REDUNDANT TYPE OF FUNCTIONAL CONFLICT IN SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT

Redundant conflicts in functional requirements refer to conflicts that arise when multiple
requirements specify similar or overlapping functionalities or behaviors in a repetitive manner. These
conflicts can lead to unnecessary duplication of requirements and potentially create confusion and
ambiguity in the software development process. Here are some examples of redundant types of
functional conflicts in software requirements:

1. Overlapping Functionality:
These conflicts occur when different requirements specify similar or overlapping
functionalities without any clear distinction or justification. Overlapping functionality occurs
when multiple requirements define similar or partially overlapping functionalities within a
software system. It means that two or more requirements address similar aspects or
capabilities of the software, leading to potential redundancy or inconsistency. For example,
two requirements may specify the same data validation checks or the same calculations to
be performed, leading to redundant specifications.
 For example, consider a software system for an e-commerce platform. One
requirement may state "The system should allow users to browse and search for
products." Another requirement may state "The system should provide advanced
filtering options for users to refine their search results." These requirements specify
overlapping functionality related to product search and filtering. This redundancy
can result in confusion, conflicting behaviors, and unnecessary development efforts.
 For example, if one requirement specifies that a user can create and save a
document, and another requirement specifies that a user can create and store a file,
there is an overlap in functionality regarding the creation and storage of data.

Managing overlapping functionality involves reviewing and analyzing the requirements to

identify areas of overlap and potential redundancy. The goal is to consolidate or refine the
requirements to ensure clarity and consistency. This can include merging similar
requirements, clarifying the intended functionality, or eliminating unnecessary redundancy.

It's important to note that while overlapping functionality may introduce some degree of
redundancy, it is not the same as a redundant requirement conflict. Overlapping
functionality conflicts are typically resolved by refining the requirements to establish a clear
and concise set of specifications for the software system.

2. Repetitive Validation Rules: Redundant conflicts can arise when multiple requirements
specify the same validation rules or constraints for input data. For instance, if multiple
requirements state that a certain input field should only accept numeric values within a
specific range, it can lead to unnecessary redundancy.
 For example, consider a requirement that states "The password must be at least 8
characters long" and another requirement that states "The password must be at
least 10 characters long." These conflicting requirements create ambiguity and
inconsistency in the expected behavior of the system.
 Another example is when multiple requirements specify redundant validation rules,
such as having both "The email address must contain a valid domain" and "The email
address must be in a valid format." These redundant rules add unnecessary
 complexity and may lead to confusion and duplication of effort during the
implementation and testing phases.

Resolving this type of conflict involves identifying the redundant validation rules and
consolidating them into a single, clear requirement. In the above example, the two
requirements can be merged to state that the password must be at least eight characters
long and include both an uppercase letter and a special character. This consolidation
eliminates redundancy and simplifies the requirement specification, improving clarity and
reducing potential inconsistencies.

By addressing repetitive validation rules, software engineers can streamline the development
process, reduce complexity, and ensure consistent behavior within the software system.

3. Duplicate Output Formats: Conflicts in output formatting requirements can occur when
different requirements specify the same output format or presentation style without any
unique or distinct requirements. This redundancy can result in unnecessary repetition and
make the requirements document less concise.
 For example, consider a requirement that states "The system should generate a
report in PDF format" and another requirement that states "The system should
generate the same report in CSV format." These redundant requirements for
generating the same report in different formats can result in duplicated development
efforts and increased maintenance complexity.
 Another example is when multiple requirements specify overlapping output formats,
such as having both "The system should display the results in a tabular format" and
"The system should display the results in a grid format." These redundant formats
may create confusion and ambiguity about the intended presentation style of the
output.

Resolving this type of conflict involves identifying the duplicate output formats and
consolidating them into a single, clear requirement. In the above example, the duplicate
requirement specifying the output format as PDF can be removed or merged with the other
requirement, thereby eliminating redundancy and simplifying the requirement specification.

By addressing duplicate output formats, software engineers can improve the clarity of the
requirements, reduce redundancy, and avoid confusion during the development and
implementation of the software system.

4. Repetitive Error Handling: Redundant conflicts can arise when multiple requirements specify
the same error handling mechanisms or error messages for similar scenarios. For example, if
multiple requirements state that the system should display an error message when an invalid
input is provided, it can lead to redundant specifications.
 For example, consider a requirement that states "The system should display an error
message and log the error in the system log file when a database connection error
occurs." Another requirement may state "The system should display an error
message, log the error in the system log file, and send an email notification to the
system administrator for database connection errors." These redundant
requirements for handling the same error condition with slight variations can lead to
 unnecessary duplication of code and increase the chances of inconsistent error-
handling behavior.
 For example, if one requirement states that the system should display an error
message when a user enters an invalid email address, and another requirement
specifies that the system should also display an error message for an invalid email
format, it introduces redundant error handling. Both requirements address similar
error scenarios and suggest displaying error messages, which can be consolidated to
avoid redundancy.

