Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys

Published: 26 February 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Requirements Engineering (RE) has established itself as a software engineering discipline over the past decades. While researchers have been investigating the RE discipline with a plethora of empirical studies, attempts to systematically derive an empirical theory in context of the RE discipline have just recently been started. However, such a theory is needed if we are to define and motivate guidance in performing high quality RE research and practice.
We aim at providing an empirical and externally valid foundation for a theory of RE practice, which helps software engineers establish effective and efficient RE processes in a problem-driven manner.
We designed a survey instrument and an engineer-focused theory that was first piloted in Germany and, after making substantial modifications, has now been replicated in 10 countries worldwide. We have a theory in the form of a set of propositions inferred from our experiences and available studies, as well as the results from our pilot study in Germany. We evaluate the propositions with bootstrapped confidence intervals and derive potential explanations for the propositions.
In this article, we report on the design of the family of surveys, its underlying theory, and the full results obtained from the replication studies conducted in 10 countries with participants from 228 organisations. Our results represent a substantial step forward towards developing an empirical theory of RE practice. The results reveal, for example, that there are no strong differences between organisations in different countries and regions, that interviews, facilitated meetings and prototyping are the most used elicitation techniques, that requirements are often documented textually, that traces between requirements and code or design documents are common, that requirements specifications themselves are rarely changed and that requirements engineering (process) improvement endeavours are mostly internally driven.
Our study establishes a theory that can be used as starting point for many further studies for more detailed investigations. Practitioners can use the results as theory-supported guidance on selecting suitable RE methods and techniques.

References

[1]
Herman J. Adèr, Gideon J. Mellenbergh, and David J. Hand. 2008. Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant’s Companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing, Huizen, Netherlands.
[2]
Naveed Ali and Richard Lai. 2016. A method of requirements change management for global software development. Info. Softw. Technol. 70 (2016), 49--67.
[3]
Zeinab Alizadeh Barmi, Amir Hossein Ebrahimi, and Robert Feldt. 2011. Alignment of requirements specification and testing: A systematic mapping study. In Proceedings of the IEEE 4th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation Workshops (ICSTW’11). IEEE, 476--485.
[4]
Elizabeth Bjarnason. 2013. Distances between requirements engineering and later software development activities: A systematic map. In REFSQ 2013: Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 292--307.
[5]
Elizabeth Bjarnason, Per Runeson, Markus Borg, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Emelie Engström, Björn Regnell, Giedre Sabaliauskaite, Annabella Loconsole, Tony Gorschek, and Robert Feldt. 2014. Challenges and practices in aligning requirements with verification and validation: A case study of six companies. Empir. Softw. Eng. 19, 6 (2014), 1809--1855.
[6]
Elizabeth Bjarnason, Kari Smolander, Emelie Engström, and Per Runeson. 2016. A theory of distances in software engineering. Info. Softw. Technol. 70 (2016), 204--219.
[7]
Pierre Bourque, Richard E. Fairley, et al. 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK): Version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC.
[8]
Marco Brambilla, Jordi Cabot, and Manuel Wimmer. 2017. Model-Driven Engineering in Practice. Morgan 8 Claypool.
[9]
A. Brand, L. Allen, M. Altman, M. Hlava, and J. Scott. 2015. Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publish. 28 (2015), 151--155.
[10]
Manfred Broy. 2006. Requirements engineering as a key to holistic software quality. In Proceedings of the 21th International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences (ISCIS’06). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 24--34.
[11]
Mike Cohn. 2004. User Stories Applied for Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley.
[12]
Nelly Condori-Fernandez, Maya Daneva, Klaas Sikkel, Roel Wieringa, Oscar Dieste, and Oscar Pastor. 2009. A systematic mapping study on empirical evaluation of software requirements specifications techniques. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM’09). IEEE, 502--505.
[13]
Nelly Condori-Fernández, Maya Daneva, and Roel Wieringa. 2012. Preliminary Survey on Empirical Research Practices in Requirements Engineering. Technical Report TR-CTIT-12-10. University of Twente, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT).
[14]
Karl Cox, Mahmood Niazi, and June Verner. 2009. Empirical study of sommerville and sawyer’s requirements engineering practices. IET Softw. 3, 5 (2009), 339--355.
