Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
The number of papers and articles on goals would suggest that goal-oriented requirements engineering is a well understood and mature area within the requirements engineering discipline. In particular, there is a wealth of published material on formal goal modelling approaches. However, the uptake of the goal approaches advocated by academics and researchers within real world settings appears to be quite low. Where goals are used in industrial practice their use is mainly informal and the methods used are inconsistent. There appears to be a significant gap between research and practice in the use of goals within requirements engineering. A two-part study was undertaken to check whether there is evidence to support this view of a disconnection between research and industry. Firstly, a literature survey of requirements engineering papers about goals reveals a large body of published material, but the majority has little industrial involvement. Secondly, a questionnaire completed by experienced requirements engineering practitioners suggests that use of goals in practice is inconsistent, informal, and rarely utilises formal modelling approaches. This paper proposes future work that would close the gap between research and practice in the use of goals within requirements engineering. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2017 | 10.1109/RE.2017.40 | 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
aim,aspiration,benefit,goal,need,objective,want | Systems engineering,Computer science,Requirements analysis,Requirements engineering,Requirements elicitation,Requirements management,Requirement,Goal oriented requirements engineering,Disconnection,Management science | Conference |
ISSN | ISBN | Citations |
2332-6441 | 978-1-5386-3192-8 | 8 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.62 | 2 | 6 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alistair Mavin | 1 | 165 | 16.47 |
| Philip Wilkinson | 2 | 109 | 9.20 |
| Sabine Teufl | 3 | 49 | 5.35 |
| Henning Femmer | 4 | 158 | 16.72 |
| Jonas Eckhardt | 5 | 96 | 9.24 |
| Jakob Mund | 6 | 24 | 3.11 |