International Conference on Industrial and Intelligent Information 2011 (ICIII)1 – 3 April 2011, Bali, Indonesia

1. Requirements Engineering Maturity
Measurement and Evaluation
(A Case Study of Bank X in Indonesia)
Bahana Wiradanti
& Rajesri Govindaraju
Industrial Engineering Department
Institut Teknologi Bandung
International Conference on Industrial and
Intelligent Information 2011 (ICIII)
1 – 3 April 2011, Bali, Indonesia

2. www.slideshare.net/wiradantib 2

3. Contents
1.
1 Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Conclusion
4. Future Research
www.slideshare.net/wir 3
adantib

4. 1. Introduction

5. Research Background
Increase in needs for information system
IS development needs to be managed
www.slideshare.net/wir 5
adantib

6. Research Background
REQUIREMENTS
??
Increase in needs for information system
Errors in system requirements
could be up to 100x
More expensive to fix
Than errors in system implementation
y p
Boehm (1983) in Sommerville& Ransom(2005)
IS development needs to be managed
www.slideshare.net/wir 6
adantib

7. system requirements define what must be
y q
done by information systems, or any property
or quality of what should be provided by the
y y
system (Bentley & Whitten, 2007, p. 208)
Requirements Engineering (RE)
q g g
Process
“The goal is to create and
The
maintain a system
requirements document.”
(Sommerville, 2006, p.143)
Better quality, in budget, in time
www.slideshare.net/wir 7
adantib

8. Bank X
• Bank X is an important organization in Indonesia’s economy.
• They have been executing many information system
development projects.
Work IM
Units Unit IT Unit
(Initial Req) (Req (final
(fi l req)
)
Management)
Problems :
• IM Unit felt their RE process has already been in the right
direction, has implemented ISO 9001.
• Systems that have been made are not satisfying stakeholders.
• Increase in completion time and cost.
www.slideshare.net/wir 8
adantib

9. Research Question
“How mature is Bank X in their
Requirements Engineering
process?
Which RE practices has been well
defined and consistently
implemented, also which are still
weak in Bank X? ”
Purpose of case study:
P f t d
Not only helping improvements in Bank X’s RE process,
but
b t also to learn from their e perience
experience
www.slideshare.net/wir 9
adantib

10. 2.
2 Methodology

11. Research Model
Requirements Engineering
Maturity Measurement
Framework (REMMF)
With
3 Dimensions of Motorola
(Niazi et.al, 2008)
Basic, intermediate and
advanced practices
d d ti
Approach
pp Deployment
p y Results
www.slideshare.net/wir 11
adantib

12. Research Model (Cont )
(Cont.)
REMMF (Ni i et.al, 2008)
(Niazi t l
Orgaization
Strength & Weakness
g
Maturity Level of organization
based on each
Good Practice score
Level3 –
Defined
Level2 – (10 point scale)
i t l )
Repeatable
Level1 –
Initial
www.slideshare.net/wir 12
adantib

13. Maturity Measurement Model
Requirements Engineering
Maturity Measurement
Framework (REMMF)
F k
3: standardized guideline With
2: normal use 3 Dimensions of Motorola
1: discretionary use
1 di ti (Niazi et.al, 2008)
0: never used  10 Point scale
www.slideshare.net/wir 13
adantib

14. Motorola’s Instrument (Daskalantonakis, 1994 in Niazi et al, 2008)
Score APPROACH DEPLOYMENT RESULTS
No commitment, management No part of the organization uses the No results, ineffective
Poor (0) support and organization ability
t d i ti bilit practice
ti
Management recognizes the Fragmented and inconsistent use Spotty and inconsistent
Weak (2) needs to implement, but no results
commitment&support
There are management Less fragmented use and some Consistent and positive
recognition, support and ability, consistency, deployed in some major parts results for several parts of
Fair (4)
wide but not complete of the organization the organization
commitment by management
i b
Much wider approach, and Deployed in many parts of the Positive measurable
Marginally some of the management have Organization, mostly consistent use, and results and consistent in
Q
Qualified (6)
( ) been proactive
p monitoring/verification of use for many
g y most
parts of the organization parts of the organization
Total management commitment Deployed and consistently used in almost Positive measurable
and majority of management is all parts of the organization, monitoring/ results and consistent in
Qualified
Q lifi d (8) proactive
ti verification of use for almost all parts of
ifi ti f f l t ll t f almost all
l t ll
the organization, and there is a mechanism parts of the organization
to distribute the lessons learned
Management p
g provides zealous Pervasive and consistent deployed,
p y Requirements exceeded
q
leadership and commitment, consistent use over time across all parts of consistently world-class
Outstanding
organizational excellence in the the organization, and results, counsel sought by
(10)
practice recognized even monitoring/verification for all parts others
outside the organization of the organization
www.slideshare.net/wir 14
adantib

15. More Measurement:
Agency Y (comparison organization)
 to see whether the assessment model could distinguish
Good Practices score of organizations, which maturity level
are different
Data Collection & Processing
g
• Two kinds of data:
– Primary: questionnaires data
– Secondary: requirements document
• Data processing is done according to previous studies
studies.
www.slideshare.net/wir 15
adantib

16. 3. Conclusion

17. Conclusion
1. Bank X:
Maturity Level : Level 3
RE Process
– Strengh : “requirements document “ and
“requirements elicitation”
– W k
Weakness :
 whole good practice score still weak
 Implementing intermediate and advanced practices
2. Comparison
Bank X Agency Y
Maturity • Level 3 • Level 1
Level
• the whole good practice score < 7 • the whole good practice score < 3
Strength • Difficulties : Implementing • Difficulties : Implementing basic
& intermediate and advanced practices
Weakness practices
www.slideshare.net/wir 17
adantib

18. Further Conclusion & Lessons Learned
• This case study brings improvement areas: priority in
improving good practices
• The assessment model was considered easy to use
• General l
G l lowest score: results di
t lt dimension score
i
Lessons Learned: Communication problems between
RE analysts &system builder are common:
 Uphold group decision making, esp in elicitation
p
process.
 More participation or involvement of system
builders.
 Create more awareness to the RE process.
www.slideshare.net/wir 18
adantib

19. 4. Future Research
• Survey to measure the RE process performed in
Indonesian enterprises.
• Improve assessment framework (communication
aspect)

20. Thank You
www.slideshare.net/wir 20
adantib