[15]
Geoff Cumming and Robert Calin-Jageman. 2017. Introduction to the New Statistics. Routledge.
[16]
Wayne W. Daniel. 2000. Applied Nonparametric Statistics (revised ed.). Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA.
[17]
Oscar Dieste and Natalia Juristo. 2011. Systematic review and aggregation of empirical studies on elicitation techniques. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37, 2 (2011), 283--304.
[18]
Albert Endres and Dieter Rombach. 2003. A Handbook of Software and Systems Engineering: Empirical Observations, Laws and Theories. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England.
[19]
Tracy Hall, Sarah Beecham, and Austen Rainer. 2003. Software process improvement problems in twelve software companies: An empirical analysis. Empir. Softw. Eng. 8, 1 (2003), 7--42.
[20]
Joe E. Hannay, Dag I. K. Sjøberg, and Tore Dyba. 2007. A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33, 2 (2007), 87--107.
[21]
Lenard Huff and Lane Kelley. 2003. Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist societies: A seven-nation study. Organiz. Sci. 14, 1 (2003), 81--90.
[22]
IEEE. 1998. IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications—IEEE Std 830-1998. Technical Standard IEEE Std 830-1998. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
[23]
Irum Inayat, Siti Salwah Salim, Sabrina Marczak, Maya Daneva, and Shahaboddin Shamshirband. 2015. A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51 (2015), 915--929.
[24]
Ivar Jacobson, Bertrand Meyer, and Richard Soley. 2009. The SEMAT initiative: A call for action. Dr. Dobb. J. 10 (2009).
[25]
Ivar Jacobson and Ian Spence. 2009. Why we need a theory for software engineering. Dr. Dobb. J. (2009).
[26]
Pontus Johnson and Mathias Ekstedt. 2016. The tarpit--a general theory of software engineering. Info. Softw. Technol. 70 (2016), 181--203.
[27]
Marcos Kalinowski, Michael Felderer, Tayana Conte, Rodrigo Spinola, Rafael Prikladnicki, Dietmar Winkler, Daniel. Méndez Fernández, and Stefan Wagner. 2016. Preventing incomplete/hidden requirements: Reflections on survey data from austria and brazil. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Quality: The Future of Systems and Software Development (SWQD’16). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 63--78.
[28]
Marcos Kalinowski, Rodrigo Spinola, Tayana Conte, Rafael Prikladnicki, Daniel Méndez Fernández, and Stefan Wagner. 2015. Towards building knowledge on causes of critical requirements engineering problems. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’15). KSI Research Inc. and Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School, 1--6.
[29]
Mayumi Itakura Kamata and Tetsuo Tamai. 2007. How does requirements quality relate to project success or failure? In Proceedings of the 15th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’07). IEEE, Washington, DC, 69--78.
[30]
Mohamad Kassab, Colin Neill, and Phillip Laplante. 2014. State of practice in requirements engineering: Contemporary data. Innovat. Syst. Softw. Eng. 10, 4 (2014), 235--241.
[31]
Marjo Kauppinen, Matti Vartiainen, Jyrki Kontio, Sari Kujala, and Reijo Sulonen. 2004. Implementing requirements engineering processes throughout organizations: Success factors and challenges. Info. Softw. Technol. 46, 14 (2004), 937--953.
[32]
Alessia Knauss, Daniela Damian, Xavier Franch, Angela Rook, Hausi A. Müller, and Alex Thomo. 2016. ACon: A learning-based approach to deal with uncertainty in contextual requirements at runtime. Info. Softw. Technol. 70 (2016), 85--99.
[33]
Philippe Kruchten. 2003. The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley Professional.
[34]
Grzegorz Loniewski, Emilio Insfran, and Silvia Abrahão. 2010. A systematic review of the use of requirements engineering techniques in model-driven development. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer, 213--227.
[35]
Clifford E. Lunneborg. 2001. Bootstrap inference for local populations. Drug Info. J. 35, 4 (2001), 1327--1342.
[36]
M. Mannio and U. Nikula. 2001. Requirements Elicitation Using a Combination of Prototypes and Scenarios. Technical Report. Telecom Business Research Center Lappeenranta.
[37]
Alistair Mavin, Philip Wilkinson, Sabine Teufl, Henning Femmer, Jonas Eckhardt, and Jakob Mund. 2017. Does goal-oriented requirements engineering achieve its goal? In Proceedings of the IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’17). IEEE.
