Quantitative WinWin: a new method for decision support in requirements negotiation
SEKE '02 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering
ROI of Software Process Improvement: Metrics for Project Managers and Software Engineers
ROI of Software Process Improvement: Metrics for Project Managers and Software Engineers
Continuous Software Process Improvement through Statistical Process Control
CSMR '05 Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering
Defining a Requirements Process Improvement Model
Software Quality Control
Process Improvement in Requirements Management: A Method Engineering Approach
REFSQ '08 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality
A software product certification model
Software Quality Control
Software development and testing: a system dynamics simulation and modeling approach
SEPADS'10 Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on Software engineering, parallel and distributed systems
Requirements Certification for Offshoring Using LSPCM
QUATIC '10 Proceedings of the 2010 Seventh International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology
A hierarchical decomposition of decision process Petri nets for modeling complex systems
International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Many software development organizations invest heavily in the requirements engineering process programmes, and with good reason. They fail, however, to maximize a healthy return on investment. This paper explores factors that influence requirements process improvement (RPI) with the aim to explain how the attributes of the underpinning process affect both the quality and associated costs of the requirements specification delivered to the customer. Although several tools and techniques have been proposed and used for RPIs, many lack a systematic approach to RPI or fail to provide RPI teams with the required understanding to assess their effectivity. The authors contend that the developed quality-cost RPI descriptive model is a generic framework, discipline and language for an effective approach to RPI. This descriptive model allows a systematic enquiry that yields explanations and provides RPI stakeholders with a common decision making framework. The descriptive model was validated by practicing process improvement consultants and managers and makes a contribution towards understanding of the quality-cost dynamics of RPI. To address the acknowledged deficiencies of RPI, the authors further suggest a generic RPI model and approach that integrates statistical process control (SPC) into system dynamics (SD). The approach enables RPI teams to steer for a cost-effective and successful RPI.