Towards Lean Research Inception: Assessing Practical Relevance of Formulated Research Problems

TL;DR

This paper introduces the Lean Research Inception framework to evaluate the practical relevance of Software Engineering research problems, emphasizing criteria like value, feasibility, and applicability, validated through expert feedback.

Contribution

The paper presents the LRI framework with three assessment criteria and demonstrates its initial evaluation, aiming to improve alignment of research problems with industrial needs in SE.

Findings

High importance of criteria: valuable (83.3%), feasible (76.2%), applicable (73.8%)

Participants suggest clearer terminology and distinctions among criteria

LRI shows promise in helping assess practical relevance of SE research problems

Abstract

[Context] The lack of practical relevance in many Software Engineering (SE) research contributions is often rooted in oversimplified views of industrial practice, weak industry connections, and poorly defined research problems. Clear criteria for evaluating SE research problems can help align their value, feasibility, and applicability with industrial needs. [Goal] In this paper, we introduce the Lean Research Inception (LRI) framework, designed to support the formulation and assessment of practically relevant research problems in SE. We describe its initial evaluation strategy conducted in a workshop with a network of SE researchers experienced in industry-academia collaboration and report the evaluation of its three assessment criteria (valuable, feasible, and applicable) regarding their importance in assessing practical relevance. [Method] We applied LRI retroactively to a published research paper, engaging workshop participants in discussing and assessing the research problem by applying the proposed criteria using a semantic differential scale. Participants provided feedback on the criteria's importance and completeness, drawn from their own experiences in industry-academia collaboration. [Results] The findings reveal an overall agreement on the importance of the three criteria - valuable (83.3%), feasible (76.2%), and applicable (73.8%) - for aligning research problems with industrial needs. Qualitative feedback suggested adjustments in terminology with a clearer distinction between feasible and applicable, and refinements for valuable by more clearly considering business value, ROI, and originality. [Conclusion] While LRI constitutes ongoing research and requires further evaluation, our results strengthen our confidence that the three criteria applied using the semantic differential scale can already help the community assess the practical relevance of SE research problems.