Resolving this type of conflict involves identifying the repetitive error-handling scenarios and
consolidating them into a single, clear requirement. In the example above, the two
requirements can be merged to specify that the system should display an error message for
invalid email addresses, regardless of the specific format issue. This consolidation eliminates
redundancy, simplifies the requirement specification, and promotes consistency in error
handling.

By addressing repetitive error handling, software engineers can streamline the development
process, reduce complexity, and ensure consistent handling of error conditions within the
software system

5. Overlapping System Interactions: These conflicts occur when different requirements specify
similar or overlapping interactions between the software system and external entities or
subsystems. This redundancy can result in unnecessary complexity and potential conflicts in
system behavior.
 For example, consider a requirement that states "When a user submits a form, the
system should validate the input and update the corresponding database record."
Another requirement may state "Upon successful validation, the system should
trigger a notification to the user via email." These requirements specify overlapping
interactions between the user interface, validation logic, database module, and
email module. This redundancy can result in unnecessary complexity, potential
conflicts in system behavior, and increased development effort.

CONTRADICTORY TYPE OF FUNCTIONAL CONFLICT IN SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT

Contradictory conflicts in software requirements occur when different requirements express
conflicting or mutually exclusive specifications or expectations. These conflicts can arise due to
differing interpretations, priorities, or constraints among stakeholders, leading to disagreements on
how the software system should behave or what it should accomplish. Here are a few examples of
contradictory conflicts in functional requirements:

1. Conflicting Behavior: Conflicting behavior conflicts occur when requirements specify

contradictory actions or responses of the software system in certain situations. For instance,
if one requirement states that a user should be able to edit a submitted form, while another
requirement states that submitted forms should be immutable and not editable, a
contradiction arises regarding the desired behavior of the system.
 Contradictory Validations: Conflicting behavior conflicts may arise when different
requirements specify contradictory validation rules or conditions for specific inputs
or actions. For example, if one requirement states that a text field should accept only
 alphabetical characters, while another requirement specifies that the same field
should allow alphanumeric characters, a contradiction exists regarding the expected
validation behavior of the system.
o Conflicting Input Formats: Conflicting behavior conflicts can arise when
different requirements specify contradictory rules for input formats. For
instance, if one requirement states that a date input should be in the format
"MM/DD/YYYY," while another requirement specifies the format as "YYYY-
MM-DD," a contradiction exists regarding the expected validation behavior
for the date input.
o Contradictory Field Lengths: Conflicting behavior conflicts may occur when
different requirements define conflicting field length validations. For
example, if one requirement specifies that a text field should have a
maximum length of 50 characters, while another requirement states that the
same field should have a maximum length of 100 characters, a contradiction
exists regarding the expected validation behavior for the field length.
o Incompatible Data Constraints: Conflicting behavior conflicts can arise when
different requirements express contradictory constraints on data values. For
instance, if one requirement specifies that a numeric field should only accept
positive values, while another requirement specifies that the field should
allow negative values as well, a contradiction exists regarding the expected
validation behavior for the numeric input.

 Incompatible Response Actions: Conflicting behavior conflicts can occur when

different requirements define conflicting response actions to certain events or
inputs. For instance, if one requirement states that a system should reject an order if
the inventory is insufficient, while another requirement specifies that the system
should automatically generate a backorder for the same scenario, a contradiction
exists regarding the expected response behavior.

"Incompatible response action" refers to conflicts where different requirements

specify actions or responses that cannot coexist or are contradictory in nature. These
conflicts arise when there are disagreements or inconsistencies regarding the
desired behavior of the system in certain scenarios.

For example, consider a software system that handles user authentication. One
requirement states that upon successful login, the system should redirect the user to
their account dashboard. However, another requirement specifies that the system
should display a success message on the login screen without redirecting the user.
These requirements present incompatible response actions since they express
contradictory expectations regarding the behavior after a successful login.

Resolving conflicts related to incompatible response actions involves carefully

analyzing the requirements, understanding the underlying reasons or priorities for
each conflicting action, and finding a resolution or compromise that aligns with the
overall goals and objectives of the software system. This may involve revising the
requirements, seeking stakeholder consensus, or finding alternative approaches that
can reconcile the conflicting response actions.
  Contradictory Security Requirements: Conflicting behavior conflicts may arise when
different requirements express contradictory security measures or access
restrictions. For example, if one requirement specifies that all users should be able to
access a particular feature, while another requirement states that only
administrators should have access to the same feature, a contradiction exists
regarding the desired security behavior of the system.
o Conflicting Access Control: Conflicting behavior conflicts can arise when
different requirements specify contradictory access control rules. For
instance, if one requirement states that all users should have access to a
certain feature, while another requirement specifies that only specific user
roles should have access to the same feature, a contradiction exists
regarding the desired access control behavior.
o Incompatible Authentication Mechanisms: Conflicting behavior conflicts
may occur when different requirements define contradictory authentication
mechanisms. For example, if one requirement specifies that users should
authenticate using a username and password, while another requirement
states that users should authenticate using biometric authentication, a
contradiction arises regarding the desired authentication behavior.
o Contradictory Data Encryption: Conflicting behavior conflicts can arise when
different requirements express contradictory data encryption requirements.
For instance, if one requirement specifies that all sensitive data should be
encrypted at rest and in transit, while another requirement states that
encryption is not necessary for certain types of data, a contradiction exists
regarding the desired data encryption behavior.

2. Inconsistent Constraints: Inconsistent constraint conflicts arise when different requirements

impose conflicting constraints or limitations on the software system. For example, if one
requirement specifies a maximum file size of 10 MB for uploads, while another requirement
specifies a maximum file size of 5 MB, a contradiction arises regarding the acceptable file size
constraint.
 Conflicting Data Validation Rules: Conflicting constraints and conflicts can arise
when different requirements specify contradictory rules for validating data inputs.
For example, if one requirement states that a text field must be alphanumeric, while
another requirement specifies that the same field must contain only alphabetical
characters, a contradiction exists regarding the expected data validation constraints.
 Contradictory Performance Requirements: Conflicting constraints conflicts may
occur when different requirements define conflicting performance constraints or
expectations. For instance, if one requirement specifies a response time of a
maximum of 2 seconds for a specific operation, while another requirement states a
response time of a of maximum 1 second for the same operation, a contradiction
arises regarding the performance constraints.
 Incompatible Integration Constraints: Conflicting constraints conflicts can arise
when different requirements express incompatible integration constraints with other
systems or components. For example, if one requirement specifies that the software
system must integrate with a specific third-party software, while another
requirement states that the system must not rely on any external dependencies, a
contradiction exists regarding the integration constraints.
3. Divergent Functionalities: Divergent functionality conflicts occur when different
requirements express conflicting expectations about the inclusion or exclusion of specific
features or functionalities. For instance, if one requirement states that the system should
support online payments, while another requirement states that online payments should not
be supported due to security concerns, a contradiction exists regarding the desired
functionality of the system.
 Conflicting Feature Priorities: Conflicting requirements may prioritize different
features or functionalities, leading to inconsistencies in the desired functionality of
the software system. For instance, if one requirement emphasizes the need for a
comprehensive reporting module, while another requirement prioritizes real-time
data updates, a conflict arises regarding the focus and emphasis of the system's
functionalities.
 Incompatible Use Cases: Conflicting requirements may specify incompatible or
contradictory use cases for the software system. For example, if one requirement
states that the system should support offline functionality, while another
requirement specifies the need for real-time synchronization, a conflict exists in
terms of the intended use cases and their associated functionalities.
 Contradictory Functional Specifications: Conflicting requirements may express
contradictory functional specifications or behaviors for specific features or modules.
For instance, if one requirement specifies that a messaging system should allow file
attachments, while another requirement states that file attachments are not
allowed, a contradiction arises regarding the desired functionality of the messaging
feature.

4. Contradictory Performance Requirements: Contradictory performance conflicts arise when

different requirements specify conflicting performance expectations for the software system.
For example, if one requirement requires the system to handle 1000 concurrent users with a
response time of under 1 second, while another requirement specifies 2000 concurrent
users with the same response time, a contradiction exists regarding the scalability or
performance requirements of the system.
 Conflicting Response Time Expectations: Conflicting performance requirements
conflicts can arise when different requirements specify contradictory response time
expectations for certain operations or functionalities. For example, if one
requirement states that a specific operation should have a response time of less than
1 second, while another requirement specifies a response time of less than 500
milliseconds, a contradiction exists regarding the desired performance constraints.
 Incompatible Throughput Constraints: Conflicting performance requirements
conflicts may occur when different requirements express contradictory throughput
constraints. For instance, if one requirement specifies that the system should handle
a minimum of 100 requests per second, while another requirement states that the
system should handle a minimum of 200 requests per second, a contradiction arises
regarding the desired throughput performance.
 Contradictory Scalability Expectations: Conflicting performance requirements
conflicts can arise when different requirements define conflicting expectations for
system scalability. For example, if one requirement specifies that the system should
support a maximum of 1,000 concurrent users, while another requirement specifies
 a maximum of 500 concurrent users, a contradiction exists regarding the desired
scalability capabilities.

Resolving contradictory conflicts requires careful analysis, clarification, and negotiation among
stakeholders. It may involve prioritizing requirements, seeking compromise, or identifying and
addressing underlying assumptions or constraints. Effective communication and collaboration are
essential to resolving contradictory conflicts and ensuring a consistent and coherent set of functional
requirements for the software system.