The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice
Open accessAbstract
Requirements Engineering (RE) has received much attention in research and practice due to its importance to software project success. Its interdisciplinary nature, the dependency to the customer, and its inherent uncertainty still render the discipline difficult to investigate. This results in a lack of empirical data. These are necessary, however, to demonstrate which practically relevant RE problems exist and to what extent they matter. Motivated by this situation, we initiated the Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering (NaPiRE) initiative which constitutes a globally distributed, bi-yearly replicated family of surveys on the status quo and problems in practical RE. In this article, we report on the qualitative analysis of data obtained from 228 companies working in 10 countries in various domains and we reveal which contemporary problems practitioners encounter. To this end, we analyse 21 problems derived from the literature with respect to their relevance and criticality in dependency to their context, and we complement this picture with a cause-effect analysis showing the causes and effects surrounding the most critical problems. Our results give us a better understanding of which problems exist and how they manifest themselves in practical environments. Thus, we provide a first step to ground contributions to RE on empirical observations which, until now, were dominated by conventional wisdom only.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development
Adolph, S., Hall, W., & Kruchten, P. (2011) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-010-9152-6 · Cited by 235 · cited 3×
“For analysing the answers given to the open question on what causes and effects the RE problems have (Q 30 to Q 32), we apply qualitative data analysis techniques as recommended in context of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Adolph et al. 2011).”
Method
Cited by
The ABC of Software Engineering Research
Stol, K.-J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3241743 · Cited by 245
Giray, G. (2021) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2021.111031 · Cited by 187
Metadata
- Authors
- Fernández, D. M., Wagner, S., Kalinowski, M., Felderer, M., Mafra, P., Vetrò, A., Conte, T., Christiansson, M.-T., Greer, D., Lassenius, C., Männistö, T., Nayabi, M., Oivo, M., Penzenstadler, B., Pfahl, D., Prikladnicki, R., Ruhe, G., Schekelmann, A., Sen, S., Spinola, R., Tuzcu, A., de la Vara, J. L., & Wieringa, R.
- Venue
- Empirical Software Engineering
- Published
- 2016-10-24
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2298-2338
- ISSN
- 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7616
- OpenAlex
- W2518473846
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 49.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10664-016-9451-7
- The paper
- Fernández, D. M., Wagner, S., Kalinowski, M., Felderer, M., Mafra, P., Vetrò, A., Conte, T., Christiansson, M.-T., Greer, D., Lassenius, C., Männistö, T., Nayabi, M., Oivo, M., Penzenstadler, B., Pfahl, D., Prikladnicki, R., Ruhe, G., Schekelmann, A., Sen, S., . . . Wieringa, R. (2017). Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice. Empirical Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9451-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.