The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Systematic Approach for Identifying Requirement Change Management Challenges: Preliminary Results
Open accessAbstract
Requirement Change is one of the most challenging tasks in software development lifecycle, particularly in the complex context of Global Software Development (GSD). During the last decade, many studies are carried out to address these problems, however, careful examination of these works suggests that there's a potential research gap. This paper has performed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to identify the most significant/commonly studied challenges of requirement change management process and furthermore this process under GSD context. We identified ten challenges such as impact analysis, cost estimation, artifacts documents management, requirement traceability, requirements dependency, conflicts with existing requirements, time estimation, change prioritization, user involvement, and system destabilizing. Furthermore, three challenges such as communication and coordination, knowledge sharing, management, and Change Control Board (CCB) management are identified for globally distributed projects. We also mapped these identified challenges to Requirement Change Management Process (RCMP) outcomes proposed in our previous study. We believe that mapping between RCM challenges and RCMP outcomes will enhance the practical significance of this study results. Considering the systematic literature review results, we suggest that there is a need to develop a framework for requirement change management for quality software systems development.
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.
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?
Hoda et al. [46] mentions that customer's scepticism leads to inadequate collaboration during software development.
“Furthermore, Hoda et al. [46] mentions that customer's scepticism leads to inadequate collaboration during software development.”
From A Framework for Emotion-Oriented Requirements Change Handling in Agile Software Engineering (2023) · cites this paper as Hoda et al. [46]
The Initial Results and Discussion section identifies communication and coordination with end users as challenges in requirements change management. It does not say that customer scepticism causes inadequate collaboration; searches for scepticism, skepticism, and customer involvement did not establish that link. The cited paper is by Anwer et al., not Hoda et al. (LLM, conf=0.79)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- 10.1049/ip-sen:20020694 · DOI
- Kotonya G., 1998, Requirements engineering: processes and techniques
- 10.1049/ic.2012.0003 · DOI
- Lock S., 1999, An integrated framework for requirement change impact analysis," in 4th Australian Conference on Requirements Engineering
- 10.1145/1044834.1044837 · DOI
- "Standish-Group, 2017, Chaos - the state of the software industry
- Hussain W., 2016, 2016 IEEE 24th International, 126
- 10.1109/TSE.2003.1205177 · DOI · Paper page
- Holmstrom H., 2006, ICGSE'06, 3
- 10.1109/ICGSE.2007.13 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICGSE.2008.21 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.06.009 · DOI
- Anwer S., 2018, Introducing Requirements Change Management Process into ISO/IEC 12207," in International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, 185
- 10.1023/A:1013168927238 · DOI
- 10.1109/MS.2006.123 · DOI
- 10.1201/9781420013856 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.09.004 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.09.005 · DOI
- 10.1109/I2CT.2014.7092068 · DOI
- 10.5220/0005331401590168 · DOI
- Ahmed H., 2016, Current challenges of requirement change management, Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 8, 173
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Framework for Emotion-Oriented Requirements Change Handling in Agile Software Engineering
Madampe, K., Hoda, R., & Grundy, J. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2023.3253145 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Anwer, S., Wen, L., & Wang, Z.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment on Software Engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-04-15
- Pages
- 230-235
- OpenAlex
- W2936066927
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- distributed software development, requirements engineering, impact analysis, cost estimation, requirements traceability, requirements dependencies, user participation, communication and coordination, knowledge sharing
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
