- 2 customised training courses
- 6 training days
- 24 participants
A federal agency defined specific goals for the further development of its requirements engineering in a request for proposals. trendig addressed the technical requirements, the diverse work contexts, and the high practical demands, and used this as the basis to develop two individually tailored, three-day in-house training courses for a total of 24 participants. This created momentum for a common methodological foundation, greater confidence in selecting appropriate methods, and increased collaboration across project and departmental boundaries.
From Specific Requirements to a Tailored Training Concept
The federal agency employed requirements managers, requirements engineers, business analysts, product owners, and process coordinators across various projects and departments. Software development had already reached a high level of maturity. At the same time, different approaches, terminology, and working practices had emerged within requirements engineering.
A common methodological foundation therefore became increasingly important for collaboration across project and departmental boundaries. Requirements needed to be collected, described, and classified in a comparable manner. Equally important was a shared understanding of which method was suitable for which problem, stakeholder constellation, or project situation.
The agency formulated its training needs in the request for proposals in a correspondingly specific manner. Among other things, the focus was on:
- Fundamentals of requirements analysis and requirements engineering,
- agile principles and agile requirements management,
- functional and, in particular, non-functional requirements,
- goal definitions,
- architecture and system overviews, including interfaces,
- Sources and techniques for identifying requirements,
- Identification and description of quality requirements,
- interdisciplinary communication between IT and administration,
- specific questions from the participants’ practical experience.
ARIS was selected as the existing tool for documenting requirements. This allowed the training to focus consistently on the methodological work: identifying, determining, structuring, and evaluating requirements, as well as selecting appropriate approaches for the respective context.
Why trendig?
The balance between effort and expected benefits also played a role in the award of the contract. Two compact, three-day training sessions were designed to provide participants with a solid common foundation while remaining closely aligned with their day-to-day tasks, ensuring that the content could be immediately applied in their projects.
The training concept closely addressed the requirements of the request for proposals and combined them with a strong agile focus as well as exercises drawn from the participants’ real-world work situations. Theory, in-depth methodological exploration, and immediate application were consistently interwoven throughout the program.
For the implementation, trendig combined many years of consulting experience with technical and pedagogical expertise in requirements engineering. Since 1998, trendig has supported companies and public organizations in software development, change management, and training initiatives and has extensive project experience in the public sector.
Methodological Foundation Plus Individual Learning Outcomes
trendig developed two three-day training sessions based on core content from the IREB’s Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering (CPRE). The IREB’s technical framework served as a guiding structure, which was specifically tailored to the government agency context and the requirements of the request for proposals.
Both training sessions provided a common technical foundation. At the same time, the groups brought with them diverse project experiences, questions, and learning outcomes. These were directly incorporated into examples, exercises, discussions, and in-depth technical sessions.
This resulted in a training format that combined shared guidance with individual relevance.
trendig introduced methodological perspectives and field-tested tools, provided training on their application, and strengthened the participants’ ability to make well-informed decisions on which approach makes sense in their respective contexts.
This ability to make informed choices was a central component of the training. In requirements engineering, the quality of a method depends largely on how well it fits the specific task, the project environment, the stakeholders involved, and the existing business and technical constraints.
Agile Focus for Flexible Application in Everyday Project Work
A special focus was placed on agile requirements engineering.
Participants explored how requirements can be progressively refined, aligned, and made verifiable within iterative processes. In particular, the training examined backlog refinement from the initial idea through to a testable user story.
The agile perspective helped participants apply methods flexibly to different project situations. Requirements could thus be viewed as an ongoing component of collaboration between business users, IT, and other stakeholders.
In addition, fundamental methods and representations from IT architecture were integrated. This allowed system contexts, interfaces, and technical framework conditions to be linked more systematically with business requirements.
Learning from Situations in One’s Own Daily Work
Direct applicability was an integral part of the training design.
An experienced trainer with practical experience in government agencies addressed typical tasks from the participants’ day-to-day work. These included, for example:
- the structured description of a line-of-business system,
- modeling government processes,
- analyzing system contexts and interfaces,
- developing and evaluating user stories,
- identifying functional and non-functional requirements,
- the description of quality requirements,
- the selection of appropriate investigation techniques,
- taking regulatory frameworks into account,
- coordination between IT and administrative roles.
This allowed participants to directly link new methods to their own experiences and immediately test their practical applicability.
There was also dedicated time to address specific questions arising from the projects. As a result, the training unfolded within a clear professional framework while remaining closely aligned with the topics relevant to the respective groups’ day-to-day work.
Two Training Sessions as a Catalyst for Organization-Wide Development
A total of 24 professionals from various projects and departments participated in the two three-day training sessions.
This resulted in an organization-wide impact that went beyond individual professional development. The participants brought together diverse experiences, terminology, and approaches and were able to reflect on them within a shared methodological framework.
A broader group within the organization subsequently had shared points of reference for key terms, methods, and decision-making questions in requirements engineering.
The exchange between projects and departments was particularly valuable. Participants gained insight into the approaches of other departments, compared experiences, and developed initial joint approaches for practical application.
The discussions during the training sessions also provided the impetus to continue this exchange of experiences beyond the events themselves.
Every employee should attend this training before working on projects.
Business Analyst
Results: A Common Foundation and Greater Methodological Confidence
The immediate results of the two training sessions can be described on several levels.
- Twenty-four participants each completed three days of training and worked intensively on common fundamentals of requirements engineering.
- They were able to place key concepts and methods within a shared technical framework and reflect on existing approaches.
- The participants expanded their methodological toolkit and practiced selecting different techniques depending on the task, stakeholders, and project environment.
- They deepened their understanding of functional and non-functional requirements, system contexts, interfaces, quality requirements, and regulatory frameworks.
- At the same time, there was increased collaboration among specialists from different projects and departments.
- This laid the groundwork for making requirements engineering more interoperable across individual teams.
What risks does a common methodological foundation address?
The benefits of such training are particularly evident at the interfaces between people, projects, and disciplines.
Shared terminology facilitates communication. More clearly defined system contexts support coordination between business stakeholders and IT. A deliberate choice of methodology improves the alignment between the problem statement and the approach. Structured requirements enhance traceability and interoperability in the ongoing development process.
In this way, a common methodological foundation addresses typical project risks, such as:
- differing interpretations of requirements,
- repeated clarification and coordination loops,
- incomplete information at business and technical interfaces,
- requirements and decisions that are difficult to trace,
- inappropriate investigation techniques for the situation at hand,
- additional rework required during refinement,
- gaps in the structured consideration of quality or regulatory requirements.
The training focused precisely on the skills that enable teams to identify such risks early on and address them more effectively in day-to-day project work.
Where can this help reduce effort?
In requirements engineering, business impact often arises from many individual work situations.
A common terminology can facilitate coordination. Clearly described requirements can reduce the need for follow-up questions. A well-defined system context can make interfaces visible early on. An appropriate elicitation technique can lead more quickly to the necessary information. Well-prepared requirements can support refinements and technical evaluations.
A shared methodological foundation also provides guidance when new employees join the team. New colleagues can more quickly understand existing procedures and more easily align with shared terminology and work practices.
These areas of impact can also be used for subsequent business measurement. Possible indicators include, for example:
- Number and scope of technical clarification loops,
- rework due to ambiguous requirements,
- Throughput times in refinement,
- Completeness and traceability of key requirements,
- Confidence in the selection of appropriate methods,
- Quality of handoffs between business stakeholders, IT, and other parties involved.
No quantitative impact assessment was conducted as part of this project. However, the training sessions provided concrete starting points from which organizations can systematically monitor the transfer of knowledge and the business impact.
Practical application and feedback to build methodological confidence
The transfer into everyday work begins during the training itself. Exercises, examples, and discussions tie in with the participants’ specific tasks and experiences.
The goal is to develop independent methodological confidence: Participants should be able to classify methods, assess the conditions for their application, and make an informed selection for their specific situation.
In complex application scenarios, trendig can subsequently support this autonomy by serving as a sparring partner. The shared professional foundation established during the training facilitates targeted consulting: the context, methods, and key questions are already familiar, allowing an external perspective to address the specific challenge directly.
This ensures that existing knowledge remains applicable and can be quickly expanded upon as needed.
What can comparable organizations learn from this?
The case study highlights several principles that are also relevant for other large organizations:
-
Establishing a shared foundation fosters interoperability
A common language facilitates collaboration between projects, departments, and roles. It creates a frame of reference within which different teams can continue to tailor their respective working methods to the specific context.
-
Methodological Competence Requires the Ability to Choose
The value of a methodological toolkit lies in the ability to choose the appropriate approach for a specific situation. That is why methodological training, application, and critical reflection go hand in hand.
-
Individual learning outcomes increase relevance
Participants bring diverse experiences and questions to the table. Training becomes more effective when these differences are taken into account in exercises, discussions, and in-depth sessions.
-
Practical relevance accelerates knowledge transfer
Familiar processes, real-world questions, and realistic exercises directly link new methodological knowledge to everyday work.
-
Multiple cohorts foster a shared understanding
Just two training sessions with a total of 24 participants are enough to create a broader foundation within the organization. Additional sessions can gradually extend this effect to other areas.
-
Business impact can be prepared for and monitored
Learning outcomes can be linked to specific work processes. Clarification loops, refinement efforts, traceability, and methodological confidence offer potential starting points for making long-term changes visible.
-
External consultation provides support in complex situations
An already established shared technical foundation makes it possible to specifically draw on external expertise when facing future challenges. This allows consulting to build directly on existing experiences and methods.