A Case Study on a Hybrid Approach to Assessing the Maturity of Requirements Engineering Practices in Agile Projects (REMMA)

  • Mirosław Ochodek
  • Sylwia KopczyńskaEmail author
  • Jerzy Nawrocki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12011)


Context: Requirements Engineering (RE) is one of the key processes in software development. With the advent of agile software development methods, new challenges have emerged for traditional, prescriptive maturity models aiming to support the improvement of RE process. One of the main problems is that frequently the guidelines prescribed by agile approaches have to be adapted to a project’s context to provide benefits. Therefore, it might be naive to believe that it is possible to propose a prescriptive method of RE process improvement that will suit all agile projects without any alteration. Objective: The aim of the paper is to evaluate a hybrid approach to assessing the maturity of agile RE (REMMA), which combines elements of prescriptive and problem-oriented improvement methods. Method: The usefulness, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness of REMMA were investigated through a case study performed in one of the biggest software houses in Central Europe. Results: The results of the case study suggest that the method seems easy to use, affordable, and is perceived as a useful tool to support the process of improving RE practices in agile projects. Its feature of taking into account the dependencies between practices and the necessity to adapt them to a certain project context was regarded as well suited for the agile context. Conclusions: REMMA, which includes two main components: a maturity model for agile RE (a set of state-of-the-art agile RE practices) and an assessment method that makes it possible to evaluate how well the agile RE practices are implemented, seems to be a useful tool supporting improvement of RE in agile projects.


Requirements Engineering Process assessment Process maturity Process improvement Agile 



We thank the employees of Company for the participation in the study. We especially thank Maciej Dziergwa, Oliwia Gogolewska, Jakub Jurkiewicz, Sebastian Kalinowski, Michał Kwiatkowski, Klaudia Prasek, and Dariusz Śmigiel.


  1. 1.
    Beck, K., Andres, C.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, K., et al.: The Agile Manifesto. Accessed 28 Aug 2015
  3. 3.
    Brodman, J.G., Johnson, D.L.: Return on Investment (ROI) from software process improvement as measured by US industry. Softw. Process: Improv. Pract. 1(1), 35–47 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charette, R.N.: Why software fails. IEEE Spectr. 42(9), 36 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damian, D., Zowghi, D., Vaidyanathasamy, L., Pal, Y.: An industrial case study of immediate benefits of requirements engineering process improvement at the Australian center for Unisys software. Empir. Softw. Eng. 9, 45–75 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elshandidy, H., Mazen, S.: Agile and traditional requirements engineering: a survey. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4(9), 473–482 (2013) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kappelman, L.A., McKeeman, R., Zhang, L.: Early warning signs of it project failure: the dominant dozen. Inf. Syst. Manag. 23(4), 31–36 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    May, L.: Major causes of software project failures. CrossTalk-J. Defense Softw. Eng. 11(7), 9–12 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ochodek, M., Kopczyńska, S., Nawrocki, J.: A hybrid approach to assessing the maturity of Requirements Engineering practices in agile projects (REMMA).
  11. 11.
    Patel, C., Ramachandran, M.: Agile maturity model (AMM): a software process improvement framework for agile software development practices. Int. J. Softw. Eng. IJSE 2(1), 3–28 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petersen, K., Wohlin, C.: Context in industrial software engineering research. In: Proceedings of ESEM, pp. 401–404. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Runeson, P., Host, M., Rainer, A., Regnell, B.: Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples. Wiley, Hokoben (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The Scrum Guide™. The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game. (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sidky, A.: A structured approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework. Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Commission of the European Communities: Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verner, J., Cox, K., Bleistein, S., Cerpa, N.: Requirements engineering and software project success: an industrial survey in Australia and the US. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 13(1), 1–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Poznan University of TechnologyPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations