Requirements Engineering Process Improvement and Related Models

Author(s):  
Badariah Solemon ◽  
Shamsul Sahibuddin ◽  
Abdul Azim Abd Ghani

Requirements Engineering (RE) is a key discipline in software development, and several standards and models are available to help assess and improve RE processes. However, different standards and models can also help achieve different improvement goals. Thus, organizations are challenged to select these standards and models to best suit their specific context and available resources. This chapter presents a review of selected RE-specific and generic process improvement models that are available in the public domain. The review aims to provide preliminary information that might be needed by organizations in selecting these models. The chapter begins with analyses of how RE maturity is addressed in the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Development. Then, it describes the principal characteristics of, and the assessment and improvement framework applied in four RE-specific process assessment and improvement models: the Requirements Engineering Good Practice Guide (REGPG), the Requirements Engineering Process Maturity(REPM), the Requirements Capability Maturity Model (R-CMM), and the Market-Driven Requirements Engineering Process Model (MDREPM). This chapter also examines the utility and lesson learned of these models.

Author(s):  
Badariah Solemon ◽  
Shamsul Sahibuddin ◽  
Abdul Azim Abd Ghani

Requirements Engineering (RE) is a key discipline in software development, and several standards and models are available to help assess and improve RE processes. However, different standards and models can also help achieve different improvement goals. Thus, organizations are challenged to select these standards and models to best suit their specific context and available resources. This chapter presents a review of selected RE-specific and generic process improvement models that are available in the public domain. The review aims to provide preliminary information that might be needed by organizations in selecting these models. The chapter begins with analyses of how RE maturity is addressed in the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Development. Then, it describes the principal characteristics of, and the assessment and improvement framework applied in four RE-specific process assessment and improvement models: the Requirements Engineering Good Practice Guide (REGPG), the Requirements Engineering Process Maturity(REPM), the Requirements Capability Maturity Model (R-CMM), and the Market-Driven Requirements Engineering Process Model (MDREPM). This chapter also examines the utility and lesson learned of these models.


Author(s):  
Pete Sawyer

The interest in Software Process Improvement (SPI) in the early 1990s stimulated tentative work on parallel models for Requirements Engineering (RE) process improvement in the late 1990s. This chapter examines the role of SPI and the implications of the exclusion of explicit support for RE in the most widely used SPI models. The chapter describes the principal characteristics of three RE-specific improvement models that are in the public domain: the Requirements Engineering Good Practice Guide (REGPG), the Requirements Engineering Process Maturity Model (REPM), and the University of Hertfordshire model. The chapter examines the utility of these models and concludes by considering the lessons learned from industrial pilot studies.


Author(s):  
Daniel Adrian Doss ◽  
Russ Henley ◽  
David Hughes McElreath ◽  
Steve L. Mallory ◽  
Balakrishna Gokaraju ◽  
...  

This article examined a variant of the capability maturity model integrated (CMMi) through the lens of market engineering process improvement. The population and sample represented a national array of U.S. marketing organizations. Using ANOVA, a 0.05 significance level, and a stratification of urban marketing organizations versus rural marketing organizations, the study showed three statistically significant differences representing the second (p = 0.00; M = 2.90), fourth (p = 0.01; M = 3.22), and sixth hypotheses (p = 0.04; M = 3.15). The second hypothesis corresponded to the first maturity level (ad hoc, random processes), the fourth hypothesis corresponded to the third maturity level (characterized and expressed processes), and the sixth hypothesis corresponded to the fifth maturity level (optimized processes).


2014 ◽  
pp. 1385-1400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maged Abdullah ◽  
Rodina Ahmad ◽  
Lee Sai Peck ◽  
Zarinah Mohd Kasirun ◽  
Fahad Alshammari

Software Process Improvement (SPI) has become the survival key of numerous software development organizations who want to deliver their products cheaper, faster, and better. A software process ultimately describes the way that organizations develop their software products and supporting services; meanwhile, SPI on the other hand, is the act of changing the software process and maintenance activities. This chapter purposefully describes the benefits of software process improvement. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) are briefly surveyed and extensively discussed. Prior literature on the benefits and impacts of CMM and CMMI-based software process improvement is also highlighted.


Author(s):  
Farley Simon Nobre ◽  
Andrew M. Tobias ◽  
David S. Walker

This chapter is concerned with the implementation of The Capability Maturity Model in the organization of study. In this application, we define measures of organization process improvement and we propose correlations between them and organizational cognition. Among these measures are included organization process maturity, capability, and performance. Therefore, we define correlations between organizational cognition and organization process maturity, and also between organizational cognition and organization process capability and performance. From such correlations, we also define an association between organizational cognition and organizational learning. Hence, we outline new directions to the development of approaches to assess, to evaluate and to measure the degree of organizational cognition from appraisal methods of The Capability Maturity Model and of other organization process improvement models. Moreover, Chapter IX is complemented by Appendix I which summarizes concepts and characteristics about the five maturity levels of The Capability Maturity Model.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document