requirements engineering maturity measurement and evaluation, a case study of bank x in indonesia
TRANSCRIPT
Requirements Engineering Maturity Requirements Engineering Maturity Measurement and EvaluationMeasurement and EvaluationMeasurement and Evaluation Measurement and Evaluation
(A Case Study of Bank X in Indonesia)
Bahana Wiradanti Bahana Wiradanti & Rajesri Govindaraju& Rajesri Govindaraju
Industrial Engineering DepartmentInstitut Teknologi Bandung
International Conference on Industrial and Intelligent Information 2011 (ICIII)
International Conference on Industrial and Intelligent Information 2011 (ICIII)Intelligent Information 2011 (ICIII)1 – 3 April 2011, Bali, IndonesiaIntelligent Information 2011 (ICIII)1 – 3 April 2011, Bali, Indonesia
2www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
ContentsContentsContentsContents
1 Introduction1. Introduction2. Methodology3. Conclusion 4. Future Research
3www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
1. Introduction1. Introduction
Research BackgroundResearch BackgroundResearch BackgroundResearch Background
Increase in needs for information system
5IS development needs to be managedwww.slideshare.net/wiradantib
Research BackgroundResearch BackgroundResearch BackgroundResearch Background
REQUIREMENTSREQUIREMENTSREQUIREMENTSREQUIREMENTSIncrease in needs for information system????
Errors in system requirementscould be up to 100x
More expensive to fixThan errors in system implementationy pBoehm (1983) in Sommerville& Ransom(2005)
6IS development needs to be managedwww.slideshare.net/wiradantib
system requirements define what must be y qdone by information systems, or any property or quality of what should be provided by the y ysystem (Bentley & Whitten, 2007, p. 208)
Requirements Engineering Requirements Engineering (RE)(RE)q g gq g gProcessProcess
“The goal is to create andThe goal is to create and maintain a system requirements document.”
(Sommerville, 2006, p.143)
7Better quality, in budget, in time
www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
Bank XBank XBank XBank X• Bank X is an important organization in Indonesia’s economy. • They have been executing many information system• They have been executing many information system
development projects.
IMWork Units
IM Unit IT Unit
(fi l )(Initial Req) (Req Management)
(final req)
Problems :Problems :• IM Unit felt their RE process has already been in the right
direction, has implemented ISO 9001.
8• Systems that have been made are not satisfying stakeholders.• Increase in completion time and cost.www.slideshare.net/wir
adantib
Research QuestionResearch QuestionResearch QuestionResearch Question“How mature is Bank X in theirHow mature is Bank X in their
Requirements Engineering process?
WWhich RE practices has been well defined and consistentlydefined and consistently implemented, also which are still weak in Bank X? ”
P f t dPurpose of case study:Not only helping improvements in Bank X’s RE process, b t also to learn from their e perience
9
but also to learn from their experiencewww.slideshare.net/wir
adantib
2 Methodology2 Methodology2. Methodology2. Methodology
Research ModelResearch ModelResearch ModelResearch Model
Requirements Engineering Maturity Measurement Framework (REMMF)
With3 Dimensions of Motorola3 Dimensions of Motorola
(Niazi et.al, 2008)
Basic, intermediate and d d tiadvanced practices
Approach Deployment Resultspp p y
11www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
Research ModelResearch Model (Cont )(Cont )
REMMF (Ni i t l 2008)
Research Model Research Model (Cont.)(Cont.)
REMMF (Niazi et.al, 2008)
Strength & WeaknessOrgaization
Maturity Level gof organization based on each
Maturity Level
Good Practice score
(10 i t l )Level2Level3 –Defined
(10 point scale)
Level1 –
Level2 –Repeatable
Level1 –Initial
12www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
Maturity Measurement ModelMaturity Measurement ModelMaturity Measurement ModelMaturity Measurement Model
Requirements Engineering Maturity Measurement F k (REMMF)Framework (REMMF)
With3 Dimensions of Motorola
3: standardized guideline2: normal use1 di ti (Niazi et.al, 2008)
10 Point scale1: discretionary use0: never used
13www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
Motorola’s Instrument (Daskalantonakis, 1994 in Niazi et al, 2008)
Score APPROACH DEPLOYMENT RESULTS
Poor (0)No commitment, management
t d i ti bilitNo part of the organization uses the
tiNo results, ineffective
Poor (0) support and organization ability practice
Weak (2)Management recognizes the needs to implement, but no
commitment&support
Fragmented and inconsistent use Spotty and inconsistent results
commitment&support
Fair (4)
There are management recognition, support and ability,
wide but not complete i b
Less fragmented use and some consistency, deployed in some major parts
of the organization
Consistent and positiveresults for several parts of
the organizationcommitment by management
Marginally Qualified (6)
Much wider approach, and some of the management have
been proactive
Deployed in many parts of the Organization, mostly consistent use, and monitoring/verification of use for many
Positive measurable results and consistent in
mostQ ( ) p g yparts of the organization parts of the organization
Q lifi d (8)
Total management commitment and majority of management is
ti
Deployed and consistently used in almost all parts of the organization, monitoring/
ifi ti f f l t ll t f
Positive measurable results and consistent in
l t llQualified (8) proactive verification of use for almost all parts of the organization, and there is a mechanism
to distribute the lessons learned
almost allparts of the organization
Management provides zealous Pervasive and consistent deployed, Requirements exceeded
Outstanding (10)
g pleadership and commitment,
organizational excellence in the practice recognized even outside the organization
p yconsistent use over time across all parts of
the organization, and monitoring/verification for all parts
of the organization
qconsistently world-class
results, counsel sought by others
outside the organization of the organization
14www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
More Measurement:More Measurement:Agency Y (comparison organization) to see whether the assessment model could distinguish Good Practices score of organizations, which maturity level are different
Data Collection & ProcessingData Collection & Processinggg• Two kinds of data:
Primary: questionnaires data– Primary: questionnaires data– Secondary: requirements document
• Data processing is done according to previous studiesData processing is done according to previous studies.
15www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
3. Conclusion3. Conclusion
ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion1. Bank X:
Maturity Level : Level 3RE Process– Strengh : “requirements document “ and
“requirements elicitation”W k– Weakness :
whole good practice score still weak Implementing intermediate and advanced practices Implementing intermediate and advanced practices
2. ComparisonBank X Agency YBank X Agency Y
Maturity Level
• Level 3 • Level 1
Strength&
• the whole good practice score < 7• Difficulties : Implementing
intermediate and advanced
• the whole good practice score < 3• Difficulties : Implementing basic
practices
17Weakness
intermediate and advancedpractices
practices
www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
Further Conclusion & Lessons LearnedFurther Conclusion & Lessons Learned• This case study brings improvement areas: priority in
Further Conclusion & Lessons LearnedFurther Conclusion & Lessons Learned
improving good practices
• The assessment model was considered easy to use
G l l t lt di i• General lowest score: results dimension score Lessons Learned: Communication problems between
RE analysts &system builder are common:RE analysts &system builder are common:Uphold group decision making, esp in elicitation
process. pMore participation or involvement of system
builders. Create more awareness to the RE process.
18www.slideshare.net/wiradantib
4. Future Research4. Future Research• Survey to measure the RE process performed in
Indonesian enterprises. • Improve assessment framework (communication
aspect)aspect)
Thank YouThank You
20www.slideshare.net/wiradantib