CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Mapping Study on Requirements Engineering in Agile Software Development

Heikkila, Ville T., Damian, Daniela, Lassenius, Casper, Paasivaara, Maria·2015·2015 41st Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications
DOI 10.1109/seaa.2015.70
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Agile software development (ASD) methods have gained popularity in the industry and been the subject of an increasing amount of academic research. Although requirements engineering (RE) in ASD has been studied, the overall understanding of RE in ASD as a phenomenon is still weak. We conducted a mapping study of RE in ASD to review the scientific literature. 28 articles on the topic were identified and analyzed. The results indicate that the definition of agile RE is vague. The proposed benefits from agile RE included lower process overheads, a better requirements understanding, a reduced tendency to over allocate development resources, responsiveness to change, rapid delivery of value, and improved customer relationships. The problematic areas of agile RE were the use of customer representatives, the user story requirements format, the prioritization of requirements, growing technical debt, tacit requirements knowledge, and imprecise effort estimation. We also report proposed solutions to the identified problems.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/seaa.2015.70

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 10.4304/jetwi.2.3.212-220 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/1557626.1557636 · DOI
  3. 10.1109/EmpiRE.2012.6347678 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.05.012 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.046 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/MS.2008.1 · DOI
  7. 10.1145/2068783.2068785 · DOI
  8. 10.1109/HICSS.2012.127 · DOI
  9. 10.1145/1145581.1145641 · DOI
  10. 10.5381/jot.2004.3.10.c3 · DOI
  11. 10.1145/2068783.2068786 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/IWPSE.2005.31 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.infsof.2012.04.006 · DOI
  14. beck, 2004, Extreme Programming Explained Embrace Change
  15. schwaber, 2002, Agile Software Development with Scrum
  16. 10.1109/QUATIC.2010.17 · DOI
  17. schwaber, 2013, The Scrum Guide - the definitive guide to Scrum: The rules of the game, Technical report Scrum org
  18. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.041 · DOI
  19. 10.1109/ICCDA.2010.5540916 · DOI
  20. 2014, State of Agile Development, A survey Technical report
  21. 10.1145/2639490.2639503 · DOI
  22. 10.1109/RE.2010.41 · DOI
  23. 10.1109/MS.2005.13 · DOI
  24. 10.1109/RE.2011.6051626 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.08.004 · DOI
  26. 10.1007/s10799-007-0026-6 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/2601248.2601254 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/978-3-540-73101-6_36 · DOI
  30. 10.1109/MS.2007.149 · DOI
  31. 10.1109/ICGSE.2009.25 · DOI
  32. inayat, 2014, A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges, Computers in Human Behavior
  33. 10.1109/AGILE.2014.17 · DOI
  34. kitchenham, 2007, Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Technical Report Keele University and University of Durham
  35. 10.1145/2601248.2601276 · DOI
  36. 10.1007/3-540-28244-0_4 · DOI
  37. bray, 2002, An Introduction to Requirements Engineering
  38. 10.1109/2.869384 · DOI
  39. 10.1002/spe.1078 · DOI
  40. 10.1007/978-3-319-14358-3_15 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00259.x · DOI
  42. deemer, 2012, The Scrum Primer - a lightweight guide to the theory and practice of Scrum, version 2, Technical Report
  43. 10.1109/ENABL.2003.1231428 · DOI
  44. 10.1109/MS.2004.1293075 · DOI
  45. 10.1109/RE.2010.27 · DOI
  46. 10.1109/SERA.2010.37 · DOI
  47. 10.1109/MS.2012.152 · DOI
  48. 10.1109/ICCITechn.2011.6164775 · DOI
  49. 10.1109/ICGSE.2012.11 · DOI
  50. 10.1109/MS.2008.11 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Heikkila, V. T., Damian, D., Lassenius, C., & Paasivaara, M.
Affiliations
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
ORCID
Venue
2015 41st Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-08
Pages
199-207
DOI
10.1109/seaa.2015.70
OpenAlex
W1942989796
Cited by
131
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
8.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Tekes
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Systems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Keywords
requirements engineering, agile software development, agile requirements engineering, requirements prioritization, user stories, technical debt, effort estimation, customer representatives, tacit knowledge, requirements understanding, responsiveness to change

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