[38]
Daniel Mendez, Stefan Wagner, Markus Kalinowski, Michael Felderer, Priscilla Mafra, Antonio Vetro, Tayana Conte, Marie-Therese Christiansson, Desmond Greer, Casper Lassenius, Tomi Männistö, Maleknaz Nayebi, Markku Oivo, Birgit Penzenstadler, Dietmar Pfahl, Rafael Prikladnicki, Guenther Ruhe, Andre Schekelmann, Sagar Sen, Rafael Spinola, Jose-Luis de la Vara, Ahmet Tuzcu, and Roel Wieringa. 2018. NaPiRE data set 2014.
[39]
Daniel Méndez Fernández and Birgit Penzenstadler. 2015. Artefact-based requirements engineering: The AMDiRE approach. Require. Eng. 20, 4 (2015), 405--434.
[40]
Daniel Méndez Fernández and Stefan Wagner. 2013. Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering—NaPiRE Report 2013. Technical Report TUM-I1326. Technische Universität München.
[41]
Daniel Méndez Fernández and Stefan Wagner. 2013. Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Design of a global family of surveys and first results from Germany. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE’13). ACM, New York, NY, 183--194.
[42]
Daniel Méndez Fernández and Stefan Wagner. 2015. Naming the pain in requirments engineering: A design for a global family of surveys and first results from Germany. Info. Softw. Technol. 57 (2015), 616--643.
[43]
Daniel Mendez Fernandez, Stefan Wagner, Marcos Kalinowski, Michael Felderer, Priscilla Mafra, Antonio Vetrò, Tayana Conte, Marie-Therese Christiansson, Desmond Greer, Casper Lassenius, Tomi Männistö, Maleknaz Nayebi, Markku Oivo, Birgit Penzenstadler, Dietmar Pfahl, Rafael Prikladnicki, Guenther Ruhe, André Schekelmann, Sagar Sen, Rodrigo Spinola, Ahmet Tuzcu, Jose Luis de la Vara, and Roel Wieringa. 2017. Naming the pain in requirements engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22, 5 (2017), 2298--2338.
[44]
Daniel Méndez Fernández, Stefan Wagner, Marcos Kalinowski, André Schekelmann, Ahmed Tuzcu, Tayana Conte, Rodrigo Spinola, and Rafael Prikladnicki. 2015. Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Comparing practices in Brazil and Germany. IEEE Softw. 32, 5 (2015), 16--23.
[45]
Daniel Mendez Fernandez, Stefan Wagner, Klaus Lochmann, Andrea Baumann, and Holger de Carne. 2012. Field study on requirements engineering: Investigation of artefacts, project parameters, and execution strategies. Info. Softw. Technol. 54, 2 (2012), 162--178.
[46]
Frederick Mosteller and Cleo Youtz. 1990. Quantifying probabilistic expressions. Statist. Sci. (1990), 2--12.
[47]
Nannette P. Napier, Lars Mathiassen, and Roy D. Johnson. 2009. Combining perceptions and prescriptions in requirements engineering process assessment: An industrial case study. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35, 5 (2009), 593--606.
[48]
Colin J. Neill and Philip A. Laplante. 2003. Requirements engineering: The state of the practice. IEEE Softw. 20, 6 (2003), 40--45.
[49]
Uolevi Nikula, Jorma Sajaniemi, and Heikki Kälviäinen. 2000. A State-of-the-practice Survey on Requirements Engineering in Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises. Research Report 951-764-431-0. Telecom Business Research Center Lappeenranta.
[50]
Bashar Nuseibeh and Steve Easterbrook. 2000. Requirements engineering: A roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering. ACM, 35--46.
[51]
Cristina Palomares, Carme Quer, and Xavier Franch. 2017. Requirements reuse and requirement patterns: A state of the practice survey. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22, 6 (2017), 2719--2762.
[52]
Viktor Pekar, Michael Felderer, and Ruth Breu. 2014. Improvement methods for software requirement specifications: A mapping study. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC’14). IEEE, 242--245.
[53]
Fredrik Pettersson, Martin Ivarsson, Tony Gorschek, and Peter Öhman. 2008. A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. J. Syst. Softw. 81, 6 (2008), 972--995.
