Most requirements engineering (RE) process improvement approaches are solution-driven and activity-based. They focus on the assessment of the RE of a company against an external norm of best practices. A consequence is that practitioners often have to rely on an improvement approach that skips a profound problem analysis and that results in an RE approach that might be alien to the organisational needs. In recent years, we have developed an RE improvement approach (called ) that guides a holistic RE improvement against individual goals of a company putting primary attention to the quality of the artefacts. In this paper, we aim at exploring ArtREPI's benefits and limitations. We contribute an industrial evaluation of ArtREPI by relying on a case study research. Our results suggest that ArtREPI is well-suited for the establishment of an RE that reflects a specific organisational culture but to some extent at the cost of efficiency resulting from intensive discussions on a terminology that suits all involved stakeholders. Our results reveal first benefits and limitations, but we can also conclude the need of longitudinal and independent investigations for which we herewith lay the foundation.
In literature, there exist mostly solution-driven contributions @cite_3 . R-CMM, proposed by @cite_10 , is a prominent representative of these approaches. It is based on CMMI and an empirical investigation in twelve companies @cite_11 . The investigation revealed patterns and best practices based on problems experienced by practitioners. Therefore, it aimed at a generalised, external notion of RE quality. A technical validation using an expert panel @cite_17 further illustrates selected success criteria, such as understandability. Approaches of this category focus on a solution-driven benchmarking of the maturity of RE according to a specific norm of best practices and may thus lead to the problems described in the introduction (see also @cite_1 @cite_6 for richer investigations).
@cite_11 @cite_1 @cite_3 @cite_6 @cite_10 @cite_17
2099942748 2019967993 2149518434 2963686848 2072576780 1996220078
In this paper we discuss our study of the problems 12 software companies experienced in software development. In total we present qualitative data collected from 45 focus groups that involved over 200 software staff. We look at how different practitioner groups respond to software process improvement problems. We show our classification and analysis of this data using correspondence analysis. Correspondence analysis is a graphical data representation method new to software development research. The aim of the work we present is to develop a more holistic understanding of the problems practitioners are experiencing in their attempts to improve their software processes. Our main finding is that there is an association between a company’s capability maturity and patterns of reported problems. Organizational problems are more associated with high maturity companies than with low maturity companies. Low maturity companies are closely linked to problems relating directly to projects such as documentation, timescales, tools and technology. Our findings also confirm differences in practitioner group problems. Senior managers cite problems with goals, culture and politics. Project managers are concerned with timescales, change management, budgets and estimates. Developers are experiencing problems with requirements, testing, documentation, communication, tools and technology. These associations are displayed graphically through correspondence analysis maps. This paper explores why organizations do not adopt CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration), by analysing two months of sales data collected by an Australian company selling CMMI appraisal and improvement services. The most frequent reasons given by organizations were: the organization was small; the services were too costly, the organization had no time, and the organization was using another SPI approach. Overall, we found small organizations not adopting CMMI tend to say that adopting it would be infeasible, but do not say it would be unbeneficial. We comment on the significance of our findings and research method for SPI research. 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. 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. Both software organisations and the academic community are aware that the requirements phase of software development is in need of further support. We address this problem by creating a specialised Requirements Capability Maturity Model (R-CMM1). The model focuses on the requirements engineering process as defined within the established Software Engineering Institute's (SEI's) software process improvement framework. Our empirical work with software practitioners is a primary motivation for creating this requirements engineering process improvement model. Although all organisations in our study were involved in software process improvement (SPI), they all showed a lack of control over many requirement engineering activities. This paper describes how the requirements engineering (RE) process is decomposed and prioritised in accordance with maturity goals set by the SEI's Software Capability Maturity Model (SW CMM). Our R-CMM builds on the SEI's framework by identifying and defining recommended RE sub-processes that meet maturity goals. This new focus will help practitioners to define their RE process with a view to setting realistic goals for improvement. In this paper we present components of a newly developed software process improvement model that aims to represent key practices in requirements engineering (RE). Our model is developed in response to practitioner needs highlighted in our empirical work with UK software development companies. We have now reached the stage in model development where we need some independent feedback as to how well our model meets our objectives. We perform this validation through involving a group of software process improvement and RE experts in examining our RE model components and completing a detailed questionnaire. A major part of this paper is devoted to explaining our validation methodology. There is very little in the literature that directly relates to how process models have been validated, therefore providing this transparency will benefit both the research community and practitioners. The validation methodology and the model itself contribute towards a better understanding of modelling RE processes.