SwissQ Requirements Trends &Benchmarks Switzerland 2012Where are we now – where are we going to?
TABLE OF CONTENTS                                SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 2        3   EDITORIAL      ...
EDITORIAL                                                                                                                 ...
TRENDWAVE 2012                                                                                                            ...
KEY MESSAGES                                                                            SwissQ Requirements Trends & Bench...
PROJECTS                                                                                                                  ...
QUALITY                                                                                                                   ...
EFFORT                                                                                                                 Swi...
MATURITY LEVEL AND SUCCESS FACTORS                                                                                        ...
ORGANIZATION AND TRAINING                                                                                                 ...
AGILE REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING                                                                                            ...
CHALLENGES                                                                                                                ...
TOOLS                                                                                                              SwissQ ...
FRAME OF SURVEY                                                                                                           ...
TRENDS  BENCHMARKS REPORTS 2012 FOR TESTING AND AGILE                                                                     ...
ABOUT USSwissQ supports its clients in the development and implementation of IT-solutions andassures that the end users ge...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Agile and Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 (Englisch)

945 views
828 views

Published on

Diese Prezi Präsentation wurde anlässlich der Vorstellung der Resultate der Agile Trends und Benchmarks 2012 und Requirements Trends und Benchmarks 2012 gehalten. Erfahren Sie Zahlen zu der Verwendung von Scrum oder wo die Unternehmen die grössten Probleme im Requirements Engineering sehen.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
945
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
209
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Agile and Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 (Englisch)

  1. 1. SwissQ Requirements Trends &Benchmarks Switzerland 2012Where are we now – where are we going to?
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 2 3 EDITORIAL 4 TRENDWAVE 2012 5 KEY MESSAGES 6 PROJECTS 7 QUALITY 8 EFFORT 9 MATURITY LEVEL AND SUCCESS FACTORS 10 ORGANIZATION AND TRAINING 11 AGILE REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING 12 CHALLENGES 13 TOOLS 14 FRAME OF SURVEY 15 TESTING AND AGILE
  3. 3. EDITORIAL SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 3“The only constant in the universe is change.”Over 2500 years ago, Heraclitus from Ephesus already hit the nail right on the head. In order for you to have an overview of these changesand to be able to systematically shape the process of change, SwissQ created the “Requirements Trends & Benchmarks Report“ at hand. Thereport is based on a survey completed by over 300 participants from the Swiss IT Community. In addition, we also personally interviewednumerous IT decision makers from various companies, branches, and regions about the current trends. From this developed a representativeoverview about the current state of Requirements Engineering (RE) in Switzerland in the year 2012 and an outlook on the most importantfuture trends. Let yourself be surprised by the interesting results.Also in Switzerland, only 35 % of all projects are finished in scope, in time and It leads to discontent with the RE if this prioritization is not or only insufficientlyin budget. These results approximate to the international situation as published carried out (30 % believe the maturity level of their RE to be weak or very weak).in the “Chaos Report“ by the Standish Group. The situation has improved slightly Here lies the task of the requirements engineers (or the business analysts,compared to previous surveys but still a majority of the projects are threatened by product owners, etc.) to use appropriate methods to get the estimates from thefailure. The reasons are many and varied. stakeholders.The systematic analysis of stakeholders for example – who, by the way, are a Another reason for insufficient RE is the inappropriate use of tools. Most res-central source for requirements – seems to be a necessary evil instead of a success pondents (>85 %) still use Microsoft Office for RE tasks. It is obvious that thefactor for many respondents. Around 1/3 does not invest any time into this traceability poses the biggest challenge here (see p.12). Integrated tools, so calledanalysis as the stakeholders are assumed to be a given. It is therefore not application lifecycle management tools are increasingly important as proposedsurprising that almost 70 % are not or only somewhat satisfied with the elicitation solutions. Sooner or later, the tools question for an efficient process support in REof requirements. The insight that the stakeholder analysis is important for the will become a focus because of the increasing complexity and range of functionssuccess of the project doesn‘t seem to be really established, it only came in in of applications.fifth place in the poll. So it seems only logical that ever changing or growingrequirements for the system are named as the a reason for insufficient As Heraclitus already noted, the world is in constant motion. With the SwissQrequirements by over 75 % of all respondents. Trend Wave® (well-known from the Testing Trends & Benchmarks) you can see the changes in the RE market. Together with other results from this report they areThe missing business value of requirements – In addition to insufficient a guide through this storm of changes. This report will therefore be published onrequirements – poses a problem for over 50 % of the respondents. This is very a regular basis in the future. In that sense, SwissQ wishes you many interestingsurprising especially since agile methods have been introduced in businesses long insights and hopes you enjoy the reading.ago (75 % of all respondents have already worked with agile methods) and thefocus on business value is a central element of agile projects. Meanwhile, testedtechniques are on the market – such as for example “Priority Poker“ by SwissQ –which can efficiently prioritize requirements according to their business value.
  4. 4. TRENDWAVE 2012 SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 4 INTRODUCTION GROWTH MATURITY DECLINEPRIORITY RE Processes/Roles RE Pools IREB CPRE FL Use Case Specifications ALM Tools RE Mgmt Tools MoSCoW Phrase Templates Prioritization Requirements Modeling RE Workshops Agile RE Business Value Reviews Planguage IREB CPRE AL IIBA CBAP Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) RE Outsourcing TIME INTRODUCTION – This topic has been GROWTH – This topic is more and MATURITY – Most companies are DECLINE – The topic has already been identified and some companies are more accepted and many companies working on the implementation implemented by most of the deploying initial implementations. are considering it. The first tools are or have already completed it. The companies, with the exception of However, it cannot be foreseen being developed and consultancy knowledge of this topic is often individual latecomers. Often, there whether this trend will positively firms offer services for the same. widespread, resulting in sub-topics is no more added value in acquiring advance and whether testing will be Often risks are associated due to being raised. further knowledge in these areas, considerably influenced. limited implementation experience. since it will become obsolete shortly.
  5. 5. KEY MESSAGES SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 5 1 Only 25 % of all respondents think their requirements engineering is good or excellent. The most important improvement measure named is the standardization of 2 Top strategic goals in 2012 are Agile Requirements Engineering and Business Process Driven Requirements. Agility is on the rise here as well. 3 Modelling requirements and defining acceptance criteria are named as the most important success factors. requirements processes and tools. 4 Requirements Engineering has a low priority in companies or is even regarded as a necessary evil according to almost half of all respondents. 5 The professional image of a Requirements Engineers / Business Analyst seems to be established on the market. This is also partly due to the training that has been 6 More and more is being invested into the collaboration between Business and IT, and into the training and the standardization of requirements processes. standardized by IREB in the past All this at the cost of outsourcing five years. and the building of organisational Requirements Engineering units. 7 Over 36 % do not check their requirements for need whereas functionality and feasibility are checked by more than 80%. 8 Over 2/3 invest less than a day in the stakeholder analysis. This is surprising since the stakeholder analysis is generally considered an important success factor. 9 Misunderstandings in commu- nication and the ever changing requirements for the complete system are the key reasons for insufficient requirements.
  6. 6. PROJECTS SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 6Project Type70 % of all projects are new developments or updates of an existingsoftware. >50 % of the respondents describe the starting situation of their projects as satisfying or insufficient related to 12 % 8% New development Estimation Planning 39 % Update of existing software Definition of requirements 10 % Migration Realistic expectations Implementation of standard software 31 % Operation, support, maintainance, re-design Project Success Just over a third of all projects are finished with the expected functionality, within the expected timeframe and within budget.Project Size (in Swiss Francs) 40 % 51 % 35.1 % 30 % 40 % 39.2 % 25.1 % 20 % 18.1 % 17.5 % 20 % 10 % 4.1 % 10.8 % 0 % Project Proj. finished Proj. finished Project Project finished in with budget with major extended / stopped 0 % time, budget and / or time functional rescheduled up to 1 Mio up to 20 Mio more than and overruns changes 20 Mio functionality