[54]
Fredrik Pettersson, Martin Ivarsson, Tony Gorschek, and Peter Öhman. 2008. A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. J. Syst. Softw. 81, 6 (2008), 972--995.
[55]
Balasubramansiam Ramesh and Matthias Jarke. 2001. Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27, 1 (2001), 58--93.
[56]
Dag I. K. Sjøberg, Tore Dybå, Bente C. D. Anda, and Jo E. Hannay. 2008. Building theories in software engineering. In Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 312--336.
[57]
Ian Sommerville and Peter Sawyer. 1997. Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
[58]
Ian Sommerville, Peter Sawyer, and Stephen Viller. 1998. Viewpoints for requirements elicitation: A practical approach. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering: Putting Requirements Engineering to Practice (ICRE’98). IEEE, Washington, DC, 74--81.
[59]
Mark Staples, Mahmood Niazi, Ross Jeffery, Alan Abrahams, Pyatt Byatt, and Russel Murphy. 2007. An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 6 (2007), 883--895.
[60]
Klaas-Jan Stol and Brian Fitzgerald. 2015. Theory-oriented software engineering. Sci. Comput. Program. 101 (2015), 79--98.
[61]
Stefan Wagner, Daniel Méndez-Fernández, Marcos Kalinowski, and Michael Felderer. 2018. Agile requirements engineering in practice: Status quo and critical problems. CLEI Electron. J. 21, 1 (2018).
[62]
Roel J. Wieringa. 2014. Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[63]
Claes Wohlin, Darja Šmite, and Nils Brede Moe. 2015. A general theory of software engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 109 (2015), 229--242.
[64]
Rebekka Wohlrab, Patrizio Pelliccione, Eric Knauss, and Sarah C. Gregory. 2018. The problem of consolidating RE practices at scale. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ’18). Springer.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Second Look at the Impact of Passive Voice Requirements on Domain Modeling: Bayesian Reanalysis of an ExperimentProceedings of the 1st IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering10.1145/3643664.3648211(27-33)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Impostor Phenomenon in Software EngineersProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society10.1145/3639475.3640114(96-106)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Towards a Method for Modelling Socio-Technical Process Transformation in Digital Agriculture2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)10.1109/REW61692.2024.00046(306-315)Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology  Volume 28, Issue 2
April 2019
255 pages
ISSN:1049-331X
EISSN:1557-7392
DOI:10.1145/3316413
  • Editor:
  • Mauro Pezzè
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 February 2019
Accepted: 01 December 2018
Revised: 01 November 2018
Received: 01 May 2018
Published in TOSEM Volume 28, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Requirements engineering
  2. replication
  3. survey research
  4. theory

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy
  • Austrian National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development
  • IREB
  • CNPq
  • Estonian Research Council
  • Fapergs

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)172
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19
Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Second Look at the Impact of Passive Voice Requirements on Domain Modeling: Bayesian Reanalysis of an ExperimentProceedings of the 1st IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering10.1145/3643664.3648211(27-33)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Impostor Phenomenon in Software EngineersProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society10.1145/3639475.3640114(96-106)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Towards a Method for Modelling Socio-Technical Process Transformation in Digital Agriculture2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)10.1109/REW61692.2024.00046(306-315)Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Model Generation with LLMs: From Requirements to UML Sequence Diagrams2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)10.1109/REW61692.2024.00044(291-300)Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Measuring the Fitness-for-Purpose of Requirements: An initial Model of Activities and Attributes2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)10.1109/RE59067.2024.00047(398-406)Online publication date: 24-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Requirements quality research artifacts: Recovery, analysis, and management guidelineJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112120216(112120)Online publication date: Oct-2024
  • (2024)Identifying concerns when specifying machine learning-enabled systems: A perspective-based approachJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112053213(112053)Online publication date: Jul-2024
  • (2024)Secure software design evaluation and decision making model for ubiquitous computingComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2023.108109153:COnline publication date: 12-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Automatic user story generation: a comprehensive systematic literature reviewInternational Journal of Data Science and Analytics10.1007/s41060-024-00567-0Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • (2024)A natural language-based method to specify privacy requirements: an evaluation with practitionersRequirements Engineering10.1007/s00766-024-00428-z29:3(279-301)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media