Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uni-REPM: a framework for requirements engineering process assessment

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

Abstract

It has been shown that potential business benefits could be achieved by assessing and improving the requirements engineering (RE) process. However, process assessment models such as CMMI and ISO9000 only cover RE shallowly. Tailored models such as REGPG and REPM, on the other hand, do not cover market-driven requirements engineering. Other attempts such as MDREPM covers market-driven requirements engineering, but correspondingly neglects bespoke requirements engineering. Moreover, the area itself has evolved so practices that once were cutting edge are now commonplace. In this article, we develop and evaluate a unified requirements engineering process maturity model (Uni-REPM) that can be used in a market-driven as well as a bespoke context. This model is based on REPM, but has evolved to reflect contemporary requirements engineering practices. Uni-REPM is primarily created based on a systematic literature review of market-driven requirements engineering practices and a literature review of bespoke practices. Based on the results, Uni-REPM is formulated. The objective of Uni-REPM is twofold. Firstly, it is expected to be applicable for assessing the maturity of RE processes in various scenarios where an organisation would use different development approaches. Secondly, it instructs practitioners about which RE practices to perform and their expected benefits. As an assessment instrument, Uni-REPM provides a simple and low-cost solution for practitioners to identify the status of their RE process. As a guidance tool, Uni-REPM lessens the gap between theoretical and practical worlds by transferring the available RE technologies from research to industry practice.

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
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. By “good practices” we denote activities in RE that have been empirically validated in industry and may benefit practitioners if they are implemented in an industry project.

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. van den Akker M, Brinkkemper S, Diepen G, Versendaal J (2008) Software product release planning through optimization and what-if analysis. Inf Softw Technol 50(1–2):101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AlBourae T, Ruhe G, Moussavi M (2006) Lightweight replanning of software product releases. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on software product management, IWSPM06. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 27–34

  4. Aurum A, Wohlin C (eds) (2005) Engineering and managing software requirements. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Barney S, Aurum A, Wohlin C (2008) A product management challenge: creating software product value through requirements selection. J Syst Archit 54(6):576–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berander P, Jönsson P (2006) Hierarchical cumulative voting (hcv)–prioritization of requirements in hierarchies. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 16(6):819–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berenbach B, Paulish D, Kazmeier J, Rudorfer A (2009) Software & systems requirements engineering: In Practice. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York

  8. Berntsson Svensson R, Gorschek T, Regnell B (2009) Quality requirements in practice: an interview study in requirements engineering for embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (REFSQ’09). Springer, Berlin, vol LNCS5512, pp 218–232

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brereton P, Kitchenham B, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M (2007) Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw 80(4):571–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carlshamre P (2002) Release planning in market-driven software product development: provoking an understanding. Requirements Eng7(3):139–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlshamre P, Regnell B (2000) Requirements lifecycle management and release planning in market-driven requirements engineering processes. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on database and expert systems applications. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 961–965

  13. Carlshamre P, Sandahl K, Lindvall M, Regnell B, Natt och Dag J (2000) An industrial survey of requirements interdependencies in software product release planning. In: Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 84–91

  14. Carmel E, Becker S (1995) A process model for packaged software development. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 42(1):50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. CMMI-Dev: Cmmi for development version 1.2 cmmi-dev v1.2. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, software engineering institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2006)

  16. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daneva M (2003) Lessons learnt from five years of experience in erp requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international requirements engineering conference. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 45–54

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

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dzamashvili-Fogelström N, Svahnberg M, Gorschek T (2009) Investigating impact of business risk on requirements selection decisions. In: Proceedings of the 35th euromicro conference on software engineering and advanced applications. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 217–223

  20. Ebert C (2006) Understanding the product life cycle: four key requirements engineering techniques. IEEE Softw 23(3):19–25

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Ebert C, De Man J (2005) Requirements uncertainty: Influencing factor and concrete improvements. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering, ICSE05. ACM Press, New York, pp 553–560

  22. Firesmith D (2004) Prioritizing requirements. J Object Technol 3(8):35–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fogelström ND, Gorschek T, Svahnberg M, Olsson P (2010) The impact of agile principles on market-driven software product development. J Softw Maint Evol 22(1):53–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fricker S, Gorschek T, Glinz M (2008) Goal-oriented requirements communication in new product development. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on software product management. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos,CA

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gorschek T, Gomes A, Pettersson A, Torkar R (2011) Introduction of a process maturity model for market-driven product management and requirements engineering. J Softw Maint Evol Res Pract 23(1):83–113

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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 2003)

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Grynberg A, Goldin L (2003) Product management in telecom industry-using requirements management process. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on software: science, technology and engineering (SwSTE’03). IEEE Comput. Soc, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 63–70

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hannay J, Sjøberg D, Dybå T (2007) A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 32(2):87–107

    Google Scholar 

  33. Herrmann A, Daneva M (2008) Requirements prioritization based on benefit and cost prediction: an agenda for future research. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE08. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 125–134

  34. Hutchings A, Knox S (1995) Creating products customers demand. Commun ACM 38(5):72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. Jansen S, Brinkkemper S (2006) Ten misconceptions about product software release management explained using update cost/value functions. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on software product management, IWSPM06, pp 44–50

  37. Jantunen S, Smolander K (2006) Challenges of knowledge and collaboration in roadmapping. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on software product management, IWSPM06, pp 19–26

  38. Jantunen S, Smolander K (2006) Towards global market-driven software development processes: an industrial case study. In: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global software development for the practitioner. ACM, New York, pp 94–100

  39. 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 

  40. Kabbedijk J, Brinkkemper S, Jansen S, van der Veldt B (2009) Customer involvement in requirements management: lessons from mass market software development. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference. RE09. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 281–6

