Advertisement

Agile Requirement Engineering Maturity Framework for Industry 4.0

  • Samaa Elnagar
  • Heinz Weistroffer
  • Manoj Thomas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 341)

Abstract

Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is changing business models and processes. I4.0 uses innovative trends such as Big Data, Cloud Computing, and Internet of things (IOT) to maximize economic benefits and return on investments. However, developing an I4.0 project may be costly, complex and risky for some companies. Therefore, careful requirements definition and mature Requirement Engineering (RE) processes are necessary. Undeveloped RE processes and poorly defined business requirements will often result in an inferior or a cancelled project. In addition, to ensure agility and allow for iterative changes in developing projects for I4.0, agile methodologies should be applied and prudently assessed. Unfortunately, most of existing assessment models are narrow focused and lack theoretical foundation and proper validation. This research proposes a comprehensive maturity framework called agile Requirement Engineering Maturity Model for Industry 4.0 (ARE-MMI4.0). The framework provides assessment of the minimum maturity levels to start a project for I4.0. The framework integrates an I4.0 maturity model with RE and agile maturity models to ensure the ultimate maturity assessment for the business processes.

Keywords

Industry 4.0 Agile Requirements engineering Maturity models integration 

References

  1. 1.
    Roblek, V., Meško, M., Krapež, A.: A complex view of industry 4.0. SAGE Open 6, 2158244016653987 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vogel-Heuser, B., Hess, D.: Guest editorial industry 4.0–prerequisites and visions. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 13, 411–413 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schumacher, A., Erol, S., Sihn, W.: A maturity model for assessing industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Proc. CIRP 52, 161–166 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thames, L., Schaefer, D.: Software-defined cloud manufacturing for industry 4.0. Proc. CIRP 52, 12–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schlick, J., Stephan, P., Loskyll, M., Lappe, D.: Industrie 4.0 in der praktischen Anwendung. In: Bauernhansl, T., ten Hompel, M., Vogel-Heuser, B. (eds.) Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik, pp. 57–84. Springer, Wiesbaden (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04682-8_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pfeiffer, S.: Robots, industry 4.0 and humans, or why assembly work is more than routine work. Societies 6, 16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    El Sawy, O.A., Malhotra, A., Park, Y., Pavlou, P.A.: Research commentary—seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: it takes three to tango. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 835–848 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leyh, C., Bley, K., Schäffer, T., Bay, L.: The application of the maturity model SIMMI 4.0 in selected enterprises (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu, Y.: Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 6, 1–10 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lukac, D.: The fourth ICT-based industrial revolution “Industry 4.0”, HMI and the case of CAE/CAD innovation with EPLAN P8, pp. 835–838 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scheuermann, C., Verclas, S., Bruegge, B.: Agile factory-an example of an industry 4.0 manufacturing process. In: 2015 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, Networks, and Applications (CPSNA), pp. 43–47. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Comuzzi, M., Patel, A.: How organisations leverage big data: a maturity model. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116, 1468–1492 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang, S., et al.: A general maturity model and reference architecture for SaaS service. In: Kitagawa, H., Ishikawa, Y., Li, Q., Watanabe, C. (eds.) DASFAA 2010. LNCS, vol. 5982, pp. 337–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12098-5_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erol, S., Schumacher, A., Sihn, W.: Strategic guidance towards industry 4.0–a three-stage process model. In: International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M.: Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bondar, S., Hsu, J.C., Pfouga, A., Stjepandić, J.: Agile digital transformation of system-of-systems architecture models using Zachman framework. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 7, 33–43 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berre, A.J., et al.: The ATHENA interoperability framework. In: Gonçalves, R.J., Müller, J.P., Mertins, K., Zelm, M. (eds.) Enterprise Interoperability II. Springer, London (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-858-6_62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glazer, H., Dalton, J., Anderson, D., Konrad, M.D., Shrum, S.: CMMI or agile: why not embrace both! (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torrecilla-Salinas, C., Sedeño, J., Escalona, M., Mejías, M.: Agile, web engineering and capability maturity model integration: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 71, 92–107 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sommerville, I., Ransom, J.: An empirical study of industrial requirements engineering process assessment and improvement. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 14, 85–117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niazi, M., Cox, K., Verner, J.: A measurement framework for assessing the maturity of requirements engineering process. Softw. Qual. J. 16, 213–235 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Software process improvement problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. Empir. Softw. Eng. 8, 7–42 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gorschek, T., Svahnberg, M., Tejle, K.: Introduction and application of a lightweight requirements engineering process. In: Ninth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C.P. Team: CMMI for development, version 1.2 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sidky, A., Arthur, J., Bohner, S.: A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework. Innovations Syst. Softw. Eng. 3, 203–216 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stojanov, I., Turetken, O., Trienekens, J.J.: A maturity model for scaling agile development. In: 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 446–453. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lichtblau, K., et al.: Studie: industrie 4.0 readiness (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing maturity models for IT management. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1, 213–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Posada, J., et al.: Visual computing as a key enabling technology for industrie 4.0 and industrial internet. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 35, 26–40 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M.: What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In: ECIS, p. 28 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Checkland, P., Scholes, J.: Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R.L.: Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q. 19, 213–236 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Karokola, G., Kowalski, S., Yngstrom, L.: Secure e-government services: towards a framework for integrating IT security services into e-government maturity models. In: Information Security South Africa (ISSA), pp. 1–9. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samaa Elnagar
    • 1
  • Heinz Weistroffer
    • 1
  • Manoj Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia Commonwealth University, Information SystemsRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations