<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Teaching Requirements Analysis: A Student Project Framework to Bridge the Gap between Business Analysis and Software Engineering</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Luisa Mich</string-name>
          <email>luisa.mich@unitn.it</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Dept. of Industrial Engineering University of Trento Trento</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>-Teaching requirements analysis to computer science and information system students raises a number of challenges. One of the most critical is the gap between skills needed to deal with software requirements and those necessary to grasp the business problems. To bridge that gap in teaching requirements analysis students would have to carry out an assignment of analyzing requirements for a non-trivial, term-sized project. Here we analyze the gap and propose a framework for student projects which integrates a model of the computer based system as a solution to business challenges into a template for a business requirements document. The first model comes from information systems literature and the second from an object oriented analysis approach for business analysis. A CASE (computer aided software engineering) tool to support UML (unified modeling language) modeling is also used and we give some guidelines to reduce risks of premature requirements modeling due to students' tendency to start modeling, even if business analysis and requirements elicitation have just started. The proposed framework has been defined in many years of teaching and allowed to overcome some of the limitations of a traditional UML-focused course. Student projects of different academic terms - in different courses and different degrees - showed improved requirements models and better comprehension of the role of requirements in the later terms. Moreover, the students appeared to have greater interest and motivation towards this area of software engineering. Index Terms-requirements elicitation, UML, business objectoriented modeling, business requirements</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>I. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>The term ‘software engineering’ dates back some forty
years ago, and ‘requirements engineering’ is more recent, but
for establishing a discipline in a university degree curriculum it
could be a short time.</p>
      <p>In industry, even if many studies have reported the critical
role of requirements for the success of computer based systems,
requirements analysis and modeling are not always part of the
software development projects (see, e.g. the Standish-Group
reports http://blog.standishgroup.com). Dedicated international
conferences, such as the Requirements Engineering (RE)
series, which started in 1993
(http://requirementsengineering.org), or the REFSQ working conferences
(Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality,
www.refsq.org), among others, do include in their programs
industrial tracks and invited speeches of representative of
companies. All these initiatives confirm the vitality of the
discipline and a high interest for requirements from both
industry and academia.</p>
      <p>
        As regards the educational contexts and challenges as a per
se subject, requirements engineering education and training is
the focus of the REET (Requirements Engineering Education
and Training) workshops (www.ics.uci.edu/~bpenzens/
2014reet). Of the papers published in the CSEE&amp;T proceedings
(Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training,
conferences.computer.org/cseet) only a limited number are
about requirements - in average, one a year - and most of them
analyze specific issues, e.g. security requirements [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] or the
problem of prioritization of requirements [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Nakatani et al.
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], propose the design of a requirements engineering course
for senior engineers. A comprehensive survey of the current
research on requirements engineering education is given by
Ouhbi et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Almost all the methods of teaching computer science agree
on the need to adopt an activity based approach, that is, what in
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] is called an ‘active-learning-based teaching model’. In
requirements engineering courses, it also implies the definition
of a suitable student project. Many authors underline that a real
industrial project would offer the best educational context.
However, didactic and organizational constraints do not always
allow proposing this kind of project in university courses.
Other educational approaches, e.g., the one described by
Fernandes et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], introduce a curriculum for software
development professionals with experience in developing real
software solutions. But this is not the case for university
students. Even students of a computer science degree do not
always have experience in real projects. Another problem in
teaching requirements analysis is due to a low interest in the
subject: real projects require a comprehension of the company
or organization domain and of their business challenges. For
students in computer science and information systems, these
are – for different reasons – not primary subjects of interest.
      </p>
      <p>
        The purpose of this paper is to report an approach for
student projects which has been defined in about twenty years
of teaching in university courses to both software engineering
and information systems students. The approach is based on a
framework that allowed to overcome some of the limitations of
a traditional UML (unified modeling language) focused course.
The project foresees the accomplishment of business and
requirements analysis activities for a quasi-real project, that is
for a project in a real context, whose characteristics satisfy time
and other constraints of an academic course. Students groups
have to realize and document the project following a template
which integrates a model of the computer based system as a
solution of business problems into a structured business
requirements document. The first model comes from
information systems literature [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] and the second from an
object oriented analysis approach for business analysis [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In the rest of this paper, Section II describes the main
challenges in teaching requirements engineering. Section III
presents the template for a student project that allows
addressing such challenges, gives some remarks and guidelines
to apply the project framework and a preliminary validation
referring to the guidelines illustrated in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. Section IV
concludes the paper with an outlook on open questions and
future work.
      </p>
      <p>II. CHALLENGES IN TEACHING REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Teaching requirements analysis is challenging in many
ways. The main positive and negative aspects, some of which
have been mentioned in the introduction, can be illustrated with
a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)
matrix (Fig. 1). As is often the case, some of the strengths are
such only if accepted as stimuli by the lecturer.</p>
      <p>
        Firstly, requirements analysis is a multidisciplinary activity
that employs a variety of methods and techniques at different
stages of development of computer based systems. Teaching
requirements engineering demands further efforts to take into
account the business analyst’s and the software engineer’s
points of views. In particular, the scope of a project can be
correctly defined only if the business goals and challenges have
been identified and analyzed and this requires skills beyond
requirements modeling and specification [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. A
multidisciplinary subject naturally induces to address problems
in a rational way, promoting computational thinking [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ] and
group work to exploit cooperation among people with different
expertise [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Another challenge in teaching requirements analysis is its
recent development as an autonomous research and educational
area, at least if compared to other areas of computer sciences.
This implies that many graduation programs do not include a
dedicated requirements analysis course. Being part of the
software or information systems development process,
requirements engineering is often taught (only) in those
courses. In this way, usually a limited number of hours can be
dedicated to requirements analysis, with the realization, if any,
of toy projects. In turn, this fact sometimes implies that the
assigned textbooks cover the information systems or software
engineering content, whereas requirements are a small fraction
of the content. Besides, while for students of computer science
degrees requirements are perceived as not enough ‘computer
science’, for students of information systems, requirements are
too much ‘computer science’. These views are some of the
most critical experienced in about twenty years of teaching and
could be due to the common view of the field as programming.
Strengths
Multidisciplinary field
Promote problem solving
(computational thinking),
and group work
Opportunities
Interest of companies for
business analysts skills
Integration of real projects
Coordination with other courses</p>
      <p>Weaknesses
Image problems
Time constraints
Students lack of interest
Toy projects
Threats
Not dedicated course
Misconception of the field
Lack of books for educators</p>
      <p>Tool driven analysis</p>
      <p>
        This long-standing prejudice has been widely investigated
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]; authors in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] underline that to overcome it, students have
to be taught what computer science is, its nature and definition.
An analogous factor that negatively impacts the quality of
requirements engineering courses is the tendency of the
lecturers themselves to emphasize specification on analysis,
probably for the same reasons highlighted in industrial projects
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. Also, in the author’s experience, computer scientists
somehow consider functional specification and software
development as a kind of ‘real’ computer science,
underestimating business requirements analysis.
      </p>
      <p>Another problem arises when looking for textbooks
dedicated to ‘Didactics of requirements engineering’, or
‘Didactics of software engineering’. You will not find many
references and there are not many for the didactics of computer
science either. Lecturers can design their requirements courses
according to the corresponding subset of the software
engineering model curricula, or to syllabus of certification that
focus on requirements (e.g., the Certified Professional for
Requirements Engineering, www.ireb.org). However, as
curricula, they (have to) describe the ‘what’ – the content to be
taught – and not much is said on the ‘how’, that is on the
didactic methods more appropriate to teach that content.
Finally, when teaching requirements analysis, the choice of the
modeling language is almost straightforward if you adopt the
de-facto standard, UML (http://www.uml.org). The problem is
that students of information systems often have learned and
applied other languages to model business procedures and
goals (e.g., the BPMN, Business Process Model and Notation,
http://www.bpmn.org). A seamless approach would suggest
using UML models also for those modeling activities, a
solution that depends on an agreement with other lectures.
UML diagrams can be realized with automatic tools: there are
many of them and the choice of the one to be adopted for a
course is not simple. Beside technical and cost factors, there are
features that force the students to follow what could be called a
depth-first instead of a breadth-first modeling approach. For
example, one of the most common of such features is related to
the opening of a form suggesting adding characteristics to a
class or to a use-case at the moment of their very first creation.
The form compels the students to focus on details, such as, for
example, values of the attributes for a class, before the overall
analysis of the class model has been completed with all the
classes. At the same time, focusing on UML, teachers do not
always exploit the problem-solving nature of requirements
analysis and do start introducing UML models for small
projects to explain the notation and the semantic of the
language. However, such models are of little interest to
students, as it is not easy to be passionate, e.g. to library
lending systems.</p>
      <p>Focusing on opportunities, it is important to underline that
companies look for business and requirements analysts
(http://www.linkedin.com/job/q-business-analyst-jobs). As
student projects require limited tools and resources, they can be
useful to experience such roles. Also, the need to integrate
expertise in different areas could trigger shared lectures and
projects with other courses.</p>
      <p>III. DESIGNING A PROJECT FOR TEACHING REQUIREMENTS</p>
      <p>ANALYSIS</p>
      <sec id="sec-1-1">
        <title>A. The Proposed Approach</title>
        <p>To address the issues in the SWOT matrix for a university
course in requirements analysis would require the design of the
course taking into account a large number of factors and
constraints. Among them, the syllabus of the degree, available
human resources, time available for the course, the kind of
classroom, hardware and software available, technical support,
topics to be covered, students’ previous knowledge on related
topics, etc. In this paper we will concentrate on the problem of
the student project: which project can be realized by students to
motivate them and to teach a structured, efficient, and
systematic way to identify and model business and high level
requirements. In this section we propose a framework for a
student project that has been defined adapting it year after year
according to the results of its implementation in a number of
university courses. In particular, in teaching requirements
analysis to students of information systems, software
engineering and information systems design. These courses
were part of different kinds of degree of an Italian university, at
the bachelor and master level, in the area of computer science
and economics as well; the last one was though in an
interdisciplinary degree named ‘Net economy’.</p>
        <p>These courses had some common characteristics:
• small classes: from 9 to 20 students;
• availability of a computer laboratory, with no more
than two students per personal computer;
• support of a tutor for a part of the laboratory activities
and for the evaluation of the projects;
• support of an e-learning platform to publish class and
projects documents (https://comunitaonline.unitn.it);
• presence of international students: an average of 2 to 4
students per year come from other European and non
European countries;
• one term course of 30 to 40 hours.</p>
        <p>Many of these characteristics positively contributed to the
adoption of an activity based approach in which students have
to work in group on a small scale real project. Other factors
were in place only for some of the courses; in particular, after
the last reform of the Italian university curricula, students of the
master courses come not only from a computer sciences
bachelors (first degree), but also from degrees in the area of
business and economics. The main goal for all these courses
was to focus on the problem-solving nature of requirements,
and in particular on the need to first analyze a problem from the
point of view of all the stakeholders. That in turn, implies a
focus on requirements elicitation and analysis in about half of
the course, assuming that it is easier to learn, apply and validate
other UML models (requirement specification and validation)
than to learn a structured way to effectively define the scope of
a project and the requirements to be fulfilled. This approach
requires soft skills that are very much useful in real projects:
working in group, properly interacting with users and owners
of the system to be developed, applying different techniques for
fact-findings. In this context, the didactic objectives of the
student projects were:
• introducing the role of the computer based systems to
solve business problems or suggest business strategies;
• integrating organizational issues in the analysis of the
problem to answer questions like, e.g. “who has to
cooperate to gather the data for the system to be
developed?”;
• understanding the role of the requirements analysis in
the process of the system development, including
contractual impacts;
• identifying and managing conflicting requirements;
• using UML since the very first step of requirements
modeling, also for business processes and actors; and
• documenting requirements as a project specification
and their validation.</p>
        <p>To this end, we defined a framework that integrates a model
of the computer based system as a solution of ‘business
challenges’ into a template for a business requirements
document.</p>
        <p>
          The first model (Fig. 2) was introduced by Laudon and
Laudon [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ] and is almost unknown to requirements engineers.
However, its efficacy is validated by the high number of
editions of their information systems books and of courses
adopting them. It was chosen from existing socio-technical
information models because it offers some interesting
advantages (see section III B)). The L&amp;L model defines and,
more importantly, graphically represents the information
system as “an organizational and managerial solution based on
information technology, to a challenge posed by the
environment” [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ]. In this way, it can be used for any kind of
project (size, domain, sector), forcing the adoption of a
problem solving approach (starting from the business
challenges, first box in Fig. 2), taking into account the
management decisions and goals (actual or needed to address
the identified challenges), identifying the main technologies for
the project and addressing organizational issues relevant for the
project (stakeholders to be involved). The business solutions
component compels evaluation of the impact of the proposed
system in terms of indexes or any kind of output useful to
check if the expected goals or returns have been reached.
        </p>
        <p>
          The second model has been adapted from a template
introduced by Podeswa [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ] as part of his approach, BOOM, or
business object-oriented modeling. BOOM applies UML to
business analysis underlining the role of business use-cases to
define the scope of a project and its stakeholders, both internal
and external to the company.
        </p>
        <p>The BOOM template of the business requirements
document (BRD) implements best practices and guidelines of
the author’s experience in his company.</p>
        <p>For the student projects, an adapted version of the BRD was
defined extracting issues relevant for the requirements
engineering steps and integrating the L&amp;L model. Table I gives
the revised BDR used for the student projects of the 2009-2010
academic year; each group had to complete the requirements
analysis for a given module of a museum information system
(for other courses, the modules were for the information system
of an international sport event, the Universiadi of Trentino; the
Unisport initiative of the University of Trento; the e-commerce
modules for profit and non-profit cultural organizations, and
many more). A short problem statement and instructions for the
project are given in the first part of the document (text
highlighted in grey was in Italian).</p>
        <p>To draw and document object-oriented models, the first
projects were supported by Rational Rose, a tool that was
available on a CDRom included in some of the widely adopted
UML text-books. Later, given that many students owned a
personal computer or a laptop, students were taught a variety of
factors to take into account in choosing this kind of tools and
then they could use the one they identified as the best solution.
But the main didactical decision was to introduce the use of the
tool only after the L&amp;L model was completed and a
preliminary set of requirements were elicited. That decision
reduced the risks of premature requirements modeling due to
students’ tendency to start modeling, even if business analysis
and requirements elicitation have just started. It also increased
the quality of the requirements modeling and that of the BRDs.
B. Remarks and Guidelines</p>
        <p>The L&amp;L model was used for the student projects since the
early ‘90s: it was the first model students had to complete and
revise during the project. The model shows a number of
characteristics that makes it an efficacious educational tool: it is
quite intuitive; it scales well, as it can be applied to small
projects and to large ones; it takes into account all the
nontechnological aspects relevant for any real project; it supports
interactions with stakeholders, internal and external to the
company and among the students working on the project; it can
be applied in an incremental way, starting with knowledge and
assumptions available in the very initial steps of the project,
and adding to it and revising it whenever useful. To students
with knowledge in economics and management, the model is a
natural bridge towards requirements analysis; for those in
computer sciences, it suggests a wider context for their
projects. Another advantage of the L&amp;L model is that it made it
possible to work on the project since the first meeting of the
course.</p>
        <p>The BOOM BRD was first adopted in 2005-2006, but a
number of improvements and changes have been made in the
following years. In particular, the L&amp;L model was added as a
task of the ‘Executive summary’ (Table I); business use cases
introduced by BOOM, helped to deal with stakeholders and
with actors relevant for the project. Parts to be completed were
reduced, making it mandatory for the students to complete only
some of them (in bold in Table I). The results improved,
possibly because the students felt the need to realize and
document some of the activities as useful for the project and
not (only) for the marks. In some cases, students completed
also non mandatory tasks, as for example state diagrams to
describe critical use-cases. The RACI (responsible accountable
consulted informed) chart was useful to identify their roles in
the project. Risk analysis, cost-benefit, and timetable supported
the multi-disciplinary approach: computer sciences students
understood that economics skills are useful for requirements
engineering, suggesting to forming groups whenever possible
with students of both the economics and IT areas. Also, the
difference between the role of the business or IT analyst and
that of a requirements analyst was better understood.</p>
        <p>In recent years, thanks to the project template, projects
become more and more related to real organizations or
companies. At first, there was only slight involvement of the
company in the projects, by an initial presentation by a
company representative and final presentation of results by
students. Later-on, there were more and more stakeholder
interviews with real stakeholders from the organization. For
example, for the problem statement in Table I, student projects
were defined for a natural sciences museum for which a new
building and new presentations were in construction. An expert
of the museum interacted with the teacher to simulate an
interview to gather the initial requirements for a number of
modules; other stakeholders were contacted by students
working in groups of two. The final BRD was then presented
and discussed with another manager of the museum in a
meeting that also allowed highlighting the logical architecture
of a system integrating the projects and the impacts of the
proposed modules. Besides, the priority of the modules of the
student projects was discussed with the manager, comparing
them on the basis of costs and other resource constraints in the
context of the museum strategy (for example, the online ticket
selling module was given a lower priority than the online event
management). The same approach – students completing the
activities included in the template, initial interaction and final
discussion with representatives of the companies or
organizations – has been applied in other projects in which
requirements for the same service – an e-commerce module –
had to be analysed for different cultural organizations, as for
example, a wine road (www.mtvtrentinoaltoadige.it), a Jazz
festival (www.fiemmeskijazz.com), a contemporary art
museum (MART, www.mart.trento.it), a film festival
(www.trentofestival.it). In the last course, student projects were
related to a new initiative of the University of Trento, Unisport
(www.unisport.tn.it). The proposed approach turned out to be
successful: for example, the results of such course projects
were then used by the software development company
ultimately in charge of projects implementation as input for the
design and implementation of the Unisport information system.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-1-2">
        <title>C. Preliminary Validation</title>
        <p>
          For a preliminary and external validation of the proposed
framework we can use the most important recommendations
for teaching requirements described in Ouhbi et al. [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ]:
1) Teach how to define the scope of the problem and
avoid general and vague specifications.
2) Show how to select and use a requirements engineering
tool.
3) Promote activities in requirements analysis and
modeling in addition to requirements management and
introduce the concept of prototyping in the course.
4) Involve students in industrial projects (…). Instructors
could also invite industry practitioners to present real
projects and to describe their accumulated industrial
experience.
5) Have the ability, skills, and strategies needed to align
requirements engineering courses with contemporary
global software development (GSD) conditions.
6) Familiarize students with approaches to problem
solving, development methodologies, and development
tools.
7) Use mobile devices as teaching tools. (…) m-learning
(learning with mobile devices) promises a continued
extension toward ‘‘anywhere, anytime’’ learning.
8) Deliver the courses in an interactive classroom: The
students can share a virtual whiteboard, electronic
textbook, and data over a networked environment.
        </p>
        <p>Taking into account that the proposed framework is for the
student projects and not for the entire course, all the
recommendations were satisfied in our courses, except for
number 8. In particular, the document template strongly
support recommendation n°.1, 3 and 6.; the choice of the tool
by the students in their project forced them to take into account
many of the parameters characterizing the alternatives
(recommendation n°.2); prototypes were used mainly to
identify requirements for human-computer interfaces (n°.3); the
quasi-real projects could be further exploited in longer courses
and in any case, it must be reminded that it takes a lot of efforts
to involve local organizations, experts and managers for the
projects (recommendation n°.4); GSD conditions (n°.5) were
only partially in place whenever interfaces were relevant for
the project and emerged thanks to the international students
(sometimes projects were completed by students staying in
different countries). The seventh recommendation has not been
experimented yet. Finally, the last one (n°.8) was partially
fulfilled using the e-learning system (comunitaonline).</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>IV. CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>
        The ability to manage requirements from a software
engineering point of view as well as to grasp the business
problems and strategies is critical for a requirements engineer.
To address challenges in teaching requirements analysis we
proposed a framework – a template and guidelines – for student
projects that offers a number of interesting insights. Threats for
the results are related to two main points. Firstly, reporting the
author experience, mainly in an Italian university, all the
following remarks embodies open questions and should be
further investigates in a future work. Then, the small class sizes
and the other characteristics described in Section III (apart
from the last one) correspond to ideal conditions that are not
always in place. The design (as lecturer) and realisation of
nontrivial term-sizes student projects for real companies or
organizations based on the proposed framework allowed
exploiting and addressing, albeit to a different extent, the issues
summarised in (Fig. 1). Having students with different skills
working in group helped them to recognize their respective
roles in the analysis of the problem and in turn, the relevance of
other disciplines. Students were highly motivated to realize a
good project thanks to the possibility to communicate with real
business stakeholders and to validate their BRDs with them.
The presentation and discussion of the requirements documents
to company representatives is also a good introduction to
business areas and gives an understanding of how to work with
real customers. In some cases, the effect was prolonged in other
courses of the graduation or master program (e.g., using
requirements analysis for programming courses); some of the
BDRs were adopted by the companies and used for in-company
thesis projects. Other positive outcomes were: a higher number
of students completing the project and the exam in the first
exam session and better quality of the models [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. When the
course was not mandatory, the number of students decreased,
but those in the course were more capable (higher marks and
more skilled in IT) and motivated. From the students
questionnaires this phenomenon (less, but more capable
students) seems correlate with a higher difficulty to work on a
project during the term.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>ACKNOWLEDGMENT</title>
      <p>The author would like to thank all the tutors who
cooperated in many ways to the student projects. Many thanks
also to Nadzeya Kiyavitskaya, Barbara Froner and Daniel
Berry for their precious suggestions. Thanks to the anonymous
reviewers for their thoughtful reflections and suggestions.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Mead</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.D.</given-names>
            <surname>Hough</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Security requirements engineering for software systems: case studies in support of software engineering education,”</article-title>
          <source>in Proc. 19th Conf. on CSEE&amp;T</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>IEEE</surname>
            <given-names>CS</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Washington, DC, USA,
          <year>2006</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>149</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>158</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
            <surname>N. Port</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.W.</given-names>
            <surname>Boehm</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Klappholz</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Making requirements prioritization a priority,”</article-title>
          <source>in Proc. 21st CSEE&amp;T IEEE CS</source>
          , Washington, DC, USA,
          <year>2008</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>250</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>261</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Nakatani</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Tsumaki</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and T. Tamai “
          <article-title>Requirements engineering education for senior engineers: Course design and its evaluation,” 5th</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Int. Work. REET</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>26</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>35</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Ouhbi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Idri</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fernández-Alemán</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>José</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Toval</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Requirements engineering education: a systematic mapping study,” Req</article-title>
          . Eng., Springer, London,
          <year>2013</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>20</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Hazzan</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Lapidot</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Ragonis</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Guide to teaching Computer Science, Springer,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Fernandes</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Machado</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.B.</given-names>
            <surname>Seidman</surname>
          </string-name>
          . “
          <article-title>A requirements engineering and management training course for software development professionals,”</article-title>
          <source>in Proc. 22nd CSEE&amp;T</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>IEEE</surname>
            <given-names>CS</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Washington, DC, USA,
          <year>2009</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>20</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>25</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.C.</given-names>
            <surname>Laudon</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.P.</given-names>
            <surname>Laudon</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Management Information Systems. Organizational and technology in the networked enterprise</article-title>
          , Prentice-Hall,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Podeswa</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>UML for the IT business analyst. A practical guide to object-oriented requirements gathering</article-title>
          <source>Thomson</source>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>PM</given-names>
            <surname>Solution</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Strategies for project recovery, 2011, www</article-title>
          .pmsolutions.com/resources/view/strategies-for-projectrecovery
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>J.M. Wing</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Computational thinking,
          <source>” Comm. of the ACM</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          ,
          <volume>49</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>33</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>35</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Mamykina</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Candy</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and E. Edmonds, “
          <article-title>Collaborative creativity”</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Comm. of the ACM</source>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          ,
          <volume>45</volume>
          (
          <issue>10</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>96</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>99</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.J.</given-names>
            <surname>Denning</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>McGettrick</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Recentering computer science”,
          <source>Comm. of the ACM</source>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          ,
          <volume>48</volume>
          (
          <issue>11</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>15</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>19</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Kiyavitskaya</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Zeni</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Mich</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Mylopoulos</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Experimenting with linguistic tools for conceptual modelling: quality of the models and critical features”</article-title>
          ,
          <source>in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. NLDB 2004</source>
          , Springer,
          <year>2004</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>135</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>146</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>