Seilevel
Seilevel Home
Back to Blog Home - Requirements Defined

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Requirements are still a problem, right?

I was recently writing a paper where I wanted to reference literature that explained how requirements are one of the key failure points in software projects. I was thinking this would be easy – I’d just reference the CHAOS report or some other academic studies.


And intuitively (and experientially), it makes sense to say that all the requirements problems are not solved quite yet! I know I’ve personally seen projects get delayed or deploy the wrong features because of poor requirements. But what surprised me is that I had a really hard time finding recent research indicating scientific results to this end!


Like all of us, I have read the many references to the Standish Group’s CHAOSE report to the top three reasons for project failure being related to requirements. But, I have not read the report myself, as it’s a bit pricey after all. But even if those references are all valid, the CHAOS report is from the mid-90’s (scary thing - that’s over ten years old!). The Standish Group has done updates every few years since 1994, but interestingly, I cannot find many credible sources to validate those CHAOS report updates still reflect that requirements are the top issues.
In my quest to find academic research to support this claim, I once again came up empty-handed on recent research. All of the papers I read as part of my research referenced the exact same set of papers from a long time ago. One paper was from 1976 by Bell and Thayer. It is the generally accepted original work to recognize requirements were an issue (a very interesting read, though clearly not current!). Ralph Young has a nice summary of the existing literature most commonly referenced in Chapter One of Effective Requirements Practices, including work by Boehm in 1981 and Davis in 1995. But again, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything written after the 1990’s.


It’s just very interesting that it seems like requirements are still an issue. And it seems as though the industry and academia accept this as fact. But yet, no one I could find has done a recent study to actually prove this is still the case, or more importantly, to measure what the specific problems are today. In an industry that changes as fast as this one, simply said, it’s really surprised me.
Requirements Defined Newsletter Bookmark and Share

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Requirements engineering: the state of the practice

Neill, C.J. Laplante, P.A.
Eng. Div., Pennsylvania State Univ.'s, Malvern, PA, USA;

This paper appears in: Software, IEEE
Publication Date: Nov.-Dec. 2003
Volume: 20, Issue: 6
On page(s): 40- 45
ISSN: 0740-7459
INSPEC Accession Number: 7957108
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MS.2003.1241365

11/28/2007 11:03 AM  
Blogger Joy said...

Thanks for the reference! I added your comment to a message board thread here for further discussion here http://www.seilevel.com/messageboard/showthread.php?p=3656#post3656

11/29/2007 7:24 AM  
Blogger David Wright said...

I can also use this reference, being currently charged with improving my company's requirements process. I easily found it at the IEEE site and was able to download it.

11/29/2007 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't find anything newer than 1991 the last time I looked. RE is Software Engineers, as in not Agile, so it is waning.

No RE isn't solved. Agile is seen as one attempt to solve it.

The core problem with RE is that it was oriented towards managing development costs, rather than operational costs. Until this fundamental constraint is removed there will be little meaningful innovation in RE.

11/29/2007 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Joy,

I am currently working on my master thesis which is concerned with the issues you have been talking about. Furthermore, I found a link that might interest you:

http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/renoir/TBRC_RR01.pdf


Greetings,
Tim

11/30/2007 2:44 AM  
Blogger Joy said...

I added all of these new comments to the message board thread for further discussion!

11/30/2007 9:46 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Scott Ambler recently did a survey where he let the participants define success for themselves:

http://www.ddj.com/architect/202800777?cid=Ambysoft.

The CHAOS reports are questionable in my mind because they really haven't published the methodology used, and as noted, they're quite old. Also, if they consider a project that's only a day late and a dollar over budget a "failure", then I really can't agree with the findings.

12/03/2007 1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AFAIK the Chaos Report is annual, but everybody knows only the 1994 one because it is freely available. The rest of the reports are obscenously expensive but some information from them can make its way through other papers, web pages and conference talks. For instance, here you can see some trends derived from the reports: http://www.infoq.com/articles/Interview-Johnson-Standish-CHAOS

12/03/2007 2:27 PM  
Blogger Joy said...

Nice comments, I added them to the message board post at:
http://www.seilevel.com/messageboard/showthread.php?p=3656#post3656

12/03/2007 5:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home