Empirical study of Sommerville and Sawyer's requirements engineering practices

Karl Cox, Mahmood Niazi, June Verner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Practices in seven key areas from requirements engineering (RE) good practice guide are examined via in-depth interviews with ten Australian software development organisations. Our objective is to provide a better understanding of the relative perceived value of the RE practices investigated and to provide an initial assessment of the appropriateness of Sommerville and Sawyer's three classification levels. We used in-depth interviews as our main approach to collecting data. We assessed practices as either standardised use, normal use, used at the discretion of project manager or never used. We found that the single most standardised, or valuable, practice for 1) documentation, was making a business case of a project, for 2) elicitation, it was assessing system feasibility, 3) for analysis and negotiation, it was defining system boundaries, 4) for requirements description, it was to specify requirements quantitatively and to define standard templates for requirements, 5) for system modelling, it was to use a data dictionary, 6) for validation, it was to propose test cases, and 7) for management, it was to define a change management process. We suggest Sommerville and Sawyer's classification of basic, intermediate and advanced practices needs some reconsideration to bring his list into alignment with current industry practices.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)339-355
Number of pages17
JournalIET Software
Volume3
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2009

Fingerprint

Requirements engineering
Software engineering
Industry
Managers

Keywords

  • Australian software development organisation
  • change management process
  • data dictionary
  • documentation
  • requirement description
  • requirements engineering
  • system modelling

Cite this

Cox, Karl ; Niazi, Mahmood ; Verner, June. / Empirical study of Sommerville and Sawyer's requirements engineering practices. In: IET Software. 2009 ; Vol. 3, No. 5. pp. 339-355.
@article{cf3dad4ffe7749c4b2e10268f23ae1af,
title = "Empirical study of Sommerville and Sawyer's requirements engineering practices",
abstract = "Practices in seven key areas from requirements engineering (RE) good practice guide are examined via in-depth interviews with ten Australian software development organisations. Our objective is to provide a better understanding of the relative perceived value of the RE practices investigated and to provide an initial assessment of the appropriateness of Sommerville and Sawyer's three classification levels. We used in-depth interviews as our main approach to collecting data. We assessed practices as either standardised use, normal use, used at the discretion of project manager or never used. We found that the single most standardised, or valuable, practice for 1) documentation, was making a business case of a project, for 2) elicitation, it was assessing system feasibility, 3) for analysis and negotiation, it was defining system boundaries, 4) for requirements description, it was to specify requirements quantitatively and to define standard templates for requirements, 5) for system modelling, it was to use a data dictionary, 6) for validation, it was to propose test cases, and 7) for management, it was to define a change management process. We suggest Sommerville and Sawyer's classification of basic, intermediate and advanced practices needs some reconsideration to bring his list into alignment with current industry practices.",
keywords = "Australian software development organisation, change management process, data dictionary, documentation, requirement description, requirements engineering, system modelling",
author = "Karl Cox and Mahmood Niazi and June Verner",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0076",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "339--355",
journal = "IET Software",
issn = "1751-8806",
number = "5",

}

Empirical study of Sommerville and Sawyer's requirements engineering practices. / Cox, Karl; Niazi, Mahmood; Verner, June.

In: IET Software, Vol. 3, No. 5, 01.10.2009, p. 339-355.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Empirical study of Sommerville and Sawyer's requirements engineering practices

AU - Cox, Karl

AU - Niazi, Mahmood

AU - Verner, June

PY - 2009/10/1

Y1 - 2009/10/1

N2 - Practices in seven key areas from requirements engineering (RE) good practice guide are examined via in-depth interviews with ten Australian software development organisations. Our objective is to provide a better understanding of the relative perceived value of the RE practices investigated and to provide an initial assessment of the appropriateness of Sommerville and Sawyer's three classification levels. We used in-depth interviews as our main approach to collecting data. We assessed practices as either standardised use, normal use, used at the discretion of project manager or never used. We found that the single most standardised, or valuable, practice for 1) documentation, was making a business case of a project, for 2) elicitation, it was assessing system feasibility, 3) for analysis and negotiation, it was defining system boundaries, 4) for requirements description, it was to specify requirements quantitatively and to define standard templates for requirements, 5) for system modelling, it was to use a data dictionary, 6) for validation, it was to propose test cases, and 7) for management, it was to define a change management process. We suggest Sommerville and Sawyer's classification of basic, intermediate and advanced practices needs some reconsideration to bring his list into alignment with current industry practices.

AB - Practices in seven key areas from requirements engineering (RE) good practice guide are examined via in-depth interviews with ten Australian software development organisations. Our objective is to provide a better understanding of the relative perceived value of the RE practices investigated and to provide an initial assessment of the appropriateness of Sommerville and Sawyer's three classification levels. We used in-depth interviews as our main approach to collecting data. We assessed practices as either standardised use, normal use, used at the discretion of project manager or never used. We found that the single most standardised, or valuable, practice for 1) documentation, was making a business case of a project, for 2) elicitation, it was assessing system feasibility, 3) for analysis and negotiation, it was defining system boundaries, 4) for requirements description, it was to specify requirements quantitatively and to define standard templates for requirements, 5) for system modelling, it was to use a data dictionary, 6) for validation, it was to propose test cases, and 7) for management, it was to define a change management process. We suggest Sommerville and Sawyer's classification of basic, intermediate and advanced practices needs some reconsideration to bring his list into alignment with current industry practices.

KW - Australian software development organisation

KW - change management process

KW - data dictionary

KW - documentation

KW - requirement description

KW - requirements engineering

KW - system modelling

U2 - 10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0076

DO - 10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0076

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 339

EP - 355

JO - IET Software

JF - IET Software

SN - 1751-8806

IS - 5

ER -