Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Uni-REPM: validated and improved

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software products are usually developed for either a specific customer (bespoke) or a broader market (market-driven). Due to their characteristic, bespoke and market-driven development face different challenges, especially concerning requirements engineering. Many challenges are caused by an inadequate requirements engineering process, and hence there is a need for process improvement frameworks based on empirical research and industry needs. In a previous article we introduced Uni-REPM, a lightweight requirements engineering process assessment framework based on a review of empirically motivated practices in market-driven and bespoke requirements engineering literature. In this article, we validate this framework in academia as well as industry, in order to prepare Uni-REPM for widespread industry use. We conduct two validations; a static validation based on interviews with seven academic experts and a dynamic validation where Uni-REPM is applied in four industrial organisations. Uni-REPM is refined according to the feedback obtained in the validations. The study shows that Uni-REPM is a quick, simple, and cost-effective solution to assess the maturity level of the requirements engineering process of projects. Moreover, the assessment method using checklists is highly usable and applicable in various international development environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Under submission. Can be obtained from the main author.

  2. Please see http://www.bth.se/tek/mdrepm.nsf.

  3. See footnote 1.

  4. Details about these improvements are available on the project homepage: http://www.bth.se/tek/mdrepm.nsf

  5. This is reported in a previous publication, as yet under submission.

References

  1. Adam S, Doerr J, Eisenbarth M (2009) Lessons learned from best practice-oriented process improvement in requirements engineering: a glance into current industrial RE application. In: fourth international workshop on requirements engineering education and training (REET), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 1–5

  2. Beecham S, Hall T, Rainer A (2005) Defining a requirements process improvement model. Softw Qual J 13(3):247–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boehm B, Papaccio P (1988) Understanding and controlling software costs. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(10):1462–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. CMMI-Dev (2006) Cmmi for development version 1.2 cmmi-dev v1.2. Tech Rep, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

  5. Creswell J (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis A (2005) Just enough requirements management: where software development meets marketing. Dorset House Publishing Co., Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fricker S, Gorschek T, Byman C, Schmidle A (2010) Handshaking with implementation proposals: negotiating requirements understanding. IEEE Softw 27(2):72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fricker S, Gorschek T, Myllyperkio P (2007) Handshaking between software projects and stakeholders using implementation proposals. In: Proceedings of requirements engineering: foundation for software quality, vol. Lecture notes in computer science LNCS4542, pp 144–159. Springer, Berlin

  9. Gorschek T, Garre P, Larsson S, Wohlin C (2006) A model for technology transfer in practice. IEEE Softw 23(6):88–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gorschek T, Garre P, Larsson S, Wohlin C (2007) Industry evaluation of the requirements abstraction model. Requir Eng 12(3):163–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gorschek T, Gomes A, Pettersson A, Torkar R (2011) Introduction of a process maturity model for market-driven product management and requirements engineering. J Soft Maint Evol Res Pract 24(1):83–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gorschek T, Svahnberg M (2005) Engineering and managing software requirements, chap. Requirements Experience in Practice: Studies of Six Companies. Springer, Berlin

  13. Gorschek T, Svahnberg M, Tejle K (2003) Introduction and application of a lightweight requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of the ninth international workshop on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (RESFQ)

  14. Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2004) Packaging software process improvement issues: a method and a case study. Softw Pract Experience 34(14):1311–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2006) Requirements abstraction model. Requir Eng 11:79–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hall T, Beecham S, Rainer A (2002) Requirements problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. Softw IEE Proc 149(5):153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hockman K, Grenville R, Jackson S (1994) Road map to iso 9000 registration. Qual Prog 27(5):39–44

    Google Scholar 

  18. IEEE Std 830-1998 (1988) IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications, Los Alamitos

  19. Ivarsson M, Gorschek T (2009) Technology transfer decision support in requirements engineering research: a systematic review of rej. Requir Eng 14(3):155–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ivarsson M, Gorschek T (2010) A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations. Empir Softw Eng 16(3):365–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Juristo N, Moreno A, Silva A (2002) Is the European industry moving toward solving requirements engineering problems? IEEE Softw 19(6):70–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kamsties E, Hörmann K, Schlich M (1998) Requirements engineering in small and medium enterprises. Requir Eng 3:84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karlsson L, Dahlstedt Å, Natt och Dag J, Regnell B, Persson A (2002) Challenges in market-driven requirements engineering—an industrial interview study. In: Proceedings of the eight international workshop on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (REFSQ), Essen, Germany, pp 37–49

  24. Karlsson L, Dahlstedt Å, Regnell B, Natt och Dag J, Persson A (2007) Requirements engineering challenges in market-driven software development—an interview study with practitioners. Inf Softw Technol 49(6):588–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kautz K, Hansen H, Thaysen K (2000) Applying and adjusting a software process improvement model in practice: the use of the ideal model in a small software enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on software engineering, ACM Press, New York, pp 626–633

  26. Leffingwell D (1997) Calculating your return on investment from more effective requirements management. Am Program 10(4):13–16

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lubars M, Potts C, Richter C (1992) A review of the state of the practice in requirements modeling. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 2–14

  28. Neill C, Laplante P (2003) Requirements engineering: the state of the practice. IEEE Softw 20(6):40–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Niazi M, Cox K, Verner J (2006) An empirical study identifying high perceived value requirements engineering practices. In: Nilsson A, Gustas R, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski W, Wrycza S, Zupancic J (eds) Advances in information systems development, Springer, Berlin, pp 731–743

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Nikula U, Sajaniemi J, Kälviäinen H (2000) A state-of-practice survey on requirements engineering in small-and-medium-sized enterprises. Tech rep, Lappeenranta University of Technology

  31. Pettersson F, Ivarsson M, Gorschek T, Ohman P (2008) A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. J Syst Softw 81(6):972–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sawyer P, Kotonya G (2001) Sofware engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK 1.0), 1.0 edn, chap. Software Requirements, IEEE Computer Society, pp 9–35

  33. Sommerville I (2004) Software engineering. 7th edn. Addison-Wesley, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Requirements engineering: a good practice guide. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Chichester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Spice (2011) Software process improvement and capability determination. http://www.sqi.gu.edu.au/spice/

  36. Staples M, Niazi M, Jeffery R, Abrahams A, Byatt P, Murphy R (2007) An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. J Syst Softw 80(6):883–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Svahnberg M, Gorschek T, Feldt R, Torkar R, Saleem SB, Shafique MU (2009) A systematic review on strategic release planning models. Info Softw Technol 52(3):237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. TickIt (2001) The tickit guide—using iso9001: 2000 for software quality management system, construction, certification and continual improvement. Tech Rep Issue 5.0, British Standards Institute

  39. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson M, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering—an introduction. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Blekinge Institute of Technology, 371 79, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Mikael Svahnberg, Tony Gorschek, Thi Than Loan Nguyen & Mai Nguyen

Authors
  1. Mikael Svahnberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tony Gorschek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thi Than Loan Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mai Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikael Svahnberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Svahnberg, M., Gorschek, T., Nguyen, T.T.L. et al. Uni-REPM: validated and improved. Requirements Eng 18, 85–103 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0148-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0148-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation