Requirements Engineering (RE) has received much attention in research and practice due to its importance to software project success. Its interdisciplinary nature, the dependency to the customer, and its inherent uncertainty still render the discipline difficult to investigate. This results in a lack of empirical data. These are necessary, however, to demonstrate which practically relevant RE problems exist and to what extent they matter. Motivated by this situation, we initiated the Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering (NaPiRE) initiative which constitutes a globally distributed, bi-yearly replicated family of surveys on the status quo and problems in practical RE. In this article, we report on the qualitative analysis of data obtained from 228 companies working in 10 countries in various domains and we reveal which contemporary problems practitioners encounter. To this end, we analyse 21 problems derived from the literature with respect to their relevance and criticality in dependency to their context, and we complement this picture with a cause-effect analysis showing the causes and effects surrounding the most critical problems. Our results give us a better understanding of which problems exist and how they manifest themselves in practical environments. Thus, we provide a first step to ground contributions to RE on empirical observations which, until now, were dominated by conventional wisdom only.
There is a large body of research on requirements engineering in general and on specific RE methods in particular. Our study touches on the results of many of them, but we cannot discuss them all here. There exist surprisingly few comprehensive systematic literature reviews. For instance, there is a systematic review on effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques @cite_2 and mapping studies on creativity @cite_36 , requirements specification improvement methods @cite_20 as well as the empirical work on requirements specifications techniques @cite_26 . In the latter, the authors emphasise that most studies are experiments, and that the practitioners' view is missing.
@cite_36 @cite_26 @cite_20 @cite_2
2000233827 2963686848 2518473846 2149518434
In the last years, the field of creativity for requirements engineering has received a growing interest from researchers and practitioners. This paper presents a mapping study to aggregate literature in this field. The motivation is to identify trends and research opportunities in the application of creativity approaches to support the requirements engineering. The mapping study analyzed 46 papers. The results show four main research groups working on creativity in RE. Requirements elicitation is the phase concentrating the majority of studies. The study confirms that creativity techniques enhance creative thinking in requirements activities. However, creative thinking strategies should be fully integrated in current requirements engineering processes, methods and tools. Abstract Context For many years, we have observed industry struggling in defining a high quality requirements engineering (RE) and researchers trying to understand industrial expectations and problems. Although we are investigating the discipline with a plethora of empirical studies, they still do not allow for empirical generalisations. Objective To lay an empirical and externally valid foundation about the state of the practice in RE, we aim at a series of open and reproducible surveys that allow us to steer future research in a problem-driven manner. Method We designed a globally distributed family of surveys in joint collaborations with different researchers and completed the first run in Germany. The instrument is based on a theory in the form of a set of hypotheses inferred from our experiences and available studies. We test each hypothesis in our theory and identify further candidates to extend the theory by correlation and Grounded Theory analysis. Results In this article, we report on the design of the family of surveys, its underlying theory, and the full results obtained from Germany with participants from 58 companies. The results reveal, for example, a tendency to improve RE via internally defined qualitative methods rather than relying on normative approaches like CMMI. We also discovered various RE problems that are statistically significant in practice. For instance, we could corroborate communication flaws or moving targets as problems in practice. Our results are not yet fully representative but already give first insights into current practices and problems in RE, and they allow us to draw lessons learnt for future replications. Conclusion Our results obtained from this first run in Germany make us confident that the survey design and instrument are well-suited to be replicated and, thereby, to create a generalisable empirical basis of RE in practice. Requirements Engineering (RE) has received much attention in research and practice due to its importance to software project success. Its interdisciplinary nature, the dependency to the customer, and its inherent uncertainty still render the discipline difficult to investigate. This results in a lack of empirical data. These are necessary, however, to demonstrate which practically relevant RE problems exist and to what extent they matter. Motivated by this situation, we initiated the Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering (NaPiRE) initiative which constitutes a globally distributed, bi-yearly replicated family of surveys on the status quo and problems in practical RE. In this article, we report on the qualitative analysis of data obtained from 228 companies working in 10 countries in various domains and we reveal which contemporary problems practitioners encounter. To this end, we analyse 21 problems derived from the literature with respect to their relevance and criticality in dependency to their context, and we complement this picture with a cause-effect analysis showing the causes and effects surrounding the most critical problems. Our results give us a better understanding of which problems exist and how they manifest themselves in practical environments. Thus, we provide a first step to ground contributions to RE on empirical observations which, until now, were dominated by conventional wisdom only. Requirements engineering (RE) is a key discipline in software development and several methods are available to help assess and improve RE processes. However, these methods rely on prescriptive models of RE; they do not, like other disciplines within software engineering, draw directly on stakeholder perceptions and subjective judgments. Given this backdrop, we present an empirical study in RE process assessment. Our aim was to investigate how stakeholder perceptions and process prescriptions can be combined during assessments to effectively inform RE process improvement. We first describe existing methods for RE process assessment and the role played by stakeholder perceptions and subjective judgments in the software engineering and management literature. We then present a method that combines perceptions and prescriptions in RE assessments together with an industrial case study in which the method was applied and evaluated over a three-year period at TelSoft. The data suggest that the combined method led to a comprehensive and rich assessment and it helped TelSoft consider RE as an important and integral part of the broader engineering context. This, in turn, led to improvements that combined plan-driven and adaptive principles for RE. Overall, the combined method helped TelSoft move from Level 1 to Level 2 in RE maturity, and the employees perceived the resulting engineering practices to be improved. Based on these results, we suggest that software managers and researchers combine stakeholder perceptions and process prescriptions as one way to effectively balance the specificity, comparability, and accuracy of software process assessments.