Marginal Notes on Amethodical Requirements Engineering:  What Experts Learned from Experience

S. Sim, T. Alspaugh, B. Al-Ani
{"title":"Marginal Notes on Amethodical Requirements Engineering:  What Experts Learned from Experience","authors":"S. Sim, T. Alspaugh, B. Al-Ani","doi":"10.1109/RE.2008.52","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Requirements engineers with many years of experience have a distinct perspective on the field. To sample this knowledge, we interviewed 34 requirements researchers and practitioners, each with up to 42 years of experience. We used open-ended, structured interviews in which we asked them to reflect on their experiences and professional development as requirements engineers over their careers. Several themes emerged: requirements engineers act as bridges between different worlds, good communication is key, good process can help but isn't everything, shorter requirements documents can be better, and good requirements are driven by customer value not technical elegance. All of these pertain to amethodical requirements engineering. Amethodical concepts are not rejections of method, but rather those concepts that are marginalized and left out of prescriptive methods for carrying out a procedure. We discuss these results and their implications.","PeriodicalId":340621,"journal":{"name":"2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2008.52","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Requirements engineers with many years of experience have a distinct perspective on the field. To sample this knowledge, we interviewed 34 requirements researchers and practitioners, each with up to 42 years of experience. We used open-ended, structured interviews in which we asked them to reflect on their experiences and professional development as requirements engineers over their careers. Several themes emerged: requirements engineers act as bridges between different worlds, good communication is key, good process can help but isn't everything, shorter requirements documents can be better, and good requirements are driven by customer value not technical elegance. All of these pertain to amethodical requirements engineering. Amethodical concepts are not rejections of method, but rather those concepts that are marginalized and left out of prescriptive methods for carrying out a procedure. We discuss these results and their implications.
关于方法需求工程的旁注:专家从经验中学到了什么
具有多年经验的需求工程师对该领域有不同的看法。为了对这些知识进行抽样,我们采访了34位需求研究人员和实践者,每个人都有42年的经验。我们使用开放式的、结构化的面试,在面试中,我们要求他们反映他们作为需求工程师在职业生涯中的经验和专业发展。几个主题出现了:需求工程师充当不同世界之间的桥梁,良好的沟通是关键,良好的过程可以有所帮助,但不是一切,更短的需求文档可能更好,好的需求是由客户价值驱动的,而不是技术上的优雅。所有这些都属于方法需求工程。方法概念不是对方法的拒绝,而是那些被边缘化的概念,被排除在执行程序的规定性方法之外。我们将讨论这些结果及其含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信