Requirements Engineering

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 85–103 | Cite as

Uni-REPM: validated and improved

  • Mikael SvahnbergEmail author
  • Tony Gorschek
  • Thi Than Loan Nguyen
  • Mai Nguyen
Original Article


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.


Requirements engineering Process assessment Lightweight Empirical validation 


  1. 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 1–5Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beecham S, Hall T, Rainer A (2005) Defining a requirements process improvement model. Softw Qual J 13(3):247–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehm B, Papaccio P (1988) Understanding and controlling software costs. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(10):1462–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Creswell J (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis A (2005) Just enough requirements management: where software development meets marketing. Dorset House Publishing Co., Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fricker S, Gorschek T, Byman C, Schmidle A (2010) Handshaking with implementation proposals: negotiating requirements understanding. IEEE Softw 27(2):72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorschek T, Garre P, Larsson S, Wohlin C (2006) A model for technology transfer in practice. IEEE Softw 23(6):88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gorschek T, Garre P, Larsson S, Wohlin C (2007) Industry evaluation of the requirements abstraction model. Requir Eng 12(3):163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):83–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorschek T, Svahnberg M (2005) Engineering and managing software requirements, chap. Requirements Experience in Practice: Studies of Six Companies. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. 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)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2004) Packaging software process improvement issues: a method and a case study. Softw Pract Experience 34(14):1311–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2006) Requirements abstraction model. Requir Eng 11:79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hall T, Beecham S, Rainer A (2002) Requirements problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. Softw IEE Proc 149(5):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hockman K, Grenville R, Jackson S (1994) Road map to iso 9000 registration. Qual Prog 27(5):39–44Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IEEE Std 830-1998 (1988) IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ivarsson M, Gorschek T (2009) Technology transfer decision support in requirements engineering research: a systematic review of rej. Requir Eng 14(3):155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ivarsson M, Gorschek T (2010) A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations. Empir Softw Eng 16(3):365–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Juristo N, Moreno A, Silva A (2002) Is the European industry moving toward solving requirements engineering problems? IEEE Softw 19(6):70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kamsties E, Hörmann K, Schlich M (1998) Requirements engineering in small and medium enterprises. Requir Eng 3:84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 37–49Google Scholar
  24. 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):588–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 626–633Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leffingwell D (1997) Calculating your return on investment from more effective requirements management. Am Program 10(4):13–16Google Scholar
  27. 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 2–14Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neill C, Laplante P (2003) Requirements engineering: the state of the practice. IEEE Softw 20(6):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 731–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):972–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sawyer P, Kotonya G (2001) Sofware engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK 1.0), 1.0 edn, chap. Software Requirements, IEEE Computer Society, pp 9–35Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sommerville I (2004) Software engineering. 7th edn. Addison-Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Requirements engineering: a good practice guide. John Wiley & Sons Inc, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Spice (2011) Software process improvement and capability determination.
  36. 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):883–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 InstituteGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson M, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering—an introduction. Kluwer, DordrechtzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Svahnberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tony Gorschek
    • 1
  • Thi Than Loan Nguyen
    • 1
  • Mai Nguyen
    • 1
  1. 1.Blekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden

Personalised recommendations