perspective Framework for Method Integration Bashar Ahmad Nuseibeh A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering of the University of London, and for the Diploma of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. October 1994 1 To my parents, Ahmad & Norma, for making this possible ... 2 Abstract The development of large and complex systems necessarily involves many people - each with their own perspective on the system, defined by their skills, responsibilities and expertise. This is particularly true for composite systems, that is, systems which deploy multiple component technologies. The intersections between perspectives however, are far from obvious because the knowledge within each is represented in different ways. Furthermore, because development may be carried out concurrently by those involved, different perspectives may be at different stages of elaboration, and may be subject to different development strategies. The problem of how to guide and organise systems development in this setting, we term the “multiple perspectives problem”. This thesis focuses on the specification and design of software-based systems. In particular, it addresses the problem of method integration in this setting, which is viewed as an instance of the multiple perspectives problem. The thesis elaborates a software development framework based on loosely coupled, locally managed, distributable objects, called “ViewPoints”, which encapsulate partial representation, process and specification knowledge about a system and its domain. ViewPoint templates, denoting ViewPoint types, are introduced, and are used as the building blocks of software development methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewpoints: Meaningful Relationships Are Difficult!
    ViewPoints: meaningful relationships are difficult! Bashar Nuseibeh Jeff Kramer Anthony Finkelstein Department of Computing Department of Computing Department of Computer Science The Open University Imperial College University College London Walton Hall 180 Queen’s Gate Gower Street Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK London SW7 2BZ, UK London WC1E 6BT, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] during some part of the RE process when requirements are Abstract still being elicited, negotiated, and prioritised. The development of complex systems invariably involves This paper reflects briefly on the ViewPoints framework many stakeholders who have different perspectives on the [10, 33], which we developed to organise and manage problem they are addressing, the system being developed, multi-perspective software development. The paper reviews and the process by which it is being developed. The the basic components of the framework, their raison d’être, ViewPoints framework was devised to provide an and the way in which we have deployed them over the last organisational framework in which these different ten years. The paper describes the use of explicit perspectives, and their relationships, could be explicitly relationships between ViewPoints to manage multi- represented and analysed. The framework acknowledges perspective software development, and reports on our most the inevitability of multiple inconsistent views, promotes recent incarnation of the ViewPoints framework in the form separation of concerns, and encourages decentralised of the xlinkit toolkit. The paper then speculates about the specification while providing support for integration need for more meaningful relationships between multiple through relationships and composition.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecturer in Software Engineering (Software Systems Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science)
    UCL DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE Lecturer in Software Engineering (Software Systems Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science) Vacancy Reference Number: 1454131 FURTHER INFORMATION We are looking for world-class research talent to strengthen and augment existing expertise in Software Systems Engineering in the Department of Computer Science at UCL. The post holder will be based in the Software Systems Engineering (SSE) group within the department of Computer Science at UCL. With this post, we are seeking to complement the existing research of the department, in particular that of the Software Engineering group. We will accept applications from those with a proven track record, with a particular interest in those able to complement strength and/or augment our existing strengths. The appointee will be encouraged to establish a collaborative research activity with other members of the group, and will benefit from an attractive start up package which will include a fully funded studentship (for which the post holder will be the first supervisor on a project of their choice), funding to attend conferences in the first two years of the appointment (typically up to £5k per annum), and funding for equipment. Only lecturers the department also benefit from a taper that reduces by 50% the standard teaching load in the first year. The post is offered at Lecturer level (generally comparable to "Assistant Professor”, under the US system). Candidates interested in a more senior appointment in the same area are invited to contact the Prof Mark Harman ([email protected]), the Head of the SSE group About the Group, Department and University In this section you will find more information about the Software Systems Engineering group, in the Department of Computer Science at UCL.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report and Accounts 2013 - 2014
    Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2013 - 2014 ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2013-2014 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 17 July 2014 HC54 © Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (copyright 2014) The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: EPSRC Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET You can download this publication from our website at www.epsrc.ac.uk. Print ISBN: 9781474101295 Web ISBN: 9781474101301 Printed in the UK by RCUK’s Internal Service Provider on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 20061401 07/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum CONTENTS ANNUAL REPORT 01 MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY 13 MEMBERSHIP LISTS 16 REMUNERATION REPORT 21 STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 22 GOVERNANCE STATEMENT ACCOUNTS 32 CERTIFICATE AND REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL 34 STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure Statement of Financial Position Statement of Cash Flows Statement of Changes in Taxpayer’s Equity 38 NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2013-2014 ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2013-2014 MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY Key Achievements This section highlights some of the key achievements during 2013-14.
    [Show full text]