The%20current%20state%20of%20stakeholder-driven%20requirements%20engineering

1
The current state of stakeholder-driven
requirements engineering

• CORE-project

2
Goals of assessing the current state of the
stakeholder-driven RE

• Describe the current challenges and practices in
  the Finnish software industry
• identify good practices and success factors
• offer a baseline for improving practices
• clarify the problem field in practical system
  development work

3
Survey

• 18 respondents from 13 companies
• The respondents were asked to evaluate the most
  recent project they participated in during
  requirements engineering phase
• requirements quality
• project success
• succesful practices
• problems

4
Projects in the survey

• The average project size 163 man months
• RE-team 1-34 persons, N9,1
• Hoffmann and Lehner (2001) 6.2
• The proportion of requirements engineering in the
  project costs 1-30 , N 12,6
• Boehm (1981) 6
• In Hoffmann and Lehner (2001) 15,7, in
  successful projects 28

5
Main roles in RE-team
Name Number of projects
Project manager 11
Product manager 8
Software developer 8
Software architect 3
User representative 3
Customer representative 3
Expert/technical expert 3
Programmer 2
User 2
6
Other roles in RE team

• Other roles found in single projects
• Technical writer documentation manager
• Localization, quality management
• Marketing product support
• Maintenance testing
• Instrument developer experimenter architect

7
Stakeholders

• Direct contacts to users and customers in 33 of
  projects
• Usability specialist involved in 33 of the
  projects
• Usability specialist part of the RE team in 22
  of the projects

8
Success factors

• The presence of usability specialist had an
  general positive effect on requirements quality
  and success
• However, differences in the views of the parties
  in the project were increased
• Direct contacts to users and customers had even
  bigger effect in requirements quality and success
• In the most successful projects, requirements
  were based on real information from users or
  customers
• The RE costs were lower

9
Respondents assessment of the project success
(1/2)

• Interviewee considers the project successful
  66,7 (Procaccino et al. (2001) 44)
• Organisation considers the project a success 50
  (Procaccino et al. (2001) 77)
• The result is a success according to the customer
  or user feedback 40
• The result meets the business goals 63,7
• The result meets the requirements 80

10
Respondents assessements of the project success
(2/2)

• 35,7 completed according to schedule
• RE was done successfully 41,2
• A lot of differences in the views of the parties
  in the project 44,4

11
Assessed successful practices

• Technical aspects (3)
• Considering customer/user needs, usability (3)
• Rapidness, agility, flexibility (2)

12
Developmental needs

• More time for RE (4)
• Systematic gathering of requirements (4)
• Improving traceability (3)
• RE-processes and introduction of systematical
  practices (3)
• Systematic refining of the requirements (2)
• RE-tool (2)

13
Problems in gathering and analysing

• Lack of resources (4)
• Customer/user not involved enough (4)
• Lack of systematic methods or practices (2)
• Vagueness of responsibilities (2)
• The documented requirements definitions/descriptio
  ns lacking (2)