Understanding requirements engineering process: a challenge for practice and education

Reviews of the state of the professional practice in Requirements Engineering (RE) stress that the RE process is both complex and hard to describe, and suggest there is a significant difference between competent and "approved" practice. "Approved" practice is reflected by (in all likelihood, in fact, has its genesis in) RE education, so that the knowledge and skills taught to students do not match the knowledge and skills required and applied by competent practitioners. A new understanding of the RE process has emerged from our recent study. RE is revealed as inherently creative, involving cycles of building and major reconstruction of the models developed, significantly different from the systematic and smoothly incremental process generally described in the literature. The process is better characterised as highly creative, opportunistic and insight driven. This mismatch between approved and actual practice provides a challenge to RE education - RE requires insight and creativity as well as technical knowledge. Traditional learning models applied to RE focus, however, on notation and prescribed processes acquired through repetition. We argue that traditional learning models fail to support the learning required for RE and propose both a new model based on cognitive flexibility and a framework for RE education to support this model.

[1]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Handbook of Research for educational Communications and Technology , 1997 .

[2]  Franz Lehner,et al.  Requirements Engineering as a Success Factor in Software Projects , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[3]  Charles Richter,et al.  A review of the state of the practice in requirements modeling , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[4]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database , 2003 .

[5]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  Complementary use of ad hoc and post hoc design rationale for creating and organising process knowledge , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[6]  M. Savin-Baden Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. , 2000 .

[7]  Robin Jeffries,et al.  The Processes Involved in Designing Software. , 1980 .

[8]  Pericles Loucopoulos,et al.  System Requirements Engineering , 1995, System Requirements Engineering.

[9]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified , 1990 .

[10]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Exploiting reusable specifications through analogy , 1992, CACM.

[11]  Raymonde Guindon,et al.  Designing the Design Process: Exploiting Opportunistic Thoughts , 1990, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  James Bach Reframing Requirements Analysis , 1999, Computer.

[13]  Raymonde Guindon The process of knowledge discovery in system design , 1989 .

[14]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Using Technology to Assist in Realizing Effective Learning and Instruction: A Principled Approach to the Use of Computers in Collaborative Learning , 1994 .

[15]  Willemien Visser Designers' activities examined at three levels: organization, strategies and problem-solving processes , 1992, Knowl. Based Syst..

[16]  Lemai Nguyen,et al.  Promoting and Supporting Requirements Engineering Creativity , 2006 .

[17]  R. Smith,et al.  What Happens When Designers Don't Play by the Rules: towards a model of opportunistic behaviour in design , 1994, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Contents , 2013, Physiology & Behavior.

[19]  Jocelyn Armarego,et al.  Learning requirements engineering within an engineering ethos , 2004 .

[20]  S. Ohlsson Restructuring revisited: I. Summary and critique of the Gestalt theory of problem solving. , 1984 .

[21]  Henri Poincaré Science and Method , 1914 .

[22]  Willemien Visser,et al.  More or Less Following a Plan During Design: Opportunistic Deviations in Specification , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[23]  Allen Newell,et al.  Problem solving techniques for the design of algorithms , 1984, Inf. Process. Manag..

[24]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Where Do Requirements Come From? , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[25]  Sue Holwell,et al.  Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field , 1998 .

[26]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology , 1993 .

[27]  J. Hadamard,et al.  The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. , 1945 .

[28]  J. Robertson,et al.  Requirements analysts must also be inventors , 2005, IEEE Software.

[29]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[30]  Suzanne Robertson,et al.  Mastering the Requirements Process , 1999 .

[31]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  Essential and incidental complexity in requirements models , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Requirements Engineering. ICRE 2000. (Cat. No.98TB100219).

[32]  Pierre N. Robillard,et al.  The role of knowledge in software development , 1999, CACM.

[33]  D. Thomas King,et al.  Mind over Machine. , 1978 .

[34]  John Bennett,et al.  Reflective conversation with materials , 1996 .

[35]  J. Hadamard,et al.  The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. , 1945 .

[36]  E. Torrance The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. , 1988 .

[37]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Using Design Explanation within the Formal Object-Oriented Method , 1999, Requirements Engineering.

[38]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Integrating creativity workshops into structured requirements processes , 2004, DIS '04.

[39]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  The three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications , 1994, Inf. Syst..

[40]  Josiah Royce,et al.  The psychology of invention. , 1898 .

[41]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Analysing the Novice Analyst: Cognitive Models in Software Engineering , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[42]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[43]  C. Berkenkotter,et al.  Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/culture/power , 1994 .

[44]  Daniela E. Herlea Damian Challenges in Requirements Engineering , 2000 .

[45]  Robert L. Glass A Story about the Creativity Involved in Software Work , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[46]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  European Conference on Information Systems ( ECIS ) 2005 Contextual Factors Which Influence Creativity in Requirements Engineering , 2017 .

[47]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[48]  John C. Thomas,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Design. , 1980 .

[49]  LeMai Nguyen,et al.  Managing the requirements engineering process , 2003, Requirements Engineering.

[50]  Raymonde Guindon Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts , 1990 .

[51]  F. Gobet,et al.  Expertise, models of learning and computer-based tutoring , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[52]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Conceptual Data Modelling in Database Design: Similarities and Differences between Expert and Novice Designers , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[53]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development , 1991 .