Skip to main content
Log in

Empirical research in requirements engineering: trends and opportunities

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

Abstract

Requirements engineering (RE) being a foundation of software development has gained a great recognition in the recent era of prevailing software industry. A number of journals and conferences have published a great amount of RE research in terms of various tools, techniques, methods, and frameworks, with a variety of processes applicable in different software development domains. The plethora of empirical RE research needs to be synthesized to identify trends and future research directions. To represent a state-of-the-art of requirements engineering, along with various trends and opportunities of empirical RE research, we conducted a systematic mapping study to synthesize the empirical work done in RE. We used four major databases IEEE, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink and ACM and Identified 270 primary studies till the year 2012. An analysis of the data extracted from primary studies shows that the empirical research work in RE is on the increase since the year 2000. The requirements elicitation with 22 % of the total studies, requirements analysis with 19 % and RE process with 17 % are the major focus areas of empirical RE research. Non-functional requirements were found to be the most researched emerging area. The empirical work in the sub-area of requirements validation and verification is little and has a decreasing trend. The majority of the studies (50 %) used a case study research method followed by experiments (28 %), whereas the experience reports are few (6 %). A common trend in almost all RE sub-areas is about proposing new interventions. The leading intervention types are guidelines, techniques and processes. The interest in RE empirical research is on the rise as whole. However, requirements validation and verification area, despite its recognized importance, lacks empirical research at present. Furthermore, requirements evolution and privacy requirements also have little empirical research. These RE sub-areas need the attention of researchers for more empirical research. At present, the focus of empirical RE research is more about proposing new interventions. In future, there is a need to replicate existing studies as well to evaluate the RE interventions in more real contexts and scenarios. The practitioners’ involvement in RE empirical research needs to be increased so that they share their experiences of using different RE interventions and also inform us about the current requirements-related challenges and issues that they face in their work.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IEEE, International Conference on Requirement Engineering. http://www.requirements-engineering.org/

  2. Springer, International Journal of Requirement Engineering. http://www.springer.com/computer/swe/journal/766

  3. Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering. ACM, pp 35–46

  4. Cheng BH, Atlee JM (2007) Research directions in requirements engineering. In: 2007 Future of software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, pp 285–303

  5. Davis A, Hickey A, Dieste O, Juristo N, Moreno A (2007) A quantitative assessment of requirements engineering publications—1963–2006. In: Requirements engineering: foundation for software quality. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–143

  6. Lami G, Ferguson RW (2007) An empirical study on the impact of automation on the requirements analysis process. J Comput Sci Technol 22(3):338–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis AM, Hickey AM (2002) Requirements researchers: do we practice what we preach? Requir Eng 7(2):107–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wieringa RJ, Heerkens JMG (2006) The methodological soundness of requirements engineering papers: a conceptual framework and two case studies. Requir Eng 11(4):295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wasson KS (2004) Requirements metrics: scaling up. In: Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on comparative evaluation in requirements engineering (CERE’04), Kyoto, Japan, pp 51–55

  10. Seaman CB (1999) Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(4):557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kitchenham BA, Dyba T, Jorgensen M (2004) Evidence-based software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, pp 273–281

  12. Ambreen T, Usman M, Ikram N, Bano M (2011) Evidence in requirements engineering: a systematic literature review protocol. In: The Sixth international conference on software engineering advances. ICSEA, pp 576–580

  13. Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (version 2.3). Technical Report, Keele University and University of Durham

  14. Bjørnson FO, Dingsøyr T (2008) Knowledge management in software engineering: a systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used. Inf Softw Technol 50(11):1055–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jorgensen M, Shepperd M (2007) A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(1):33–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Qureshi N, Usman M, Ikram N (2013). Evidence in software architecture, a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering. ACM, pp 97–106

  17. Dieste O, Juristo N (2011) Systematic review and aggregation of empirical studies on elicitation techniques. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 37(2):283–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis A, Dieste O, Hickey A, Juristo N, Moreno AM (2006) Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: 14th IEEE international conference requirements engineering. IEEE, pp 179–188

