Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Technische Universität München
Where do we stand in Requirements Engineering
Improvement Today?
First Results from a Mappi...
Notion of RE quality and its improvement
Socio-economic context
RE “Best Practice” Norm
Goals,

expectations,
…
1. Solutio...
Paradigms and principles
The ugly truth remains...
Problem:
• Little knowledge about the
• state of the art in Requirement...
RE improvement today
Research questions
RQ1. Of what type is the research?
4
RQ2. Which process improvement phases are con...
Study design
Overview
RQ1. Of what type is the research?
5
RQ2. Which process improvement phases are considered?
RQ3. What...
Study design
Voting procedure
RQ1. Of what type is the research?
6
RQ2. Which process improvement phases are considered?
R...
RE improvement
Results
RQ1. Of what type is the research?
7
RQ2. Which process improvement phases are considered?
RQ3. Wha...
1
21 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
3
2
43
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1 1
431
9
4
1
1
24
17
2
RE improvement
Conclusions
8
Validation
Ev...
1
21 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
3
2
43
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1 1
431
9
4
1
1
24
17
2
What now?
9
Validation
Evaluation
Philosop...
10
• Explore principles of artefact-based and problem-driven REPI
• Determine reliable measurements of improvement success...
You are cordially invited to join us!
Daniel Méndez
Daniel.Mendez@tum.de
@mendezfe
Thank you!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Where do we stand in Requirements Engineering Improvement Today? First Results from a Mapping Study

164 views

Published on

Talk given at the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Where do we stand in Requirements Engineering Improvement Today? First Results from a Mapping Study

  1. 1. Technische Universität München Where do we stand in Requirements Engineering Improvement Today? First Results from a Mapping Study Joint work with S. Ognawala,Technische Universität München M. Daneva, University of Twente S.Wagner, University of Stuttgart Daniel Mendez Technische Universität München Germany ESEM 2014 Torino, Italy @mendezfe
  2. 2. Notion of RE quality and its improvement Socio-economic context RE “Best Practice” Norm Goals,
 expectations, … 1. Solution orientation 
 (Also:“normative”,“prescriptive”) 2 2. Problem orientation
 (Also:“Inductive”) Paradigms (simplified) A A. Activity orientation B B. Artefact orientation Serves as Orientation Steer Assess/Benchmark RE reference modelAdopt RE improvement principles
  3. 3. Paradigms and principles The ugly truth remains... Problem: • Little knowledge about the • state of the art in Requirements Engineering improvement approaches • state of empirical evidence Objectives: Explore the publication space Weapon of choice: Systematic mapping study
  4. 4. RE improvement today Research questions RQ1. Of what type is the research? 4 RQ2. Which process improvement phases are considered? RQ3. What paradigms do the publications focus on? RQ4. Are the underlying principles of normative or of problem-driven nature?
  5. 5. Study design Overview RQ1. Of what type is the research? 5 RQ2. Which process improvement phases are considered? RQ3. What paradigms do the publications focus on? Interested in the protocol? Read the paper… ;-) RQ4. Are the underlying principles of normative or of problem-driven nature?
  6. 6. Study design Voting procedure RQ1. Of what type is the research? 6 RQ2. Which process improvement phases are considered? RQ3. What paradigms do the publications focus on? RQ4. Are the underlying principles of normative or of problem-driven nature? Intermediate Classification Discussion Agreement No Yes Agreement level1st stage: 53.4 % (31/58)2nd stage: 72.4 % (42/58)3rd stage: 86.2 % (50/58)4th stage: 100 % (58/58)
  7. 7. RE improvement Results RQ1. Of what type is the research? 7 RQ2. Which process improvement phases are considered? RQ3. What paradigms do the publications focus on? RQ4. Are the underlying principles of normative or of problem-driven nature? Validation Evaluation Philosophical Opinion Experience Exploratory Solution 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Analysis Construction REPI-LC Validation Distribution per YearContribution Phase 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 43 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 431 9 4 1 1 24 17 2 N/A Normative Problem-Driven Artefact Orientation Activity Orientation 1 1 1 5 3 4 2 1 18 11 1 1 6 3 2 21638
  8. 8. 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 43 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 431 9 4 1 1 24 17 2 RE improvement Conclusions 8 Validation Evaluation Philosophical Opinion Experience Exploratory Solution 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2Analysis Construction REPI-LC Validation Distribution per YearContribution Phase N/A Normative Problem-Driven Artefact Orientation Activity Orientation 1 1 1 5 3 4 2 1 18 11 1 1 6 3 2 21638 • “Healthy” distribution of approaches with many concepts • Most papers focus on activity-based and normative approaches » Focus on assessment against activity-based best practice norms » Triggered by “best practice movement”? » Little known about benefits and limitations of » available improvement principles » available paradigms
  9. 9. 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 43 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 431 9 4 1 1 24 17 2 What now? 9 Validation Evaluation Philosophical Opinion Experience Exploratory Solution 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2Analysis Construction REPI-LC Validation Distribution per YearContribution Phase N/A Normative Problem-Driven Artefact Orientation Activity Orientation 1 1 1 5 3 4 2 1 18 11 1 1 6 3 2 21638 • First indicators for reluctance against activity-based normative REPI* » How (and why) to improve RE in a » holistic manner » problem-driven » artefact-based … manner? „I am not convinced of the benefits of external standards.“ * http://re-survey.org
  10. 10. 10 • Explore principles of artefact-based and problem-driven REPI • Determine reliable measurements of improvement success • Evaluate improvement principles in comparative manner Future research
  11. 11. You are cordially invited to join us! Daniel Méndez Daniel.Mendez@tum.de @mendezfe Thank you!

×