Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Industrial Case Study of Immediate Benefits of Requirements Engineering Process Improvement at the Australian Center for Unisys Software

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes an industrial experience in process improvement at one of the Unisys development labs in Australia. Following a capability maturity model (CMM) mini-assessment, the organization is undertaking significant changes in the requirements management process, which include the introduction of group session approaches to requirements analysis and a structured method for writing requirements. An empirical evaluation which investigated other aspects of the process improvement than the CMM model indicates tangible benefits as well as perceived long-term benefits during design and testing. Findings confirm that a more thorough requirements analysis results in more clearly defined, better understood and specified requirements, and an enhanced ability to address the market needs and product strategy requirements. The catalyst behind these improvements included project management leadership, managing the human dimension, collaboration among stakeholders and senior management support.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Basili, V., McGarry, F., Pajerski, R., and Zelkowitz, M. 2002. Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: The rise and fall of the NASA software engineering laboratory. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) 2002. Orlando, Florida.

  • Brodman, J., and Johnson, D. 1996. Return on investment from software process improvement as measured by U.S. industry. In Crosstalk 9(4): 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capability Maturity Model for Software, CMU/SEI-91-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Chaos Report, Few IS Project Come in on Time, on Budget, Computer World 12, Dec., 20, 1995.

  • Dion, R. 1993. Process improvement and the corporate balance sheet. IEEE Software 10(4): 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, M., and Sligo, J. 1997. How software process improvement helped Motorola. IEEE Software 14(5): 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K., and Birk, A. 2000. Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software requirements analysis process capability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(6): 541–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K., and Briand, L. 1997. Costs and Benefits of Software Process Improvement, International Software Engineering Research Network Technical Report ISERN-97-12.

  • El Emam, K., Drouin, J.-N., and Melo, W. (eds.). SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE CS Press, 1998.

  • Hall, T., Beecham, S., and Rainer, A. 2002. Requirements problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. IEE proceedings Software.

  • Halligan, R. 2000. TAA's SE Training Courseware, Halligan Corporation Pty Ltd.

  • Herbsleb, J. D., and Goldenson, D. R. 1996. A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. In Proceedings of the 18th International conference on Software Engineering. Berlin, Germany, pp. 323-330.

  • Humphrey, W. S., Snyder, T. R., and Willis, R. R. 1991. Software process improvement at Hughes aircraft. IEEE Software 8(4): 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICRE1996: Ripe Fruit in RE: Techniques you can exploit NOW, Panel at the 2nd International Conference of Requirements Engineering, p. 42, 1996.

  • ISO/IEC 15504. 1998. Information technology-Software process assessment, Technical report-Type 2.

  • Johnson, A. 1994. Software process improvement experience in the DP/MIS function. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering.

  • Kotonya, G., and Sommerville, I. 1997. Requirements Engineering Processes and Techniques. John Wiley.

  • Laporte, C. Y., and Trudel, S. 1998. Addressing the people issues of process improvement activities at Oerlikon Aerospace. Software Process, Improvement and Practice 4(4): 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauesen, S., and Vinters, O. 2001. Preventing requirements defects. Requirements Engineering Journal 6(1): 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, L. 1996. Requirements Engineering. Springer-Verlag.

  • Moitra, D. 1998. Managing change for software process improvement initiatives: a practical experiencebased approach. Software Process, Improvement and Practice 4(4): 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, M., and MacNish, C. 1996. Processing natural language software requirements specification. Proceedings of 2nd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, ICRE96. Colorado Springs, Colorado, 229-236.

  • Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., and Weber, C. 1993. Capability Maturity Model for software, Version 1.1, CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute USA.

  • Quality standards: Quality management and quality assurance standards, Int. Org. for Standardization, 1987.

  • Sawyer, P., Sommerville, I., and Viller, S. 1998. Improving the requirements process. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation of Software Quality (REFSQ'98). Pisa, Italy, pp. 71-84.

  • Shubert, S., Spyridakis, J., Holmback, H., and Coney, M. B. 1995. The comprehensibility of simplified English in procedures. Journal of Technical Writing and Commune 25(4): 347–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics. McGraw-Hill.

  • SEI, 1995: Software Engineering Institute: The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison Wesley, 1995.

  • Sommerville, I. 2003. Private Communications.

  • Sommerville, I., and Sawyer, P. 1997. Requirements Engineering, A Good Practice Guide. Wiley, Great Britain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzer, D., and Mellis, W. 1998. Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process, Improvement and Practice 4(4): 227–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlwend, H., and Rosenbaum, S. 1993. Software process improvement in an international company. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 212-220.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, BC, PO Box 3055, BC, Canada, V8W 3P6

    Daniela Damian

  2. Faculty of Information Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia

    Didar Zowghi

  3. Unisys Australia Limited, 1C Homebush Bay Drive, Rhodes, NSW 2138, Australia

    Lakshminarayanan Vaidyanathasamy & Yogendra Pal

Authors
  1. Daniela Damian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Didar Zowghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lakshminarayanan Vaidyanathasamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yogendra Pal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Damian, D., Zowghi, D., Vaidyanathasamy, L. et al. An Industrial Case Study of Immediate Benefits of Requirements Engineering Process Improvement at the Australian Center for Unisys Software. Empirical Software Engineering 9, 45–75 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMSE.0000013514.19567.ad

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMSE.0000013514.19567.ad

Search

Navigation