Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 9, Issue 1–2, pp 45–75 | Cite as

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

  • Daniela Damian
  • Didar Zowghi
  • Lakshminarayanan Vaidyanathasamy
  • Yogendra Pal
Article

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.

Requirements engineering process improvement industrial case study empirical assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Capability Maturity Model for Software, CMU/SEI-91-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  4. Chaos Report, Few IS Project Come in on Time, on Budget, Computer World 12, Dec., 20, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. Dion, R. 1993. Process improvement and the corporate balance sheet. IEEE Software 10(4): 28–35.Google Scholar
  6. Diaz, M., and Sligo, J. 1997. How software process improvement helped Motorola. IEEE Software 14(5): 75–81.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. El Emam, K., and Briand, L. 1997. Costs and Benefits of Software Process Improvement, International Software Engineering Research Network Technical Report ISERN-97-12.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, T., Beecham, S., and Rainer, A. 2002. Requirements problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. IEE proceedings Software.Google Scholar
  11. Halligan, R. 2000. TAA's SE Training Courseware, Halligan Corporation Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. ICRE1996: Ripe Fruit in RE: Techniques you can exploit NOW, Panel at the 2nd International Conference of Requirements Engineering, p. 42, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. ISO/IEC 15504. 1998. Information technology-Software process assessment, Technical report-Type 2.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, A. 1994. Software process improvement experience in the DP/MIS function. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  17. Kotonya, G., and Sommerville, I. 1997. Requirements Engineering Processes and Techniques. John Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Lauesen, S., and Vinters, O. 2001. Preventing requirements defects. Requirements Engineering Journal 6(1): 37–50.Google Scholar
  20. Macaulay, L. 1996. Requirements Engineering. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Quality standards: Quality management and quality assurance standards, Int. Org. for Standardization, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. SEI, 1995: Software Engineering Institute: The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. Sommerville, I. 2003. Private Communications.Google Scholar
  30. Sommerville, I., and Sawyer, P. 1997. Requirements Engineering, A Good Practice Guide. Wiley, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Damian
    • 1
  • Didar Zowghi
    • 2
  • Lakshminarayanan Vaidyanathasamy
    • 3
  • Yogendra Pal
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Victoria, BCBCCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Unisys Australia LimitedRhodesAustralia

Personalised recommendations