  19. Pacheco C, Garcia I (2012) A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation. J Syst Softw 85(9):2171–2181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicolás J, Toval A (2009) On the generation of requirements specifications from software engineering models: a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 51(9):1291–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Condori-Fernandez N, Daneva M, Sikkel K, Wieringa R, Dieste O, Pastor O (2009) A systematic mapping study on empirical evaluation of software requirements specifications techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2009 3rd international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. IEEE Computer Society, pp 502–505

  22. Amyot D, Mussbacher G (2011) User requirements notation: the first ten years, the next ten years. J Softw 6(5):747–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Li J, Zhang H, Zhu L, Jeffery R, Wang Q, Li M (2012) Preliminary results of a systematic review on requirements evolution. In: Evaluation & assessment in software engineering (EASE 2012), 16th International Conference on, IET, pp 12–21

  24. Herrmann A, Daneva M (2008) Requirements prioritization based on benefit and cost prediction: an agenda for future research. In: 16th IEEE international requirements engineering. RE’08. IEEE, pp 125–134

  25. Winkler S, Pilgrim J (2010) A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Softw Syst Model (SoSyM) 9(4):529–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Walia GS, Carver JC (2009) A systematic literature review to identify and classify software requirement errors. Inf Softw Technol 51(7):1087–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bano M, Imtiaz S, Ikram N, Niazi M, Usman M (2012) Causes of requirement change—a systematic literature review. In: 16th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (EASE 2012). IET, pp 22–31

  28. Khurum M, Uppalapati N, Veeramachaneni RC (2012) Software requirements triage and selection: state-of-the-art and state-of-practice. In: 2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), vol 1. IEEE, pp 416–421

  29. De Azambuja FB, Bastos RM, Bacelo APT (2009) Systematic review of requirements reuse. In: SEKE, pp 67–72

  30. Lopez A, Carrillo-de-Gea JM, Toval A (2009) Risks and safeguards for the requirements engineering process in global software development. In: Fourth IEEE international conference on global software engineering. ICGSE 2009. IEEE, pp 394–399

  31. Peng R, Lai H (2012) DRE-specific wikis for distributed requirements engineering: a review. In: 2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), vol 1. IEEE, pp 116–126

  32. Blanes D, Insfran E, Abrahão S (2009) Requirements engineering in the development of multi-agent systems: a systematic review. In: Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning-IDEAL 2009. Springer, Berlin, pp 510–517

  33. Alves V, Niu N, Alves C, Valença G (2010) Requirements engineering for software product lines: a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 52(8):806–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cruzes DS, Dybå T (2011) Research synthesis in software engineering: a tertiary study. Inf Softw Technol 53(5):440–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cruzes DS, Dyba T (2011) Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering. In: 2011 International symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM). IEEE, pp. 275–284

  36. Kitchenham BA, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Li Z (2009) An evaluation of quality checklist proposals: a participant-observer case study. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering. British Computer Society, pp 55–64

  37. Kitchenham B, Sjøberg DI, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Dybå T, Höst M, Runeson P (2010) Can we evaluate the quality of software engineering experiments? In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. ACM, p 2

  38. Höst M, Runeson P (2007) Checklists for software engineering case study research. In: ESEM, pp 479–481

  39. Budgen D, Zhang C (2009) Preliminary reporting guidelines for experience papers. In: Proceedings of EASE, vol 2009, pp 1–10

  40. Bourque P, Dupuis R (2004) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge 2004 Version. In: SWEBOK

  41. Aoyama M, Nakatani T, Saito S, Suzuki M, Fujita K, Nakazaki H, Suzuki R (2010) A model and architecture of REBOK (Requirements Engineering Body of Knowledge) and its evaluation. In: 2010 17th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE, pp 50–59

  42. Wieringa R, Maiden N, Mead N, Rolland C (2006) Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requir Eng 11(1):102–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8nZBcJOcv2MYVJEa3VPbHRsWlU/view?usp=sharing

  44. Sikora E, Tenbergen B, Pohl K (2012) Industry needs and research directions in requirements engineering for embedded systems. Requir Eng 17(1):57–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Daneva M et al (2014) Empirical research methodologies and studies in requirements engineering: how far did we come? J Syst Softw 95:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Talbot A, Connor AM (2014) Requirements engineering current practice and capability in small and medium software development enterprises in New Zealand. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.6102

  47. Aranda J, Easterbrook S, Wilson G (2007) Requirements in the wild: how small companies do it. In: 15th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, 2007. RE’07. IEEE, pp 39–48

  48. Sadraei E, Aurum A, Beydoun G, Paech B (2007) A field study of the requirements engineering practice in Australian software industry. Requir Eng 12(3):145–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Liu L, Zhang H, Ma W, Shan Y, Xu J, Peng F, Burda T (2009) Understanding chinese characteristics of requirements engineering. In: 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, 2009. RE’09. IEEE, pp 261–266

  50. Liu L, Li T, Peng F (2010) Why requirements engineering fails: a survey report from china. In: 2010 18th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE). IEEE, pp 317–322

  51. Solemon B, Sahibuddin S, Ghani AAA (2010) Adoption of requirements engineering practices in Malaysian software development companies. In: Advances in software engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 141–150

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Svensson RB, Höst M, Regnell B (2010) Managing quality requirements: a systematic review. In: 36th EUROMICRO conference on software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA), pp 261–268

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

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Lindsay RM, Ehrenberg A (1993) The design of replicated studies. Am Stat 47(3):217–228

    Google Scholar 

  56. Popper K (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co, Bangkok

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Schmidt S (2009) Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Rev Gen Psychol 13(2):90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. França ACC, da Cunha PR, da Silva FQ (2010) The effect of reasoning strategies on success in early learning of programming: lessons learned from an external experiment replication. In: International conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, pp 81–90

  59. Lung J, Aranda J, Easterbrook S, Wilson G (2008) On the difficulty of replicating human subjects studies in software engineering. In: ACM/IEEE 30th international conference on software engineering, 2008. ICSE’08. IEEE, pp 191–200

  60. 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 

  61. Saha SK, Selvi M, Buyukcan G, Mohymen M (2012) A systematic review on creativity techniques for requirements engineering. In: 2012 International conference on informatics, electronics & vision (ICIEV). IEEE, pp 34–39

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naveed Ikram.

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of existing systematic reviews of RE

This appendix describes a summary of existing systematic reviews of RE. These systematic reviews have been discussed in body section of this paper, but their overall summary in terms of year of publication, number of primary studies included, source of primary studies, the range of databases covered and the nature of the primary studies included in the systematic study (empirical/non-empirical) is listed here, to give an overview to readers through a bird’s eye view.

Sr#

Year

Title of systematic study

# of studies

Source of primary studies

Covered till the time

Empirical/non-empirical

Existing systematic reviews of RE

1

2006

Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation Techniques [18]

26

SCOPUS, IEEEXPLORE, ACM DL

March 2005

Empirical

2

2008

Requirements Prioritization Based on Benefit and Cost Prediction [24]

240

ACM Digital Library, Compendex, IEEE Xplore, ISI Web of Science, Kluwer Online Science Direct Elsevier, SpringerLink, Wiley InterScience, and manual search

Feb 2008

Empirical and non-empirical

3

2009

RE in the Development of Multi-Agent Systems [32]

58

ACM DL, IEEExplore, Inspect, and Science Direct

1998 to March 2009

Empirical and non-empirical

4

2009

Software Requirements Specifications Techniques [21]

46

Scopus, IEEE Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, and manual search

1987–2008

Empirical

5

2009

Software Requirement Errors [26]

149

Databases:IEEExplore, INSPEC, ACM Digital Library, SCIRUS (Elsevier), Google Scholar, PsychINFO (EBSCO), Science Citation Index

Not mentioned

Empirical and non-empirical

6

2009

Generation of Requirements Specifications from Software Engineering Models [20]

24

IEEE Digital Library,ACM Digital Library,ScienceDirect, MetaPress (Kluwer + springer), Wiley InterScience, Google scholar

Not mentioned

Empirical

7

2009

Risks in RE Process in Global Software Development [30]

36

IEEE Digital Library,ACM Digital Library Metapress, Google Scholar

2000–2009

Empirical and non-empirical

8

2009

Technology transfer decision support in RE [60]

97

RE Journals in Inspec

Start time: not mentioned end time: June, 2008

Empirical and non-empirical

9

2009

Systematic Review of Requirements Reuse [29]

18

IEEE Xplorer digital library, ACM digital library, Springer Link and Science Direct

2004–2009

Empirical and non-empirical

10

2010

Managing Quality Requirements [53]

18

ACM Digital Library, Compendex and Inspec, IEEE Xplore, Wiley Inter Science Journal Finder

2008

Empirical

11

2010

Requirements Engineering for Software Product Lines [33]

49

ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct Elsevier, Wiley Inter Science Journal Finder.

1990–2009

Empirical

12

2011

Elicitation Techniques [17]

26

SCOPUS, IEEEXPLORE, ACM DL databases, as well as Google

Start time: unlimited, ending time: March 2005

Empirical

13

2011

User Requirements Notation [22]

281

IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Google Scholar, SpringerLink, Scopus

Start time: not specified ending time: 2010

Empirical and non-empirical

14

2012

Stakeholder Identification Methods [19]

47

ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Springer Verlag, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Metapress, Wiley InterScience

1984–2011

Empirical and non-empirical

15

2012

Software Requirements Triage and Selection [28]

23

Scopus, INSPEC, EI Compendex, IEEExplore, ISI web of science

Not mentioned

Empirical and non-empirical

16

2012

Requirements Evolution [23]

125

ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, Springerlink, InterScience

1994–2009

Not mentioned

17

2012

DRE-Specific Wikis for Distributed RE [31]

27

ACM portal, Elsevier’sScience Direct, IEEE Xplore, Springer-Verlag’s Link;

Start time: unlimited, ending time: 2011

Empirical

18

2012

Causes of Requirement Change [27]

5

Springer link, IEEE Explore, ACM Digital library, Cite Seer library, Science Direct, EI Compendex

December 2008 to March 2009

Empirical

19

2012

Creativity Techniques for Requirements Engineering [61]

25

IEEE Xplore, ACM, Compendex, Inspec, Springerlink, Science Direct

Start time: not mentioned ending time: 2011

Empirical and non-empirical

Appendix 2: Quality assessment checklist

This appendix describes the quality instrument that we used to access the quality of studies. It consisted of 5 sections, a section having general checklist items which was applied to all the studies included in the SMS, while other 4 sections were decided specifically for various research methods used in the study, i.e., experiment, survey, case study and experience report. These criteria were adopted from SLR guidelines [13, 3639]. The questions included in the checklist were answered either “yes,” “no” or “partial” and were given rates as 2, 1 or 0, respectively. The sum of the scores for all of these questions was used for assessing the quality of a primary study.

Quality assessment checklist

 

Generic

 

Are the aims clearly stated?

Yes/no

Are the study participants or observational units adequately described?

Yes/no/partial

Was the study design appropriate with respect to research aim?

Yes/no/partial

Are the data collection methods adequately described?

Yes/no/partial

Are the statistical methods justified by the author?

Yes/no

Is the statistical methods used to analyze the data properly described and referenced?

Yes/no

Are negative findings presented?

Yes/no/partial

Are all the study questions answered?

Yes/no

Do the researchers explain future implications?

Yes/no

Survey

 

Was the denominator (i.e., the population size) reported?

Yes/no

Did the author justified sample size?

Yes/no

Is the sample representative of the population to which the results will generalize?

Yes/no

Have “drop outs” introduced biasness on result limitation?

Yes/no/not applicable

Experiment

 

Were treatments randomly allocated?

Yes/no

If there is a control group, are participants similar to the treatment group participants in terms of variables that may affect study outcomes?

Yes/no

Could lack of blinding introduce bias?

Yes/no

Are the variables used in the study adequately measured (i.e., are the variables likely to be valid and reliable)?

Yes/no

Case study

Yes/no

Is case study context defined?

Yes/no

Are sufficient raw data presented to provide understanding of the case?

Yes/no

Is the case study based on theory and linked to existing literature?

Yes/no

Are ethical issues addressed properly (personal intentions, integrity issues, consent, review board approval)?

Yes/no

Is a clear chain of evidence established from observations to conclusions?

Yes/no/partial

Experience report

 

Is the focus of study reported?

Yes/no

Does the author report personal observation?

Yes/no

Is there a link between data, interpretation and conclusion?

Yes/no/partial

Does the study report multiple experiences?

Yes/no

Appendix 3: Data extraction scheme

This appendix enlists the data extraction items that have been extracted from the primary studies of the SMS. The RE core/main areas and sub-areas in this data extraction scheme were decided by consulting SWEBOK [40] and REBOK [41], while the type of research in this data extraction scheme was formulated according to the research types provided in [42]. The rest of the items were extracted to carry out a rich analysis and present various themes and trends as advised in [35].

Data extraction items

   

1. Study ID

2. Reference type

3. Conference/Journal

4. Title

5. Authors

6. Publication year

7. Countries involved in research

 

8. Conference/Journal name

9. Aim of study

10. Results of study

 

11. RE Core Area (RE Fundamentals/RE Process/Reqs Elicitation/Reqs Analysis/Reqs Specification/Reqs Validation, Verification & Evaluation/Reqs Planning & Management/Reqs Practical Consideration)

   

12. RE Sub Area (Reqs Modeling/Enterprise Analysis/Product Analysis/Reqs Prioritization/Reqs Tradeoff Analysis/Reqs Impact Analysis/Reqs Risk Analysis/Reqs Traceability)

   

13. RE Emerging Trends

   

14. Technique/Process/Tool/Framework Name

   

15. Research Output (New Technique/Tool/Process/Framework, Modification of Technique/Tool/Process/Framework, Usage experience of Technique/Tool/Process/Framework, Guidelines, Other)

   

16. Company Size (Small/Large/Medium/Mixed)

17. Name of Company

  

18. Industry/Domain(Telecom/Web/Finance/Automation/Automotive/Medical/Manufacturing/Governoment/Ecommerce/Education/Generic Software Development)

   

19. Type of Evidence (Experiment/Case Study/Survey/Experience Report)

   

20. Data Collection Method (Questionnaire/Interview/Archive Analysis/Observation/Mixed)

   

21. Type of Research (Evaluation Research/Validation Research/Solution Proposal/Philosophical Paper/Opinion Paper/Experience Paper)

   

22. Subjects of Investigation(Academia/Industry/Mixed)

   

Appendix 4: Domains of empirical studies of RE

This appendix describes various domains to which empirical studies of RE belong, along with frequency and percentage of studies for each domain. Some studies belong to software development generally, without mentioning of some specific domain in them, so we have categorized such studies under “generic software development” domain. The studies dealing with the domains of avionics, medical, automotive, electronics and control systems have been categorized under the category of “embedded” domain. Some studies belonged to more than one domain, so we categorized such studies under “multiple” domain category.

Domains

Frequency of studies

Percentage

Domains of empirical studies

  

Generic software development

64

24

Multiple domain

44

16

Embedded

35

13

Telecom

19

7

Management information systems

19

7

Finance

18

7

Web

17

6

Education

9

3

E commerce

5

2

Manufacturing

3

1

Other

37

14

Appendix 5: Research interventions in empirical studies of RE

This appendix describes various interventions reported in empirical RE research. The type of these interventions has already been discussed in body section of this paper. These interventions in this appendix have been provided per each core area of RE, to let practitioners get a handful of these empirically evaluated interventions while practicing some activities from the RE process. The organization of interventions this way can also be helpful for the RE researchers to get a collection of various existing empirically evaluated interventions in case they are attempting to develop new interventions of RE or want to modify/replicate existing interventions. The research output “guidelines” is missing in this appendix, as guidelines cannot be summarized like this; also we left this part for the future work.

Research interventions in empirical studies of RE

Requirements elicitation

New technique

ROADMAP

QRF (Quality requirements of a software Family)

Structured digital storytelling

CREE

StakeRare

Agent-based goal elicitation (ATABGE)

Interview-driven requirements elicitation

Scenario weaving

ORE (Ontology-based requirements elicitation)

Confidentiality requirements elicitation and engineering

New tool

Gaius T

New process

Display-Action-Response Model

IRIS (Integrating Requirements and Information Security)

Enterprise Analyzer

UEProject (Usability Evaluation Project)

Domain-specific requirements model for scientific computing

CelLEST

Cognitive-Driven Requirements Prioritization Process

Cognitive Psychology Approach for Balancing Elicitation Goals

SQUARE (Security Quality Requirements Engineering)

Model describing the relationships between

Threats, security requirement types and related IT infrastructure components

New framework

RE-GSD (Requirement Elicitation for Global Software Development projects)

A framework to support alignment of secure software engineering with legal regulations

RE-GSD

Strategy-based process for requirements elicitation

Non Functional Model

A framework of analysis of group performance in synchronous text-based distributed requirements elicitations and negotiations.

Modification of technique

EasyWinWin modified to WikiWinWin

Usage experience of technique

Group story telling

Prospect theory

Scenarios

Appreciative Inquiry

Scenario Acting

Usage experience of tool

Cerno

REE(Requirements Engineering Environment)

Usage experience of process

GORE(Goal Oriented Requirements Engineering)

SREP(security requirements engineering process)

Usage experience of framework

Nomos

New tech &tool

OREW (domain Ontology Reconstruction Environment by Web search)

Comparison of techniques

Attack trees & Misuse cases

Full EPMcreate & Power-Only EPMcreate

Optimization of full EPMcreate &Traditional Brainstorming

Requirements analysis

New technique

Human facilitation in computer-mediated requirements meetings

SIREN (SImple REuse of software requirements)

heuristic decision making algorithm

Automated similarity analysis

µ-Strategy

Lightweight Semantic Processing

SBSE (Search-Based Software Engineering)

Business process modeling method

Fuzzy QFD (fuzzy quality function deployment)

RA (Relationship Analysis)

Security Requirements Analysis and Secure Design Using Patterns and UMLsec

Scenario transformation method

New tool

IntelliReq

JSPWikiWinWin

useystem case retrieval system

RE Context

requirements analysis supporting system

New process

Distributed Prioritization Process

NFR Evaluation Model

New framework

VOP (Value-oriented Prioritization)

Goals-Skills-Preferences Framework

Staged Modelling Methodology

Modification of technique

Use Case

Usage experience of technique

Scenarios

AHP for requirements prioritization

WinWin

Prototyping

Heuristic Critiques

Usage experience of tool

QuARS

QARCC-1

Usage experience of process

SFMEA(Software Failure Modes and Effects Analysis)

RAM(Requirements Abstraction Model)

Usage experience of framework

i* Modelling Framework

New tech &tool

Automated requirements classification technique

Comparison of techniques

Use Cases & Tropos

F2F communication & COFFEE & Second Life

Lexical similarity & Searching and filtering

Single-Objective GA & FOOM & OPM (Object-Processes Methodology)

UML Use Case (UC) model & OODFD Transaction

Analytic Hierarchy Process method (AHP) & Case-Based Ranking method (CBRank)

Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) & Pareto GA

Comparison of tools

ARENA II(Anytime, Anyplace REquirements Negotiation Aids) & ARENA-M ((Anytime, Anyplace REquirements Negotiation Assistant – Mobile)

Requirements specification

New technique

Clone Detection

SCR(software cost reduction)

Structuring specification documents by using temporally adjacent topics

High-level requirements engineering methodology for electronic system-level design

Information model approach

CSRML (Collaborative Systems Requirements Modelling Language)

SOFL(Structured-Object-based-Formal Language)

New tool

LAMPS(Learning Action Model from Plan Samples)

New process

AutoRELAX

New framework

PDS(Problem Decomposition Scheme)

DAM(domain analysis methodology)

Theoretical Framework of Requirements Documentation Styles

Modification of technique

TORE(Task and Object Oriented Requirements Engineering)

Use case

Z Language

Usage experience of technique

OCL (Object Constraint Language)

GQM (Goal-Question-Metric)

FRORL (Frame-and-Rule Oriented Requirements specification Language)

