Skip to main content

Improving Requirements Engineering by Artefact Orientation

  • Conference paper
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 7983))

Abstract

The importance of continuously improving requirements engineering (RE) has been recognised for many years. Similar to available software process improvement approaches, most RE improvement approaches focus on a normative and solution-driven assessment of companies rather than on a problem-driven RE improvement. The approaches dictate the implementation of a one-size-fits-all reference model without doing a proper problem investigation first, whereas the notion of quality factually depends on whether RE achieves company-specific goals. The approaches furthermore propagate process areas and methods, without proper awareness of the quality in the created artefacts on which the quality of many development phases rely. Little knowledge exists about how to conduct a problem-driven RE improvement that gives attention to the improvement of the artefacts. A promising solution is to start an improvement with an empirical investigation of the RE stakeholders, goals, and artefacts in the company to identify problems while abstracting from inherently complex processes. The RE improvement is then defined and implemented in joint action research workshops with the stakeholders to validate potential solutions while again concentrating on the artefacts. In this paper, we contribute an artefact-based, problem-driven RE improvement approach that emerged from a series of completed RE improvements. We discuss lessons learnt and present first result from an ongoing empirical evaluation at a German company. Our results suggest that our approach supports process engineers in a problem-driven RE improvement, but we need deeper examination of the resulting RE company standard, which is in scope of the final evaluation.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Napier, N., Mathiassen, L., Johnson, R.: Combining Perceptions and Prescriptions in Requirements Engineering Process Assessment: An Industrial Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(5), 593–606 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S.: Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering: Design of a global Family of Surveys and first Results from Germany. In: EASE 2013, pp. 183–194. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R.: An Exploratory Study of why Organizations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software 80(6), 883–895 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pettersson, F., Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T., Öhman, P.: A practitioner’s Guide to light weight Software Process Assessment and Improvement Planning. Journal of Systems and Software 81(6), 972–995 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fernandez, D., Penzenstadler, B., Kuhrmann, M.: Pattern-based Guideline to Empirically Analyse Software Development Processes. In: EASE 2012, pp. 136–145. IET (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Baumann, A., de Carne, H.: Field Study on Requirements Engineering: Investigation of Artefacts, Project Parameters, and Execution Strategies. Information and Software Technology 54(2), 162–178 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Defining a Requirements Process Improvement Model. Software Quality Journal 13(3), 247–279 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Saeki, M., Versendaal, J.: Process Improvement in Requirements Management: A Method Engineering Approach. In: Rolland, C. (ed.) REFSQ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5025, pp. 6–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Beecham, S., Hall, T., Britton, C., Cottee, M., Austen, R.: Using an Expert Panel to Validate A Requirements Process Improvement Model. Journal of Systems and Software 76, 251–275 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Seaman, C.: Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 557–572 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wieringa, R.: Relevance and problem choice in design science. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 61–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Méndez Fernández, D., Penzenstadler, B., Kuhrmann, M., Broy, M.: A Meta Model for Artefact-Orientation: Fundamentals and Lessons Learned in Requirements Engineering. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Méndez Fernández, D. Lochmann, K., Penzenstadler, B., Wagner, S.: A Case Study on the Application of an Artefact-Based Requirements Engineering Approach. In: EASE 2011, pp. 104–113. IET (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Case Study Research in Software Engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14(2), 131–164 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Méndez Fernández, D., Kuhrmann, M.: Artefact-Based Requirements Engineering and its Integration into a Process Framework. Technical Report TUM-I0929, Technische Universität München (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wieringa, R., Aycse, M.: Technical Action Research as a Validation Method in Information Systems Design Science. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 220–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Davison, R., Martinsons, M.G., Kock, N.: Principles of Canonical Action Research. Information Systems Journal 14(1), 65–86 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Méndez Fernández, D., Wieringa, R. (2013). Improving Requirements Engineering by Artefact Orientation. In: Heidrich, J., Oivo, M., Jedlitschka, A., Baldassarre, M.T. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7983. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39259-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39259-7_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39258-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39259-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics