gutes re, schlechtes re
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Best PracticeRequirements Engineering
i4DS Centre for Requirements Engineering
Gutes RE, schlechtes RE
![Page 2: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 2
References
IREB Foundation Level Syllabus: https://www.ireb.org/en/cpre/foundation/
S. Fricker, R. Grau, A. Zwingli (2014): “Requirements Engineering: Best Practice” in S. Fricker. C. Thümmler, A. Gavras: Requirements Engineering for Digital Health. Springer. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:834026/FULLTEXT01.pdf
SwissQ (2016): Software Development 2016 Trends& Benchmarks Report Schweiz. http://report.swissq.it/de/
![Page 3: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Samuel Fricker
Professor for Requirements Engineering, FHNW
Assistant Professor for Software Engineering, BTH
Doctor in Informatics (Requirements Engineering) Uni Zürich
ABB, Fuchs-Informatik, Startups…
![Page 4: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 4
About Us: i4Ds Centre for Requirements Engineering
Farnaz FotrousiPhD Student
Melanie StadePhD Student
Prof. Dr. Norbert SeyffProvessor
Prof. Dr. Samuel FrickerProfessor
![Page 5: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 5
Centre for Requirements Engineering
Research and Innovation for Aligning Technology with Society’s Needs
i4DS Centre for Requirements Engineering
![Page 6: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 6
What is ‘Best Practice’?
Google: commercial or professional procedures that are accepted or prescribed
as being correct or most effective.
![Page 7: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 7
IREB Standard Practice
Elicitation: Creativity, Surveys, Document Analysis, and Observation
Analysis: System Interfaces and Context
Documentation: Documents, Shall-Templates, UML, SA, Goal Diagrams
Checking: Checklists, Review Techniques, Handling of Conflicts
Management: Attributes, Prioritization, Traceability, Baselining, Changes
Tools and Tooling
![Page 8: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 8
Requirements Engineering
![Page 9: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 9
What is ‘Best Practice’?
Idea: Best Practiceis Common Practice
![Page 10: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 10
Survey Research in 2012
![Page 11: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 11
Survey Research
State-of-art
Panel of Experts
Questionnaire
Statistical Analysis
![Page 12: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 12
419 Projects
< 10 23 5% Banking, Finance 98 23% Research 32 8%10-49 39 9% Automotive, Transport 54 13% Product, Platform 87 21%
50-249 42 10% Software, IT 51 12% Bespoke 237 57%250-4499 144 34% Government, Military 40 10% Tender 42 10%
>= 4500 168 40% Healthcare, Medical 35 8% Other 21 5%n/a 3 1% Insurance 31 7%
Telecommunications 31 7% Prototyping 23 5%Europe 368 88% Manufacturing, Supply 22 5% Evolutionary 39 9%
Switzerland 248 59% Other 57 14% Incremental 113 27%Germany 69 16% Hybrid 104 25%
Other Europe 51 12% Information System 260 62% Sequential 135 32%Americas 26 6% Software-Intensive 62 15% Other 5 1%
Asia-Pacific 25 6% Engineering 28 7%Other 69 16% < 4 54 13%
4-9 107 26%Completely New 149 36% 10-19 89 21%
New Features or Use 107 26% 20-49 84 20%Changed Solution 79 19% >= 50 82 20%
Enhancement 84 20% n/a 3 1%
< 4.5 27 6%4.5-9 97 23%9-18 119 28%
>= 18 165 39%n/a 11 3%
Duration (calendar months)***
ProductCategory
Process (Lifecycle Model)
Size (number of staff)***
Location
ProjectIndustry (application domain)
Type
Innovation
CompanySize (number of employees)***
![Page 13: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 13
Requirements Engineering
Product Planning Requirements Inquiry Requirements Management
Goals
Requirements
Design(Constraints)
Tests
code
Manuals
Inputs
Stakeholders
Project Team
Analyst
ProductManager
Software Project
![Page 14: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 14
The Big Picture: Common Practice
Total 405 97% Total + 414 99% Total 384 92% Total 407 97% Total + 404 96%Reqs. Prioritizing 252 60% Workshops 328 78% Informal Modeling + 210 50% Functional 343 82% Natural Language 374 89%Release Planing 209 50% Feedback ± 183 44% Prototyping + 169 40% Scenarios ± 263 63% Use Cases 248 59%
Requirements Triage 206 49% Analysis ± 161 38% OOA ± 166 40% Quality 240 57% Informal Text 219 52%Business Case 202 48% Design 149 36% Quality Checks 107 26% User Interfaces 238 57% User Stories 111 26%Roadmapping 174 42% Creativity 142 34% SA 51 12% Processes ± 183 44% Shall Templates 94 22%
Vision ± 165 39% System Archeology 292 70% DDD 34 8% Rules 173 41% Other 37 9%Other 1 0% Requirements Reuse 270 64% Other 36 9% Software Interfaces 157 37% UML Diagrams 245 58%
Copy/Paste 159 38% Structure 140 33% Use Case Diagrams 188 45%Total 382 91% Delta Specification 121 29% Total + 391 93% Glossary ± 132 32% Activity Diagrams 128 31%
Reqs. Prioritizing 252 60% Standard Reqs. 81 19% Inspection + 266 63% Behavior 95 23% Class Diagrams 114 27%Handshaking 209 50% Variability Analysis 42 10% Walk-Through + 175 42% Agents 71 17% Sequence Diagrams 89 21%
Conflict Management 167 40% Modeling-based 3 1% Peer/Advisor Review 161 38% Formal Properties 24 6% State Machines 54 13%Strategy Alignment 125 30% Interviews + 265 63% Prototype Review 143 34% Other 26 6% Other 2 0%
Power Analysis 76 18% Document Analysis 211 50% Checklist ± 89 21% Graphical Processes 208 50%Win-Win Negotiation 45 11% Creativity 183 44% Simulation 33 8% Total 405 97% Activity Diagrams 128 31%
Variant Analysis 31 7% Workshops 142 34% Automated Checking ± 30 7% Document 265 63% DFD 111 26%Negotiation Analysis 29 7% Idea Castings 43 10% Other 4 1% Spreadsheet 149 36% BPMN; BPML 37 9%
Idea Databases 38 9% Database 146 35% Other 9 2%Total 341 81% Introspection 118 28% Modeling Tool 135 32% SA Diagrams 177 42%
Change Management 243 58% Observation + 87 21% Drawing Tool 61 15% DFD 111 26%Baselining 196 47% Surveys 50 12% Other 4 1% ERD + 94 22%
Traceability 167 40% Data Mining - 25 6% STD 62 15%Progress Tracking 106 25% Other 12 3% User Screens 151 36%
Report Generation 60 14% Informal Drawings 139 33%Process Measurement 55 13% Tables 67 16%
Other 3 1% Other 19 5%
Multiple answers were possible, + and -: significant changes compared with earlier surveys3, 4, ±: no change compared with earlier surveys according to Holm's step-down methodlight color: sub-categories, "Other": answers with less than 5% frequency
Requirements Management
ManagementProduct Planning Elicitation Requirement TypesAnalysis
Storage
Checking
Inquiry Specification
Stakeholder Negotiation
Notations
![Page 15: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 15
Common Practice: Elicitation
Almost every project elicited requirements.
Projects tended to–use stakeholder collaboration and existing
systems or specifications…–…more often than creativity and knowledge
of project members.
Total + 414 99%Workshops 328 78%Feedback ± 183 44%
Analysis ± 161 38%Design 149 36%
Creativity 142 34%System Archeology 292 70%
Requirements Reuse 270 64%Copy/Paste 159 38%
Delta Specification 121 29%Standard Reqs. 81 19%
Variability Analysis 42 10%Modeling-based 3 1%
Interviews + 265 63%Document Analysis 211 50%
Creativity 183 44%Workshops 142 34%
Idea Castings 43 10%Idea Databases 38 9%
Introspection 118 28%Observation + 87 21%
Surveys 50 12%Data Mining - 25 6%
Other 12 3%
Elicitation
![Page 16: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering
Common Practice: Notations
Almost every project documented requirements–often with natural language.
Projects preferred pragmatic notation use over method compliance.
Total + 404 96%Natural Language 374 89%
Use Cases 248 59%Informal Text 219 52%
User Stories 111 26%Shall Templates 94 22%
Other 37 9%UML Diagrams 245 58%
Use Case Diagrams 188 45%Activity Diagrams 128 31%
Class Diagrams 114 27%Sequence Diagrams 89 21%
State Machines 54 13%Other 2 0%
Graphical Processes 208 50%Activity Diagrams 128 31%
DFD 111 26%BPMN; BPML 37 9%
Other 9 2%SA Diagrams 177 42%
DFD 111 26%ERD + 94 22%STD 62 15%
User Screens 151 36%Informal Drawings 139 33%
Tables 67 16%Other 19 5%
Notations
Total 384 92%Informal Modeling + 210 50%
Prototyping + 169 40%OOA ± 166 40%
Quality Checks 107 26%SA 51 12%
DDD 34 8%Other 36 9%
Analysis
![Page 17: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 17
Common Practice: Checking
Almost every project checked requirements,–often by formal inspection.
Projects typically–preferred manual requirements checking…–…over simulation and automated checking
Total + 391 93%Inspection + 266 63%
Walk-Through + 175 42%Peer/Advisor Review 161 38%
Prototype Review 143 34%Checklist ± 89 21%
Simulation 33 8%Automated Checking ± 30 7%
Other 4 1%
Checking
![Page 18: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 18
Common Practice: Tools
Almost every project stored requirements.
Projects tended to–prefer writing techniques (documents)…–…over list-oriented techniques
(spreadsheets, databases).
Uncommon was storage of requirements in drawing tools, wikis, and cards.
Total 405 97%Document 265 63%
Spreadsheet 149 36%Database 146 35%
Modeling Tool 135 32%Drawing Tool 61 15%
Other 4 1%
Storage
![Page 19: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 19
What is ‘Best Practice’?
Idea: Best PracticeCorrelates with RE Success
![Page 20: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 20
Success Criteria
Total 419 100%Productivity 228 54%
Effectiveness 156 37%Compliance 143 34%Satisfaction 137 33%
Flexibility 86 21%Safety 73 17%
Environment 7 2%Other 8 2%
Software Product GoalsTotal 419 100%
Shared Understanding 214 51%Specification Quality 197 47%
Clear Scope 160 38%Efficiency 155 37%
User Satisfaction 145 35%Timeliness 139 33%
Fit of Solution 94 22%Estimation Reliability 65 16%Architecture Quality 58 14%
Cost/Benefit Analysis 26 6%Other 4 1%
RE Constraints
![Page 21: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 21
Success and Failure
Too Little 181 43%Just Enough 229 55%
Too Much 9 2%
Rather Yes 385 92%Yes 182 43%
Likely 203 48%Rather No 34 8%
No 18 4%Unlikely 16 4%
SuccessRequirements Engineering Amount
Product Goal AchievementANDOR
221 successes189 failures
![Page 22: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 22
The Big Picture: Success-Correlating Practices
218 99% 220 100% 207 94% 219 99% 219 99%178 94% 185 98% 168 89% 179 95% 176 93%
135 61% 189 86% 101 46% 192 87% 199 90%111 59% 133 70% 102 54% 142 75% 168 89%
126 57% 114 52% 99 45% 160 72% 142 64%71 38% 66 35% 65 34% 100 53% 104 55%
118 53% 95 43% 99 45% 141 64% 113 51%84 44% 56 30% 66 35% 97 51% 102 54%
114 52% 89 40% 66 30% 138 62% 68 31%91 48% 62 33% 37 20% 95 50% 43 23%
98 44% 88 40% 32 14% 104 47% 46 21%72 38% 53 28% 18 10% 73 39% 44 23%
97 44% 152 69% 19 9% 98 44% 22 10%65 34% 133 70% 14 7% 72 38% 14 7%1 0% 148 67% 24 11% 94 43% 138 62%0 0% 115 61% 11 6% 61 32% 102 54%
78 35% 82 37% 106 48%76 40% 49 26% 79 42%
208 94% 61 28% 214 97% 81 37% 71 32%165 87% 58 31% 169 89% 56 30% 54 29%
135 61% 56 25% 148 67% 52 24% 68 31%111 59% 23 12% 112 59% 42 22% 44 23%
124 56% 29 13% 97 44% 46 21% 48 22%79 42% 13 7% 61 32% 25 13% 39 21%
96 43% 3 1% 91 41% 20 9% 31 14%66 35% 0 0% 50 26% 4 2% 21 11%
78 35% 147 67% 91 41% 15 7% 2 1%46 24% 113 60% 81 43% 12 6% 0 0%
52 24% 111 50% 51 23% 114 52%22 12% 71 38% 37 20% 88 47%
30 14% 88 40% 20 9% 217 98% 71 32%13 7% 53 28% 12 6% 179 95% 54 29%
20 9% 28 13% 18 8% 148 67% 68 31%10 5% 15 8% 11 6% 110 58% 40 21%
21 10% 22 10% 3 1% 84 38% 23 10%8 4% 16 8% 1 1% 64 34% 13 7%
104 47% 80 36% 4 2%101 53% 52 28% 3 2%
194 88% 57 26% 77 35% 101 46%139 74% 57 30% 65 34% 72 38%
142 64% 44 20% 39 18% 68 31%93 49% 41 22% 21 11% 40 21%
112 51% 31 14% 1 0% 56 25%79 42% 18 10% 3 2% 35 19%
104 47% 15 7% 33 15%59 31% 10 5% 28 15%
67 30% 7 3% 84 38%36 19% 3 2% 63 33%
37 17% 76 34%22 12% 61 32%
33 15% 36 16%21 11% 29 15%1 0% 15 7%2 1% 4 2%
Total
Requirements Management
Stakeholder Negotiation
Product Planning Elicitation Analysis
Checking
Requirement Types
Other
Simulation
Automated Checking
Other
Functional*
Scenarios*
Quality
User Interfaces
Processes
Rules
Software InterfacesOther
Inspection
Peer/Advisor Review
Prototype Review*
Walk-Through
Tables
Other
Total Total Total* Total*
Storage
Natural Language
UML Diagrams
Graphical Processes
SA Diagrams
User Screens
Informal Drawings
Document
Spreadsheet
Modeling Tool
Database
Drawing Tool
Other
Glossary
Structure
Behavior
Agents
Formal Properties*
Informal Modeling
OOA
Prototyping
Quality Checks
SA
DDD
Workshops*
Total*
Feedback*
Design*
Analysis
Creativity
Other
DFD
ERD
STD
System Archeology
Requirements Reuse
Interviews
Creativity
Document Analysis
Introspection
Sequence Diagrams
State Machines
Other
Activity Diagrams
DFD
BPMN; BPML
Idea Castings
Idea Databases
Variability Analysis
Modeling-based
Checklist
Observation
Surveys
Data Mining
User Stories
Shall Templates
Other
Use Case Diagrams
Activity Diagrams
Class Diagrams
Copy/Paste
Delta Specification
Standard Reqs.*
Win-Win Negotiation
Variant Analysis
Negotiation Analysis
Change Management*
Baselining
Traceability*
Progress Tracking*
Report Generation
Process Measurement
Other
Workshops
Total*
Other
Notations
Reqs. Prioritizing
Total
Reqs. Prioritizing
Handshaking*
Conflict Management
Strategy Alignment
Power Analysis*
Total
Business Case*
Requirements Triage
Release Planing
Roadmapping
Vision
Other
Use Cases
Informal Text
![Page 23: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 23
3 practicescorrelated
with RE Success
![Page 24: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Business Case
A business case predicts financial results and other business consequences.
126 57%71 38%
Business Case*
Source: M. Schmidt: The Business Case Guide.
![Page 25: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Scenarios
Scenarios document exemplary sequences (stories) of system usage.
160 72%100 53%
Scenarios*
Buy Ticket:1) Traveller enters destination2) Ticket machine shows ticket options3) Traveller selects option4) Ticket machine shows price5) Traveller enters money6) Ticket machine issues ticketAlternatives…Exceptions….