  41. Karlsson J, Olsson S, Ryan K (1997) Improved practical support for large-scale requirements prioritising. Requirements Eng 2(1):51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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

  43. 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 

  44. Karlsson L, Regnell B (2006) Introducing tool support for retrospective analysis of release planning decisions. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on product-focused software process improvement (PROFES 2006), lecture notes in computer science LNCS 4034. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–33

  45. Karlsson L, Thelin T, Regnell B, Berander P, Wohlin C (2007) Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning: experiments on requirements prioritisation techniques. Empir Softw Eng 12(1):3–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Khurum M, Aslam K, Gorschek T (2007) A method for early requirements triage and selection utilizing product strategies. In: Proceedings of the 14th Asia-pacific software engineering conference. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 97 –104

  47. Kilpi T (1998) Improving software product management process: implementation of a product support system. In: Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, vol 6, pp 3–12

  48. Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, version 2.3. Tech. Rep. EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University

  49. Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lam W, Jones S, Britton C (1998) Technology transfer for reuse: a management model and process improvement framework. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on requirements engineering, ICRE. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 233–240

  51. Leffingwell D (1997) Calculating your return on investment from more effective requirements management. American Programmer 10(4)

  52. Lehtola K, Kauppinen M, Vahaniitty J, Komssi M (2009) Linking business and requirements engineering: is solution planning a missing activity in software product companies? Requirements Eng 14(2):113–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lehtola L (2006) Suitability of requirements prioritization methods for market-driven software product development. Softw Process Improve Pract 11(1):7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lehtola L, Kauppinen M, Kujala S (2005) Linking the business view to requirements engineering: long-term product planning by roadmapping. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 439–443

  55. Lehtola L, Kauppinen M, Vahaniitty J (2007) Strengthening the link between business decisions and re: Long-term product planning in software product companies. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE07, pp 153–162

  56. Loucopoulos P, Karakostas V (1995) System requirements engineering. International Software Engineering Series. McGraw-Hill Book Co., London

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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

  58. Maiden NAM, Rugg G (1996) Acre: selecting methods for requirements acquisition. Softw Eng J 11(3):183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mathiassen L, Saarinen T, Tuunanen T, Rossi M (2007) A contingency model for requirements development. J Assoc Informat Syst 8(11):569–597

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mohamed SI, Wahba AM (2008) Value estimation for software product management. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, IEEM2008. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 2196–2200

  61. Natt och Dag J, Thelin T, Regnell B (2006) An experiment on linguistic tool support for consolidation of requirements from multiple sources in market-driven product development. Empir Softw Eng 11(2):303–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 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

  64. 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

  65. 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 

  66. Potts C (1995) Invented requirements and imagined customers: requirements engineering for off-the-shelf software. In: Proceedings of the second IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 128–128

  67. Ramesh B, Dwiggins D, DeVries G, Edwards M (1995) Towards requirements traceability models. In: Proceedings of the 1995 international symposium and workshop on systems engineering of computer based systems. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 229–232

  68. Ramesh B, Jarke M (2001) Toward reference models of requirements traceability. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(1):58–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Regnell B, Beremark P, Eklundh O (1998) A market-driven requirements engineering process: results from an industrial process improvement programme. Requirements Eng 3:121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Regnell B, Berntsson-Svensson R, Olsson T (2008) Supporting road-mapping of quality requirements. IEEE Softw 25(2):42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Regnell B, Höst M, Natt och Dag J, Beremark P, Hjelm T (2001) An industrial case study on distributed prioritisation in market-driven requirements engineering for packaged software. Requirements Eng 6(1):51–62

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Rossi M, Tuunanen T (2004) A method and tool for wide audience requirements elicitation and rapid prototyping for mobile systems. In: Proceedings of conceptual modeling for advanced application domains. Springer, Berlin, vol LNCS3289, pp 629–640

  73. Ruhe G, Saliu MO (2005) The art and science of software release planning. IEEE Softw 22(6):47–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sawyer P (2000) Packaged software: challenges for RE. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality

  75. Sawyer P, Sommerville I, Kotonya G (1999) Improving market-driven re processes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on product focused software process improvement (PROFES’99). VTT, Oulo, pp 222–236

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

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Requirements engineering: a good practice guide. Wiley, Chichester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

  79. Svahnberg M, Gorschek T, Feldt R, Torkar R, Saleem SB, Shafique MU (2010) A systematic review on strategic release planning models. Inf Softw Technol 52(3):237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Svahnberg M, Gorschek T, Nguyen TTL, Nguyen M (2013) Uni-repm: validated and improved. Require Eng 18(1):85–103 doi:10.1007/s00766-012-0148-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0148-1

    Google Scholar 

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

  82. Van De Weerd I, Brinkkemper S, Nieuwenhuis R, Versendaal J, Bijlsma L (2006) On the creation of a reference framework for software product management: Validation and tool support. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on software product management, IWSPM06. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 3–11

  83. Webster J, Watson R (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q 26(2):xiii–xxiiii

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wiegers K (2003) Software requirements, 2 edn. Microsoft Press, Redmond

    Google Scholar 

  85. Wieringa R, Ebert C (2004) Re’03: Practical requirements engineering solutions. IEEE Softw 21(2):16–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Wilby D (2009) Roadmap transformation: from obstacle to catalyst. In: Proceedings of the 2009 agile conference (Agile 2009). IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 229–34

  87. Yeh AC (1992) Requirements engineering support technique (request) a market driven requirements management process. In: Proceedings of the second symposium on assessment of quality software development tools. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 211–223

  88. Young R (2003) The requirements engineering handbook. Artech House, Boston

    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: a framework for requirements engineering process assessment. Requirements Eng 20, 91–118 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-013-0188-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-013-0188-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation