Experience Report on the Adaptable Integration of Requirements Engineering Courses into Curricula for Professionals

There is a growing demand for software engineering education (SEE) for professionals because of the increasing demand, active evolution of the technological landscape, and changes in the skills required by the practice. Integrating requirements engineering (RE) courses into SEE curricula for professionals systematically and effectively is challenging. In particular, curricula for professionals have different demands, are more dynamic, and modular in nature. In this study, we report on our experience in the development of three SEE curricula for professionals and the integration of RE courses into such curricula. We suggest basic principles for such integration and describe the systematic approach focused on course content mapping that we have developed.

💡 Research Summary

The paper addresses the growing need for software engineering education (SEE) tailored to professionals, focusing specifically on the integration of requirements engineering (RE) courses into curricula for professionals (CfP). Unlike traditional university programs, professional curricula are characterized by high modularity, loose coupling of modules, rapid content dynamism, and a strong emphasis on practitioner autonomy. These traits make conventional top‑down curriculum design and alignment ineffective. To explore how RE can be embedded in such environments, the authors present three real‑world cases: PROMIS (a professional master’s program in information security), Software4KMU (a training program for engineers in small‑ and medium‑sized enterprises), and T‑ASTE (a transformation hub for automotive software engineering).

Two research questions guide the study: (RQ1) Which characteristics of CfP must be considered when integrating RE courses? (RQ2) How can RE courses be effectively integrated into CfP? Through interviews, focus groups, observations, and iterative refinement across the three projects, the authors identify several key CfP characteristics: (1) high modularity and loose coupling, requiring flexible restructuring of materials; (2) a practice‑oriented orientation lacking a standardized body of knowledge, making RE demand identification difficult; (3) high dynamism and heterogeneity of content, demanding continuous updates and fostering instructor autonomy; (4) minimal centralized alignment, with integration occurring bottom‑up rather than top‑down; (5) the possibility of integrating only subsets of courses into coherent learning paths; and (6) a secondary role for formal assessment, as the primary goal is practical applicability.

Based on these insights, the authors propose a lightweight, content‑item (CI) based integration approach. The process consists of: (1) identifying RE‑related courses by analysing learning outcomes, activities, assessments, and especially content; (2) decomposing the RE course and related courses into CIs—self‑contained learning units of roughly 10‑15 minutes each—documented in a shared artifact (e.g., a draw.io diagram using UML class notation). Two strategies follow: a direct CI‑to‑CI mapping that defines prerequisite relationships, and a learning‑path strategy that merges multiple courses into a role‑specific pathway (e.g., combining RE, MBSE, and QA for automotive engineers). The shared artifact enables asynchronous collaboration, continuous alignment, and easy updates.

The paper distills several actionable recommendations: use shared artifacts for joint specification; make integration instructor‑driven; treat course content as the pivot for alignment; contextualise RE material to fit closely with related courses; ensure flexibility and adaptability of RE content; transcend traditional course boundaries by creating integrated learning paths; and reuse existing learning materials across courses to provide multi‑perspective case studies.

Applying this approach yielded concrete benefits in each case. In PROMIS, threat‑modeling was added to the RE course after reviewing related cybersecurity modules, strengthening cross‑course coherence. In Software4KMU, RE and quality‑assurance modules were aligned within a single roadmap, facilitating a smoother learning progression. In T‑ASTE, RE, model‑based systems engineering, and QA content were merged into a unified learning path for automotive system engineers, delivering a more practitioner‑friendly experience. All three curricula remained connected to university research and teaching, allowing knowledge transfer between academic and professional settings.

Overall, the study contributes (1) a set of CfP characteristics that influence RE integration, and (2) a pragmatic, content‑centric alignment framework that can be adopted by educators and curriculum designers aiming to bridge the industry‑academia gap in RE education for professionals.