![Page 26: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Workshops
Workshops create an efficient, controlled, and dynamic setting for quickly eliciting, prioritizing, and agreeing on requirements.
189 86%133 70%
Workshops*
![Page 27: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 27
Use of Success-Correlating Practices
92, 71%
38, 29%
Did Use Business Case, Workshops, and Scenarios
12, 31%
27, 69%
Did NOT use BC, WS, or SC
![Page 28: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 28
What is ‘Best Practice’?
RefsQ 2015: “I heard it first at RefsQ”
Idea: Best Practice should beModern or Mature Practice
![Page 29: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 29
The Winner was…
![Page 30: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
< 10% 2-Taken Up 3-Mature 4-Declining
ADO
PTIO
N
Maturity
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 30
Practice Hype Cycle
Please Vote from a Practice Perspective: What Topics Go in Which Phase?
1-New
![Page 31: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 31
Practice Hype Cycle
Most frequent answers from GI-RE meeting participants (Nov 24, 2016)
0
5
10
15
20
25
New Growing Mature Declining
Automated RE
Agile RE
User Feedback
Workshops
User Stories
SA
Goals
Interviews
Use Cases
UML
Workshops
SA
UserStories
Automated RE
![Page 32: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 32
Modern Practices: A Swiss View
Consistent, longitudinal research of practice use:–2013–2014–2015–2016
![Page 33: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 33
Modern Practices: A Swiss View
Consistent, longitudinal research of practice use:–2013–2014–2015–2016
I aggregated by looking at–average practice use
over all four years–difference between
average 2013/2014 andaverage 2015/2016
![Page 34: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 34
Extent and Change of Practice: Elicitation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Exte
nt o
f Use
Growth
Interview
Introspection(Use of Experience)
ArchaeologyWorkshops
ReuseOn-site Customer
Observation
Surveys
Creativity
![Page 35: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 35
Extent and Change of Practice: Specification
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Exte
nt o
f Use
Growth
Informal Text
User StoriesUser ScreensUse Cases
Informal DrawingsUse Case Diagrams
BPMNActivity Diagrams
DFD Class DiagramsSequence Diagrams
![Page 36: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 36
Extent and Change of Practice: Checking
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Exte
nt o
f Use
Growth
Walkthrough
Reviews
Checklists Peer/Advisory ReviewSimulation
Prototype Review
Test Definition
![Page 37: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 37
Extent and Change of Practice: Tools
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Exte
nt o
f Use
Growth
Documents
JiraPaper and Pen
EnterpriseArchitect
VisioConfluence
Quality Center
TFS
Balsamiq
DoorsPolarion
i4DS Centre for Requirements EngineeringProf. Dr. Samuel Fricker
![Page 38: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 38
Summary and Conclusions
Best Practice may be Standard Practice, Common Practice, Success-Correlating Practice, Modern Practice
Standard: requirements inquiry and management
Common: use of natural language, functional requirements, workshops
Success-correlating: business case, scenarios, and workshops
Modern practice: introspection, user screens, user stories, pen and paper, jira, confluence, Balsamiq
…how smart is practice, and what should we do about it?
![Page 39: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 39
How Smart is RE Practice?
Total: 67 practices
Natural Language 374 89%Functional 343 82%Workshops 328 78%System Archeology 292 70%Requirements Reuse 270 64%Inspection + 266 63%Interviews + 265 63%Document 265 63%Scenarios ± 263 63%Reqs. Prioritizing 252 60%UML Diagrams 245 58%Change Management 243 58%Quality 240 57%User Interfaces 238 57%Document Analysis 211 50%Informal Modeling + 210 50%Release Planing 209 50%Handshaking 209 50%Graphical Processes 208 50%Requirements Triage 206 49%Business Case 202 48%
3
9
21
![Page 40: Gutes RE, schlechtes RE](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022040613/624ba6995753596e900ee618/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
04.01.2017i4Ds | Centre for Requirements Engineering 40
Shall We Teach Requirements Engineering?
Successful projects used a wider variety of RE techniques and defined more requirement types than unsuccessful projects.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Avg. Number of RE Techniques
Successful RE Other RE
+25%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of Requirement Types
Successful RE Other RE
+26%