Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Industry evaluation of the Requirements Abstraction Model

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software requirements are often formulated on different levels and hence they are difficult to compare to each other. To address this issue, a model that allows for placing requirements on different levels has been developed. The model supports both abstraction and refinement of requirements, and hence requirements can both be compared with each other and to product strategies. Comparison between requirements will allow for prioritization of requirements, which in many cases is impossible if the requirements are described on different abstraction levels. Comparison to product strategies will enable early and systematic acceptance or dismissal of requirements, minimizing the risk for overloading. This paper presents an industrial evaluation of the model. It has been evaluated in two different companies, and the experiences and findings are presented. It is concluded that the requirements abstraction model provides helpful improvements to the industrial requirements engineering process.

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
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An implementation proposal is when the developers take one or several requirements and as a part of their analysis state example solutions taking, e.g., system architecture into account.

References

  1. Ruhe G, Greer D (2003) Quantitative studies in software release planning under risk and resource constraints. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on empirical software engineering (ISESE), IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 262–271

  2. Butscher SA, Laker M (2000) Market-driven product development. Mark Manage 9(2):48–53

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sommerville I (2001) Software engineering. Addison–Wesley, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wieringa R, Ebert C (2004) Guest editors’ introduction: Re’03: practical requirements engineering solutions. IEEE Softw 21(2):16–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Karlsson L, Dahlstedt Å, Natt Och Dag J, Regnell B, Persson A (2003) Challenges in market-driven requirements engineering: an industrial interview study. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (REFSQ’02), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany, pp 101–112

  6. Kotler P, Armstrong G (2001) Principles of marketing. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lehmann DR, Winer RS (2002) Product management. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand BW, Lampel J (1998) Strategy Safari: a guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Weber M, Weisbrod J (2003) Requirements engineering in automotive development: experiences and challenges. IEEE Softw 20(1):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gorschek T (2004) Software process assessment and improvement in industrial requirements engineering. Licentiate thesis no. 2004:07, ISBN 91–7295–041–2. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Ronneby. http://www.ipd.bth.se/tgo/_licentiate/papers/Licentiate

  11. Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2003) Identification of improvement issues using a lightweight triangulation approach. In: Proceedings of the European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI’2003), Verlag der Technischen Universität, Graz, Austria. Download at: http://www.bth.se/fou/Forskinfo.nsf, pp VI.1–VI.14

  12. Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2004) Packaging software process improvement issues: a method and a case study. Softw Pract Exp 34(14):1311–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2006) Requirements abstraction model. Requir Eng J 11(1):79–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Morris P, Masera M, Wilikens M (1998) Requirements engineering and industrial uptake. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on requirements engineering. IEEE, Los Alamistos, CA, pp 130–137

  15. Gorschek T, Garre P, Larsson L, Wohlin C (2006) A model for technology transfer in practice. IEEE Softw 23(6):88–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gorschek T, Svahnberg M (2005) A controlled empirical evaluation of a requirements abstraction model. Inf Softw Technol (can be obtained by email) (in press)

  17. Gorschek T, Svahnberg M, Borg A, Börstler J, Eriksson M, Lonconsole A, Sandahl K (2005) A replicated controlled empirical evaluation of a requirements abstraction model. Inf Softw Technol (can be obtained by email) (in press)

  18. Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. El Emam K, Goldenson D, McCurley J, Herbsleb J (2001) Modeling the likelihood of software process improvement: an exploratory study. Empir Softw Eng 6(3):207–229

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Rainer A, Hall T (2003) A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting software processes. J Syst Softw 66(1):7–21

    Google Scholar 

  21. Herbsleb J, Zubrow D, Goldenson D, Hayes W, Paulk M (1997) Software quality and the capability maturity model. Assoc Comput Mach Commun ACM 40(6):30–40

    Google Scholar 

  22. Herbsleb JD, Goldenson DR (1996) A systematic survey of cmm experience and results. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on software engineering, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 323–330

  23. Conradi R, Fuggetta A (2002) Improving software process improvement. IEEE Softw 19(4):92–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Basili VR, McGarry FE, Pajerski R, Zelkowitz MV (2002) Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the NASA software engineering laboratory. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on software engineering (ICSE02), ACM, Orlando, pp 69–79

  25. Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1999) Requirements engineering: a good practice guide. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 520, 372-25, Ronneby, Sweden

    Tony Gorschek & Claes Wohlin

  2. Danaher Motion Särö AB, 429-80, Särö, Sweden

    Per Garre

  3. ABB Corporate Research, 721-78, Västerås, Sweden

    Stig B. M. Larsson

Authors
  1. Tony Gorschek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Per Garre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stig B. M. Larsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claes Wohlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony Gorschek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gorschek, T., Garre, P., Larsson, S.B.M. et al. Industry evaluation of the Requirements Abstraction Model. Requirements Eng 12, 163–190 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-007-0047-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-007-0047-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation