Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering

Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering

I had the honor to present the last results from our initiative for a global survey on the state of the practice and contemporary problems in requirements engineering at the First German Requirements Night in Munich.
More information on the survey: http://www.re-survey.org

Stefan Wagner

April 07, 2016
Tweet

More Decks by Stefan Wagner

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. You can copy, share and change, film and photograph, blog,

    live-blog and tweet this presentation given that you attribute it to its author and respect the rights and licences of its parts. based on slides by @SMEasterbrook und @ethanwhite
  2. An empirical understanding of the state of the practice and

    problems in RE is necessary for relevant research.
  3. Research questions and methods 1. How are requirements elicited and

    documented? 2. How are requirements changed and aligned with tests? 3. Why and how is RE improved? 4. Is there an RE standard and how is it applied? 5. What contemporary problems exist in RE and how do they manifest themselves? Bi-yearly World-wide
  4. International Replication Global Replication Validation Preparation Germany International Communities Conceptualisation

    of research questions Presentation & discussions at communities Initial creation of questionnaire Internal validation External validation Industrial pilot Initiation First interpretation Creation Distribution List Implementation / correction Invitation Synthesis & reporting 1. Replication (Netherlands) Dissemination Creation distribution list Invitation Data analysis & interpretation Final reporting Online Survey Spreadsheet Data Analysis & Interpretation Creation Distribution List Invitation Creation distribution list Baseline Report Yearly RE Community Report Replication Report Survey Results Creation distribution list Invitation Data analysis & interpretation Planning PROMISE Repository Data Analysis & Interpretation Invitation Data analysis & interpretation Current Stage
  5. Validation Preparation Germany International Communities Conceptualisation of research questions Presentation

    & discussions at communities Initial creation of questionnaire Internal validation External validation Industrial pilot Initiation First interpretation Implementation / correction 1. Replication (Netherlands) Creation distribution list Invitation Data analysis & interpretation Final reporting Online Survey Spreadsheet Baseline Report Replication Report Survey Results Creation distribution list Invitation Data analysis & interpretation
  6. International Replication Global Replication Initiation First interpretation Creation Distribution List

    Invitation Synthesis & reporting 1. Replication (Netherlands) Dissemination Creation distribution list Invitation Data analysis & interpretation Final reporting Data Analysis & Interpretation Creation Distribution List Invitation Creation distribution list Baseline Report Yearly RE Community Report Replication Report Survey Results Creation distribution list Invitation Data analysis & interpretation Planning PROMISE Repository Data Analysis & Interpretation Invitation Data analysis & interpretation Current Stage
  7. Formal/semi-formal goal models are rarely used in practice. Central Europe

    North/Eastern Europe North America South America 5 % 18 % 1 % 2 % 5 % 4 % 7 % 7 % Semi-formal Formal
  8. Product Backlog and change requests dominate. Update product backlog Only

    work with change requests Change specification Other 9 % 18 % 32 % 37 %
  9. Improvement in RE is motivated intrinsically. It helps us to

    determine our strengths and weaknesses Expected by customer Other Certification Regulation (CMMI etc.) 5 % 10 % 11 % 22 % 64 %
  10. 3 Experienced Problems D. Méndez Fernández, S. Wagner, M. Kalinowski,

    M. Felderer, P. Mafra, A. Vetrò et al. Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering: Contemporary Problems, Causes, and Effects in Practice. Submited to Empirical Software Engineering.
  11. Communication flaws between project team and the customer Customer does

    not know what he wants Lack of a well-defined RE process Lack of experience of RE team members Lack of time Missing direct communication to customer Requirements remain too abstract Too high team distribution Unclear roles and responsonsibilities at customer side Weak qualification of RE team members Communication flaws between project team and the customer Communication flaws within the project team Incomplete and / or hidden requirements Inconsistent requirements Insufficient support by customer Moving targets (changing goals, business processes and / or requirements) Stakeholders with difficulties in separating requirements from previously known solution designs Time boxing / Not enough time in general Underspecified requirements that are too abstract and allow for various interpretations Weak access to customer needs and / or (internal) business information Project Completed Project Failed
  12. An empirical understanding of the state of the practice and

    problems in RE is necessary for relevant research.
  13. Prof. Dr. Stefan Wagner e-mail [email protected] phone +49 (0) 711

    685-88455 WWW www.iste.uni-stuttgart.de/se Twitter prof_wagnerst ORCID 0000-0002-5256-8429 Institute of Software Technology Slides are available at www.stefan-wagner.biz. Joint work with Daniel Méndez Fernández, Michael Felderer, Marcos Kalinowski and the whole NaPiRE team: www.re-survey.org
  14. Pictures Used in this Slide Deck Alex (https://flic.kr/p/84ThFe) Zürich Neumünster

    Basis by Ikiwaner (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ a9/Zuerich_Neumuenster_Basis.jpg) Carlota and Isabel Islands by Storm Crypt (https://flic.kr/p/5DjfE2) The Bosch Multi-Storey Car Park by rykerstribe (https://flic.kr/p/53hosQ)