  7. 7. QUALITY SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 7Classic Mistakes in Requirements Acceptance Criteria for RequirementsLinguistic mistakes are still the most commonly named problem inrequirements. It is very surprising that despite agile methods on the In over Overrise the missing business value remains a problem in (too) many cases. Language mistakes: incomprehensibility, 17.0 % 57.5 % 25.5 % 80 % Requirements are checked for 36 % of all respondents rarely or ambiguousness, unquantifiability functional accuracy, feasibility never check requirements for and completeness. their need. Content mistakes: wrong facts, 15.1 % 58.5 % 26.4 % incompleteness Logical mistakes: inconsistency, 12.0 % 49.1 % 38.9 % redundancy Reasons for Insufficient Requirements Systematic mistakes: missing business value/ 5.8 % 46.2 % 48.1 % benefit for the project Misunderstandings in communication 12.3 % 65.1 % 22.6 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Growing or changing requirements always often rarely/never of whole system 20.4 % 56.5 % 23.1 % Formulations too abstract (need more details, be more clear) 19.8 % 50.9 % 29.2 % New insights (pilot operation, prototype, etc.) 8.7 % 49.0 % 42.3 % Missing business In Changes in boundary conditions 75 % value is a problem (prioritization, etc.) 11.1 % 43.5 % 45.4 % in more than 50 % Feasibility wrongly assessed 26.7 % 70.5 % of the projects, Changes in stakeholder structure 23.6 % 73.6 % linguistic mistakes of all projects. in requirements are 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % a problem. always often rarely/never
  8. 8. EFFORT SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 8RE Effort in Proportion to Total Project Effort The Most Important Sources for REThere is no clear tendency when measuring the RE effort compared to the As expected, customers and users are the most important source fortotal project effort. Depending on the project, a lot or very little is being requirements.invested in RE. 25 % 23.5 % Sponsors/ 20 % Customers 19.6 % and Users 17.6 % Existing Product/ 15 % 15.7 % 14.7 % 51 % Software Regulations & 21 % Legal Requirements Designers & Developers Others 10 % 14 % 6 % 8 % 6.9 % 5 % 2.0 % 0 % < 5 % 5- 10 - 15 - 20 - 30 - above Effort for Stakeholder Analysis 10 % 15 % 20 % 30 % 50 % 2/3 of all respondents invest less than a day in the stakeholder analysis. RE effort proportional to total project effort 6.3 % No effort because it‘s a given 50  % 37.3 % Less than 1 man-day 30.9 % 1-5 man-days of the respondents use less than 15 % More than 5 man-days of the total project effort for requirements engineering. 25.5 %
  9. 9. MATURITY LEVEL AND SUCCESS FACTORS SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 9Maturity Level of RE in Projects Most Important Success FactorsOnlyl 1/4 of the respondents rate their RE as good or excellent. The modelling of requirements and the compiling of acceptance criteria are the most important success factors in RE. Compilation of 25.5 % 43.6 % 22.7 % 8.2 % acceptance criteria Structured reviews Modeling of Good/excellent Medium Weak Very weak requirements Clean stakeholder analysis Use of defined RE processesSatisfaction Measures for Quality ImprovementsThe process of eliciting and analysing requirements is barely satisfactory Well trained employees and the establishment of standardized processes are thebut the biggest problems seem to lie in managing them. most important measures to improve the RE quality. Internal/further education and training 28.2 % 50.9 % 20.9 % Analyse 35.5 % 46.4 % 18.2 % Establishment of standard RE processes 42.3 % 36.5 % 21.2 % Establishment of internal 36.4 % 38.3 % 25.2 % 31.2 % 48.6 % 20.2 % templates/standards Elicit Establishment of standard tools 33.0 % % 34.9 % 32.1 % Verify 22.0 % 50.5 % 27.5 % Specific recruiting of RE/BA 16.2 % 48.6 % 35.2 % Defined specialist career for RE/BA 26.2 % 24.3 % 49.5 %Document 30.0 % 38.2 % 31.8 % Systematic IREB training 11.9 % 29.7 % 58.4 % Employment of external specialists 25.0 % 69.2 % Manage 17.4 % 36.7 % 45.9 % Systematic IIBA training 7.1 % 85.9 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Satisfying Medium Unsatisfying Planned Done Not planned
  10. 10. ORGANIZATION AND TRAINING SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 10Who Executes RE? TrainingsThe role of the Requirements Engineer is recognized and will be assigned with The IREB® CPRE Foundation Level seems to be part of the standard repertoirethe appropriate tasks regardless of the company size. of RE/BAs. The future focus lies with the IREB® CPRE Advanced Levels and the Business Analysis, as well as with Agile RE. I already have it It is planned In the not too distant future No issue Requirements Engineer Product 63 % 18 % 17 % Manager / IREB® CPRE (Foundation Level) 40 % Product Project Owner Leader Developer Tester 24 % 20 % 12 % None Agile Requirements Engineering 11 % 19 % 43 % 28 % 4 % IREB® CPRE (Advanced Level Elicitation & 2 % 27 % 43 % 29 % Consolidation)Prestige of Requirements Engineering IREB® CPRE (Advanced Level Requirements 21 % 42 % 37 %At least 2/3 of the respondents recognize the value of Requirements Engineering. Modeling)But those 17% who believe that RE is a necessary evil or even completelysuperfluous show the need for development in this area. Project Management (IPMA, PMI, ...) 