A Model for Requirements Change Management: Implementation of CMMI Level 2 Specific Practice

  • Mahmood Niazi
  • Charles Hickman
  • Rashid Ahmad
  • Muhammad Ali Babar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5089)


OBJECTIVE – The objective of this research is to implement CMMI Level 2 specific practice – SP 1.3-1 manage requirements changes. In this paper we have proposed a model for requirements change management and also discussed initial validation of this model. This model is based on both an empirical study that we have carried out and our extensive literature review of software process improvement (SPI) and requirements engineering (RE).

METHOD – For data collection we have interviewed SPI experts from reputed organisations. Further work includes analysing research articles, published experience reports and case studies. The initial evaluation of the model was performed via an expert review process.

RESULTS – Our model is based on five core elements identified from literature and interviews: request, validate, implement, verify and update. Within each of these elements we have identified specific activities that need to take place during requirements change management process.

CONCLUSIONS – The initial evaluation of the model shows that the requirements change management model is clear, easy to use and can effectively manage the requirements change process. However, more case studies are needed to evaluate this model in order to further evaluate its effectiveness in the domain of RE process.


Requirement Engineering Software Project Technology Acceptance Model Requirement Engineer Specific Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Leung, H.: Slow change of information system development practice. Software quality journal 8(3), 197–210 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SEI: Process Maturity Profile. Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: Critical Barriers for SPI Implementation: An empirical study. In: IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering (SE 2004), Austria, pp. 389–395 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: Critical Success Factors for Software Process Improvement: An Empirical Study. Software Process Improvement and Practice Journal 11(2), 193–211 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: Implementing Software Process Improvement Initiatives: An empirical study. In: The 7th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement. LNCS, pp. 222–233 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SEI: Process maturity profile of the software community. Software Engineering Institute (2002) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ngwenyama, O., Nielsen, P.v.: Competing values in software process improvement: An assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspective. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 50, 100–112 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El Emam, K., Madhavji, H.N.: A Field Study of Requirements Engineering Practices in Information Systems Development. In: Second International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 68–80 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Standish-Group: Chaos: A Recipe for Success. Standish Group International (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Standish-Group: Chaos - the state of the software industry. Standish group international technical report, pp. 1–11 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Standish-Group: Chaos - the state of the software industry (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall, T., Beecham, S., Rainer, A.: Requirements Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis. IEE Proceedings - Software, 153–160 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kamsties, E., Hormann, K., Schlich, M.: Requirements Engineering in Small and Medium Enterprises. Requirements Engineering 3(2), 84–90 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nikula, U., Fajaniemi, J., Kalviainen, H.: Management View on Current Requirements Engineering Practices in Small and Medium Enterprises. In: Fifth Australian Workshop on Requirements Engineering, pp. 81–89 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements Engineering: a roadmap. In: 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 35–46 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siddiqi, J., Chandra, S.: Requirements Engineering: The Emerging Wisdom. IEEE Software 13(2), 15–19 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Software Process Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis. Empirical software engineering 8, 7–42 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niazi, M.: An empirical study for the improvement of requirements engineering process. In: The 17th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China July 14-16, pp. 396–399 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alexander, I., Stevens, R.: Writing Better Requirements. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoffmann, H., Lehner, F.: Requirements Engineering as a Success Factor in Software Projects. IEEE Software, 58–66 (July/August 2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chatzoglou, P., Macaulay, L.: Requirements Capture and Analysis: A Survey of Current Practice. Requirements Engineering Journal 1, 75–87 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    MacDonell, S., Shepperd, M.: Using Prior-Phase Effort Records for Re-estimation During Software Projects. In: 9th Int. Symp on Software Metrics, Sydney, Australia, September 3-5, 2003, pp. 73–86 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barry, E.J., Mukhopadhyay, T., Slaughter, S.A.: Software Project Duration and Effort: An Empirical Study. Information Technology and Management 3(1-2), 113–136 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N.: A study of the impact of requirements volatility on software project performance. In: Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 3–11 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pfahl, D., Lebsanft, K.: Using simulation to analyse the impact of software requirement volatility on project performance. Information and Software Technology Journal 42, 1001–1008 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferreira, S., Collofello, J., Shunk, D., Mackulak, G., Wolfe, P.: Utilization of Process Modeling and Simulation in Understanding the Effects of Requirements Volatility in Software Development. In: International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling (ProSim 2003), Portland, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stark, G., Skillicorn, A., Ameele, R.: An Examination of the Effects of Requirements Changes on Software Maintenance Releases. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 11, 293–309 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N., Powell, S.: The Impact of Requirements Volatility on Software Development Lifecycle. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering Conference, Australian, pp. 28–37 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University, Technical ReportTR/SE0401 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chrissis, M., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Creswell, J.: Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage, London (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Requirements Engineering Processes and Techniques. John Wiley, Chichester (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Niazi, M., Cox, K., Verner, J.: An empirical study identifying high perceived value requirements engineering practices. In: Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD 2005), Karlstad University, Sweden, August 15-17 (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Niazi, M., Cox, K., Verner, J.: A Measurement Framework for Assessing the Maturity of Requirements Engineering Process. Software Quality Journal ( in press for publication, 2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Building a requirements process improvement model. Department of Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Technical report No: 378 (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mäkäräinen, M.: Application management requirements for embedded software. Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT Publications 286 (1996)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Olsen, N.: The software rush hour. IEEE Software, 29–37 (September 1993)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ince, D.: Introduction to software quality assurance and its implementation. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: A Maturity Model for the Implementation of Software Process Improvement: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software 74(2), 155–172 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Beecham, S. and Hall, T.: Expert panel questionnaire: Validating a requirements process improvement model (May 2003),
  43. 43.
    Rainer, A., Hall, T.: Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems & Software (62), 71–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Niazi, M.: A Framework for Assisting the Design of Effective Software Process Improvement Implementation Strategies, PhD thesis, University of Technology Sydney (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmood Niazi
    • 1
  • Charles Hickman
    • 1
  • Rashid Ahmad
    • 2
  • Muhammad Ali Babar
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsKeele UniversityUK
  2. 2.College of EMENational University of Science & TechnologyRawalpindiPakistan
  3. 3.LeroUniversity of LimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations