Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Process Improvement in Software Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study

  • Published:
Programming and Computer Software Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software analysis is the process carried out to obtain requirements that reflects the needs of a client’s stakeholders and that allows the construction of a software product that meets their expectations. However, it is also known as a process where many defects are injected. In this context, although process improvement has contributed to the software industry, in the case of software requirements it needs to be studied to determine the improvements obtained and established models. In the literature reviewed, a similar mapping study with 4 research question was identified and used as a reference. The objective of this work is to structure the available literature on process improvement in the software requirements engineering (SRE) domain to identify the improvement phases, paradigms, principles, and established models. For this purpose, a systematic mapping study (SMS) was carried out in the most recognized digital databases. The mapping carried out recovered a total of 1,495 studies, and after the process, 86 primary studies were obtained. In this SMS had established and answered 13 research questions. The different models that are applied throughout the software requirements engineering process were identified, and accepted studies were classified and findings on SRE process improvement were collected. The most used models are CMMI, Requirements Engineering Good Practice Guide (REGPG), and ISO/IEC 15504. Also, 62% of accepted studies are of the proposal and evaluation type; that is, they propose a framework and study the implementation of a proposal in one or more case studies respectively. On the other hand, it was found that most of the studies focused on the process improvement analysis phase. Likewise, in contrast with a previous study, proposal and validation type of studies increased in 9 papers each one from 2014 to date. This shows the interest of the scientific community in this domain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Kazman, R. and Pasquale, L., Software engineering in society, IEEE Software, 2020, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2019.2949322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hastie, S. and Wojewoda, S., Standish Group 2015 chaos report – Q&A with Jennifer Lynch, 2015. https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2015. Accessed Apr. 27, 2019.

  3. ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 systems and software engineering – software life cycle processes, Geneva, 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/63712.html.

  4. Nuseibeh, B. and Easterbrook, S., Requirements engineering: a roadmap, Proc. Conf. Future Software Engineering ICSE2000, Limerick, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 35–46.

  5. Dick, J., Hull, E., and Jackson, K., Requirements Engineering, Cham: Springer Int. Publ., 2017.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 Systems and Software Engineering – Life Cycle Processes – Requirements Engineering, Geneva, 2018. https://www.iso.org/standard/72089.html.

  7. Kabaale, E. and Kituyi, G.M., A theoretical framework for requirements engineering and process improvement in small and medium software companies, Bus. Process Manag. J., 2015, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2014-0002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Aysolmaz, B. and Demirörs, O., A detailed software process improvement methodology: BG-SPI, Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci., 2011, vol. 172, pp. 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22206-1_9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Méndez, D., Ognawala, S., Wagner, S., and Daneva, M., Where do we stand in requirements engineering improvement today?: First results from a mapping study, Proc. 8th ACM/IEEE Int. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement ESEM’14, Torino, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2652524.2652555

  10. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2017 Systems and software engineering – vocabulary, Geneva, 2017. https://www.iso.org/standard/71952.html.

  11. Macaulay, L., Requirements Engineering, Springer Sci. & Business Media, 2012.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Pandey, D., Suman, U., and Ramani, A.K., An effective requirement engineering process model for software development and requirements management, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Advances in Recent Technologies in Communication and Computing, Washington: IEEE Computer Soc., Oct. 2010, pp. 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARTCom.2010.24

  13. Bjarnason, E., et al., Challenges and practices in aligning requirements with verification and validation: a case study of six companies, Empirical Software Eng., 2014, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1809–1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-013-9263-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guerra-García, C., Pérez-González, H., Ramírez-Torres, M., Ontañón-García, L., and Juárez-Ramirez, R., Specifying data quality requirements through web functionalities – MOSQAF, Program. Comput. Software, 2021, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 631–653. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768821080132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Somohano-Murrieta, J.C.B., Ocharán-Hernández, J.O., Sánchez-García, Á.J., Limón, X., and de los Ángeles Arenas-Valdés, M., Improving the analytic hierarchy process for requirements prioritization using evolutionary computing, Program. Comput. Software, 2021, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 746–756. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768821080235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pereira, T., Albuquerque, D., Sousa, A., Alencar, F., and Castro, J., Retrospective and trends in requirements engineering for embedded systems: a systematic literature review, Proc. 20th Ibero-American Conf. on Software Engineering, CIbSE 2017, Buenos Aires, 2017, pp. 123–136.

  17. Haq, B., Nadeem, M., Ali, I., Ali, K., Raza, M., and Rehmanr, M.U., Use of expert system in requirements engineering process a systematic literature review, Proc. UK/China Emerging Technologies Conf. (UCET’2019), Glazgow, Aug. 21–22, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/UCET.2019.8881880

  18. Inayat, I., Salim, S.S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., and Shamshirband, S., A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges, Comput. Human Behav., 2015, vol. 51, pp. 915–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shafiq, M., Zhang, Q., and Akbar, M.A., Software Requirements Engineering Maturity Model (SREMM) in offshore software development outsourcing, Proc. Int. Conf. on Frontiers of Information Technology, FIT 2019, Islamabad, 2019, pp. 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIT47737.2019.00028

  20. Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Islam, A.K.M.M., Cheng, C.K., Permadi, R.B., and Feldt, R., Evaluation and measurement of software process improvement – a systematic literature review, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2012, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 398–424. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2011.26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. G. O’Regan, Introduction to Software Process Improvement, Springer Sci. & Business Media, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-172-1

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Von Wangenheim, C.G.V., Systematic literature review of software process, Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Process, Improvement and Capability Determination, Pisa, May 2010.

  23. O’Connor, R.V. and Laporte, C.Y., The evolution of the ISO/IE 29110 set of standards, and guides, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Syst. Approach, 2017, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITSA.2017010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Humphrey, W.S., Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework, IEEE Software, 1988, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 73–79, https://doi.org/10.1109/52.2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. CMMI-Institute, CMMI Model V2.0, 2018.

  26. ISO/IEC 12207:1995 Information technology – software life cycle processes, 1995. https://www.iso.org/standard/21208.html.

  27. ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 Systems and software engineering – software life cycle processes, 2017. ttps://www.iso.org/standard/63712.html.

  28. ISO/IEC TR 15504-1:1998 Information technology – software process assessment – Part 1: Concepts and Introductory Guide, 1998. https://www.iso.org/standard/27947.html.

  29. Rout, T.P., ISO/IEC 15504 – evolution to an international standard, Software Process. Improv. Pract., 2003, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/spip.167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. ISO/IEC 33001:2015 Information technology – Process assessment – Concepts and terminology, 2015. https://www.iso.org/standard/54175.html.

  31. Laporte, C., Muñoz, M., and Gerançon, B., The education of students about iso/iec 29110 software engineering standards and their implementations in very small entities, Proc. Int. Humanitarian Technology Conf., Toronto, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/IHTC.2017.8058208

  32. ISO/IEC TR 29110-5-1-2:2011 Software Engineering – Lifecycle Profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) – Part 5-1-2: management and engineering fuide: Generic Profile Group: Basic Profile, Geneva, 2011. https://www.iso.org/standard/51153.html.

  33. Hannola, L., Oinonen, P., and Nikuia, U., Assessing and improving the front end activities of software development, Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst., 2011, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2011.037296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Petersen, K., Vakkalanka,S. andKuzniarz, L., Guidelines for conducting systematic Mmapping studies in software Eengineering: an update, Inf. Software Technol., 2015, vol. 64, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kitchenham, N, and Charters, Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Version 2.3, 2007.

  36. Wieringa, R. and Maiden, N., Mead, N., and Rolland, C., Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion, Requir. Eng., 2006, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 102–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0021-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ampatzoglou, A., Bibi, S., Avgeriou, P., Verbeek, M., and Chatzigeorgiou, A., Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies, Inf. Software Technol., 2019, vol. 106, pp. 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge Dr. Daniel Méndez for the information shared from his SMS [9]. Authors recognize reviews from members of Grupo de Investigación y Desarrollo en Ingeniería de Software- Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú GIDIS-PUCP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, San Miguel, 15088, Lima, Perú

    S. Almeyda & A. Dávila

Authors
  1. S. Almeyda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Dávila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to S. Almeyda or A. Dávila.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Appendices

APPENDIX A. Data extraction template

Table S1. Data extraction template
Full size table

APPENDIX B. Search strings

Table S2. Search results
Full size table

APPENDIX C. List of primary studies

Table S3. Primary studies
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Almeyda, S., Dávila, A. Process Improvement in Software Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study. Program Comput Soft 48, 513–533 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768822080084

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768822080084

Search

Navigation