Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering: Contemporary Problems, Causes, and Effects in Practice (1611.10288v1)

Published 27 Nov 2016 in cs.SE

Abstract: Requirements Engineering (RE) has received much attention in research and practice due to its importance to software project success. Its interdisciplinary nature, the dependency to the customer, and its inherent uncertainty still render the discipline difficult to investigate. This results in a lack of empirical data. These are necessary, however, to demonstrate which practically relevant RE problems exist and to what extent they matter. Motivated by this situation, we initiated the Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering (NaPiRE) initiative which constitutes a globally distributed, bi-yearly replicated family of surveys on the status quo and problems in practical RE. In this article, we report on the qualitative analysis of data obtained from 228 companies working in 10 countries in various domains and we reveal which contemporary problems practitioners encounter. To this end, we analyse 21 problems derived from the literature with respect to their relevance and criticality in dependency to their context, and we complement this picture with a cause-effect analysis showing the causes and effects surrounding the most critical problems. Our results give us a better understanding of which problems exist and how they manifest themselves in practical environments. Thus, we provide a first step to ground contributions to RE on empirical observations which, until now, were dominated by conventional wisdom only.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (23)
  1. D. Méndez Fernández (18 papers)
  2. S. Wagner (123 papers)
  3. M. Kalinowski (6 papers)
  4. M. Felderer (3 papers)
  5. P. Mafra (2 papers)
  6. A. Vetrò (2 papers)
  7. T. Conte (2 papers)
  8. M. -T. Christiansson (1 paper)
  9. D. Greer (1 paper)
  10. C. Lassenius (1 paper)
  11. T. Männistö (1 paper)
  12. M. Nayabi (1 paper)
  13. M. Oivo (1 paper)
  14. B. Penzenstadler (3 papers)
  15. D. Pfahl (1 paper)
  16. R. Prikladnicki (2 papers)
  17. G. Ruhe (1 paper)
  18. A. Schekelmann (1 paper)
  19. S. Sen (18 papers)
  20. A. Tuzcu (1 paper)
Citations (212)

Summary

A Critical Examination of "Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering"

The paper entitled "Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering: Contemporary Problems, Causes, and Effects in Practice" offers a comprehensive analysis aimed at identifying and understanding the challenges within the domain of Requirements Engineering (RE). The paper stems from an empirical initiative named NaPiRE (Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering), which was introduced to systematically gather and analyze data pertaining to the most persistent and critical problems encountered in industrial RE practices.

Key Findings and Numerical Results

The paper utilizes data collected from 228 companies across ten countries, providing a robust empirical foundation for its findings. It identifies the top recurring problems in RE, notably Incomplete and/or hidden requirements, Communication flaws between the project team and the customer, and Moving targets such as changing goals and requirements. These issues are highlighted as significant contributors to project failure, with Communication flaws between the project team and the customer particularly leading to notable project failures in 45 instances out of 93 occurrences.

Methodological Rigor

This research employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative survey data with qualitative analysis of textual responses. The survey involved both closed-ended questions and open-ended sections to capture a broader understanding of the RE context within organizations. By using such a methodology, the paper successfully uncovers not just the problems but also their underlying causes and effects, allowing for a nuanced analysis of RE challenges.

Patterns and Context

The paper reveals distinct patterns when examining these problems across different types of organizations and contexts, particularly regarding the size of the organizations and the process models used (agile vs. plan-driven). Notably, it was observed that Communication issues within teams and with customers were pervasive across various organizational sizes and methods, whereas the problem of Moving targets was more prevalent in larger, plan-driven organizations.

Causes and Effects

A detailed cause-effect analysis reveals that the most frequently cited causes of RE problems are Lack of time, Lack of experience, and Weak qualification of RE team members. These causes are intricately linked to broader organizational and project dynamics, emphasizing the importance of experience and adequate training for RE practitioners. Incomplete and/or hidden requirements primarily lead to time overruns, post-implementation rework, and poor product quality, illustrating their potential to derail project timelines and outcomes significantly.

Implications for Practice and Theory

This research has significant implications for both practitioners and scholars. For the industry, it underscores the need for improved stakeholder communication practices, more robust requirement elicitation methodologies, and enhanced team qualifications to mitigate the identified issues. Theoretically, the paper sets a foundation for the development of RE success factors and maturity models grounded in empirical data. Moreover, its findings suggest further research regarding process adaptations that accommodate rapidly changing requirements, particularly in agile environments.

Future Directions

The paper anticipates ongoing iterations of the survey to enrich the understanding of global RE practices continually. The authors advocate for continued international collaboration and data sharing to broaden the scope and enhance the reliability of RE studies. Additionally, there is an expressed intent to refine the survey instrument to address noted limitations, such as achieving a more profound exploration of team dynamics and project-specific characteristics.

Conclusion

In summary, the NaPiRE initiative, as documented in this paper, makes a substantial contribution by empirically grounding the discourse on RE problems. Its findings elucidate the pervasive challenges within RE, providing a roadmap for both research and practical interventions aimed at enhancing the efficacy of requirements engineering processes in diverse organizational frameworks. The comprehensive analysis of causes and effects associated with RE challenges serves as a valuable tool for aligning future research endeavors with the practical needs of the industry, thereby fostering a more problem-driven and evidence-based approach to RE research and practice.