Usage experience of tool

SeCSE’s Service Discovery Environment

Usage experience of process

Performance Refinement and Evolution Model

Usage experience of framework

AUTOSAR

Comparison of techniques

Use case & textual Approach

F2F communication & Think-Pair-Square

Requirements verification, validation and evaluation

New technique

SQ2E (Scenario Question Query Engine)

Requirement Error Taxonomy

ALIGNMENT OF ONTOLOGY AND MODELS

New tool

SRA (System Reliability Analyser)

MEG

New framework and tool

GRIP (Groupware-supported Inspection Process)

Usage experience of technique

UML Diagrams

CBR(checklist-based reading) and SBR (scenario-based reading)

Symbolic Model Checking

Perspective-Based Reading (PBR)

New tech &tool

CREWSAVRE (Scenarios for Acquisition and Validation of Requirements)

I VT (Input Validation Testing)

MICASA (Method for Input Cases and Static Analysis)

Requirements planning and management

New technique

ARMOR

Extended Traceability

RC Cost Pre-evaluation

Owner ship based user group model

Automatically Structuring Textual Requirement Scenarios

Traceability-Based Notification Strategy

UMGAR (UML Model Generator from analysis of Requirements)

Rule-based generation of requirements traceability relations

PiLGRIM (Propagating i*-Led Goal-Requirement Impacts)

FoCM (Feature-oriented requirements Change management Method)

Value-based analysis method for variability evolution

Business Process-driven Approach for Requirements Dependency Analysis

New tool

RM-Tool

SPMS(Software Project Management Simulator)

New process

VRRM(Value-Based Requirements’ Risk Management)

VBRT (Value-based Requirements Tracing)

ReChaP (Requirement Change Propagation)

Requirements change management for implementing a CMMI level 2 specific practice

New framework

iMORE (information Modeling in Requirements Engineering)

Modification of technique

PLUSS (product line use case modeling for systems and software engineering)

Usage experience of technique

PREM (Performance Refinement and Evolution Model)

FPA(Function Point Analysis)

Usage experience of tool

ReqSimile

New technique &tool

ILRE (Indirect Traceability Link Recovery Engine)

ReqAnalyst

Requirements engineering process

New technique

DWARF(data warehouse requirements definition method)

Customer-Centered ERP Implementation (C-CEI) method

RPMAI (Requirements process maturity assessment instrument)

New tool

RQM (Requirements Quality Model)

New process

Requirements Capability Maturity Model (R-CMM)

VIRE (Value-Innovative Requirements Engineering)

User-centered requirements engineering

RE process for Web Service project

domain requirements development process

Evolutionary model of RE

RDMod (Requirements data model)

SREP (Security Requirements Engineering Process)

SecuRUP(security requirements engineering conformed to RUP)

RE process model for projects in emerging markets

SREPPLine (Security Requirements Engineering Process for software Product Lines)

Requirements Engineering using Prototyping Projects in Healthcare Diagnostic Software Application

New framework

Organization modeling-based requirements engineering framework

Software requirements management (Quality Function Deployment) framework based on QFD

REPI (Requirements Engineering Process Improvement)

IterativeC-K requirements engineering process

FRERE (Framework for requirements engineering process development)

REF (Requirements engineering framework)

Iterative requirements engineering process using FCA(Formal concept Analysis)

Modification of process

XP requirements process

Praxis

Usage experience of Technique

Gilb Style

SQUARE (Security Quality Requirements Engineering)

VORD (The Viewpoint-Oriented Requirements Definition method)

Usage experience of tool

PVCS

Wikis

Usage experience of process

Requirements Process Maturity Model

Usage experience of framework

TORE (task-oriented requirements engineering framework)

Requirements practical considerations

New technique

Gilb Style

New tool

BBN-based expert system

Requirements Quality Model

KASRET (Knowledge-based Approach for the Selection of Requirements Engineering Techniques)

Requirements engineering fundamentals

New process

Ontology for Requirements Engineering

New framework

Framework of Power & Politics in RE

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ambreen, T., Ikram, N., Usman, M. et al. Empirical research in requirements engineering: trends and opportunities. Requirements Eng 23, 63–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0258-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0258-2

Keywords

Navigation