21 % 12 % 23 % 44 % 2.7 % Certified Product Owner 21 % 6 % 25 % 48 % 14.5 % 8.2 % Strategic for company success Important factor for IIBA CBAP (Certified Business Analysis 17 % 31 % 50 % reliable software Professional) 20.9 % Low priority Certified Scrum Master 18 % 8 % 20 % 53 % 53.7 % Necessary evil Certified IT Process and Quality Manager 13 % 6 % 17 % 65 % Unnecessary 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
  11. 11. AGILE REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING SwissQ Requirements Trends & Benchmarks 2012 11 Use of Agile Techniques Trends in Agile Requirements Engineering Iterative planning, daily standups and the management of backlogs The high rate of changes in the agile field poses big challenges to many an are widely used techniques in the agile field. experienced requirements engineer. It does not go far enough to propagate the product owner as a solution, that would be simply hiding the old under the cloak Iterative planning of the new. Agile requirements engineering has to take into account the values 89.6 % and methods of the agile context. Approaches like the following belong to this: Daily Standup 82.1 % Extreme Prioritization (according to business value) Backlog Management 80.6 % Continuous planning Taskboard 75.8 % B acklog Management (Who‘s responsible? When is it being filled? Retrospectives Synchronisation with strategic projects, ...) 72.7 % TDD and ATDD (Acceptance Test Driven Development) Burndown Chart 67.2 % Strong use of iterative RE (quick feedback cycles and adjustments) Definition of Done 57.8 % More face-to-face communication Level and sustainability of requirements documentation Velocity Chart 38.1 % C orrect cutting of requirements (business value versus implementation On-Site Customer 34.8 % in one sprint) 26.6 % e tc. Co-Location Used Nothing has changed with the fact though, that the client wants exactly what Test Driven Dev. (TDD) 20.3 % Planned he imagined at the end of the project. For a “classic“ requirements engineer, Kanban 15.9 % Not anymore these are known problems. It is now time to adjust the classic methods to the No issue agile context in order for “good practices“ not to be lost and still be able to useAcceptance Test Driven Dev. (ATDD) 11.1 % the method with the light agile approach. SwissQ would be pleased to share its experiences from various agile projects with you. 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 3/4 of the respondents already 2/3 of the respondents have “We often develop a feature and then can‘t “The success of a SCRUM project depends on the find a user / stakeholder personality of the product gained experiences with less than two years for it!“ owner.“ agile methods. experience with agile projects. Project leader Unit manager
  12. 12. CHALLENGES SwissQ Requirements Trends Benchmarks 2012 12Challenges Where do Investments Occur?The traceability (relationship of RE artefacts to preceding and following The training of employees is still a main priority. Closer collaboration betweenartefacts) seems to be the biggest challenge. business and IT is the next big investment topic. Elicitation of RE in agile requirements projects Investments Investments Investments in distributed increase remain constant decrease teams 30 % Traceability 41 % Further training for employees 33.0 % 53.8 % 13.2 % 55 % Closer collaboration between 33.0 % 52.8 % 14.2 % Business and IT Standardization of internal Natural language 25.7 % 60.6 % 13.8 % RE processes Requirements vs. Use Cases 31 % Elaboration / Definition of role of RE 24.3 % 59.8 % 15.9 % Management of many requirements Development of templates and guidelines 22.4 % 60.7 % 16.8 % (500) 35 % Employment of new RE employees 22.1 % 54.8 % 23.1 % Non-functional requirements Establishment of specific RE Tools 21.9 % 63.8 % 14.3 % 41 % Establishment of own RE sections / departments 17.9 % 62.3 % 19.8 % Outsourcing of RE activities 11.8 % 48.0 % 40.2 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
  13. 13. TOOLS SwissQ Requirements Trends Benchmarks 2012 13Tools in Place Tools in the Agile ContextMicrosoft tools are still dominating in the field of Requirements The situation is similar when it comes to tools in the agile context. MicrosoftEngineering as more than 80 % of all respondents mentioned Microsoft Office dominates with 68 %. Jira is in second place with 30 %, followedOffice as the most important RE tool. It is followed by far by a tool closely by HP QC/ALM and Open Source Tools.formerly dedicated to test management – HP QC/ALM – which developedinto an Application Lifecycle Suite where you can also create, document,and manage requirements. Own developmentsMicrosoft Office Suite Rally Software 85 % (doc, xls, ppt) Microsoft Visio 47 % Open Source Version One HP QC / ALM 21 % Open Source 14 % HP QC/ALM Microsoft TFS Microsoft Office IBM Rational 13 % Requisite Pro IBM Rational DOORS 12 % Others 12 % Inflectra SpiraMS Team Foundation Server 10 % Polarion Atlassian Jira Sparx Enterprise 6 % Architect Own developments 4 % Polarion 3 % MKS Integrity 3 %Serena Dimension RM Wiki 2 % 2 % 68 % of the respondents are using microTOOL In-Step 2 % Microsoft Office as a requirements Atlassian JIRA 2 % tool in agile RE. 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
  14. 14. FRAME OF SURVEY SwissQ Requirements Trends Benchmarks 2012 14Industrial Sector ResponsibilitiesMore than 60 % of the respondents work either in the IT or in the More than 50 % of the respondents describe their job with more than one role.financial sector. Compared to the last years their proportion has decreased,demonstrating that the subject has arrived in other industries too. 30 % IT 36.1 % Finance, Insurance 28.4 % Manufacturing 7.4 % 20 %Public and semi-public companies 7.4 % Traffic and Transportation 5.6 % Telecommunication 4.0 % MedTech 3.7 % 10 % Others 7.4 % 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 %IT Employees 0 % er er A er er er er er ag ag /B ne ag st ag neA bit more than half of the respondents work in companies with more an an er gi an Te an gi M M ne En M M Enthan 500 IT employees. st n gi st ct ts e Te sio En Te o je en ar vi ts Pr m ftw Di en re So t/ m q ui en re Re ui rtm eq 2001– ... 33.0 % pa R De 501 – 2000 17.6 % 60 % 33 % 251 – 500 13.6 % 51 – 250 15.4 % 11 – 50 14.2 % of the respondents mainly of the respondents are 1 – 10 6.2 % work in projects. line managers. 0 % 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 %
  15. 15. TRENDS BENCHMARKS REPORTS 2012 FOR TESTING AND AGILE SwissQ Requirements Trends Benchmarks 2012 15Along with the first edition of the SwissQ Requirements Trends Benchmarks Report, SwissQ publishes the already fourth editionof the SwissQ Testing Trends Benchmarks Report and as well the first edition of the SwissQ Agile Trends Benchmarks Report,in 2012. Do you want to know more? You can download the detailed reports with further analyses from www.SwissQ.it.Trends Benchmarks Trends BenchmarksTesting 2012 Agile 2012Cost Savings by Test Automation Main Reasons for the Failure of Agile Projects Lacking experience with agile methods 52 % Corporate culture is not compatible with agile values 45 % 33.3 % External pressure to follow a traditional approach 41 % Lacking support of line 23.7 % management 38 % 22.6 % Lacking / insufficient training / coaching 36 % Lacking interconnections between organizational units 35 % 10.2 % 7.3 % Lacking team motivation 22 % 2.8 % Others 12 % Costs up to 10 % up to 20 % up to 50 % up to 80 % No increased statement possible 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 %
  16. 16. ABOUT USSwissQ supports its clients in the development and implementation of IT-solutions andassures that the end users get the functionality they really need. This is achieved byunambiguously determining requirements and risk-based testing the implementation.Our vision is to improve the added value of IT through requirements management andsoftware testing. Along with providing high-quality services, we pursue this visionby establishing independent platforms, like the Swiss Testing Day and the SwissRequirements Day, which facilitate the exchange of know-how and experiences.In addition to that we help bright minds to expand their knowledge in our trainings. © by SwissQ Consulting AG | Stadthaus-Quai 15 | Switzerland-8001 Zürich www.SwissQ.it | info@SwissQ.it | Phone +41 43 288 88 40 | Fax +41 43 288 88 39 Twitter: @SwissQ | Facebook: swissqconsulting

×