The engineering of software product lines begins with the identification of the possible variation points. To this aim, natural language (NL) requirement documents can be used as a source from which variability-relevant information can be elicited. In this paper, we propose to identify variability issues as a subset of the ambiguity defects found in NL requirement documents. To validate the proposal, we single out ambiguities using an available NL analysis tool, QuARS, and we classify the ambiguities returned by the tool by distinguishing among false positives, real ambiguities, and variation points, by independent analysis and successive agreement phase. We consider three different sets of requirements and collect the data that come from the analysis performed.
{"title":"Requirement Engineering of Software Product Lines: Extracting Variability Using NLP","authors":"A. Fantechi, Alessio Ferrari, S. Gnesi, L. Semini","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00053","url":null,"abstract":"The engineering of software product lines begins with the identification of the possible variation points. To this aim, natural language (NL) requirement documents can be used as a source from which variability-relevant information can be elicited. In this paper, we propose to identify variability issues as a subset of the ambiguity defects found in NL requirement documents. To validate the proposal, we single out ambiguities using an available NL analysis tool, QuARS, and we classify the ambiguities returned by the tool by distinguishing among false positives, real ambiguities, and variation points, by independent analysis and successive agreement phase. We consider three different sets of requirements and collect the data that come from the analysis performed.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129777120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the last few years, agile development methods are getting increasingly popular in large-scale distributed contexts. Despite this popularity, empirical studies have reported several challenges that large-scale distributed agile projects face regarding the implementation of quality requirements. However, there is little known about the mechanisms behind those challenges and the practices currently used by agile practitioners to adequately assure the implementation of quality requirements in distributed context. To look deeper into this, we performed a qualitative multi-case study in six different organizations in the Netherlands. Our multi-case study included seventeen semi-structured open-ended in-depth interviews with agile practitioners of different background and expertise. The analysis of the collected data re-sulted in identifying eleven mechanisms that could be associated with the previously published list of challenges. Moreover, the analysis uncovered nine practices used by agile practitioners as solutions to the challenges, in order to ensure the implementation of quality requirements. Last, we have mapped the identified mechanisms and practices to the previously identified challenges to get insight into the possible cause and mitigation of those challenges.
{"title":"Understanding Challenging Situations in Agile Quality Requirements Engineering and Their Solution strategies: Insights from a Case Study","authors":"Wasim Alsaqaf, M. Daneva, R. Wieringa","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00035","url":null,"abstract":"In the last few years, agile development methods are getting increasingly popular in large-scale distributed contexts. Despite this popularity, empirical studies have reported several challenges that large-scale distributed agile projects face regarding the implementation of quality requirements. However, there is little known about the mechanisms behind those challenges and the practices currently used by agile practitioners to adequately assure the implementation of quality requirements in distributed context. To look deeper into this, we performed a qualitative multi-case study in six different organizations in the Netherlands. Our multi-case study included seventeen semi-structured open-ended in-depth interviews with agile practitioners of different background and expertise. The analysis of the collected data re-sulted in identifying eleven mechanisms that could be associated with the previously published list of challenges. Moreover, the analysis uncovered nine practices used by agile practitioners as solutions to the challenges, in order to ensure the implementation of quality requirements. Last, we have mapped the identified mechanisms and practices to the previously identified challenges to get insight into the possible cause and mitigation of those challenges.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"514 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123201372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jennifer Hehn, Falk Uebernickel, Daniel Méndez Fernández
This tutorial presents Design Thinking as a promising approach to creatively elicit human-centered requirements for software-intensive systems. Specifically, it contributes to Requirements Engineering practices by structuring the fuzzy process of developing creative and innovative ideas. The tutorial should be seen as a forum for the interchange of experience and learnings from combining both approaches and should raise awareness for the importance of human-centered methods and experimentation in early phases of software engineering. After the tutorial, the participants get access to all materials, templates, and methods on our website for further usage.
{"title":"DT4RE: Design Thinking for Requirements Engineering: A Tutorial on Human-Centered and Structured Requirements Elicitation","authors":"Jennifer Hehn, Falk Uebernickel, Daniel Méndez Fernández","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00074","url":null,"abstract":"This tutorial presents Design Thinking as a promising approach to creatively elicit human-centered requirements for software-intensive systems. Specifically, it contributes to Requirements Engineering practices by structuring the fuzzy process of developing creative and innovative ideas. The tutorial should be seen as a forum for the interchange of experience and learnings from combining both approaches and should raise awareness for the importance of human-centered methods and experimentation in early phases of software engineering. After the tutorial, the participants get access to all materials, templates, and methods on our website for further usage.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"9 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120848239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jennifer Horkoff, Jerker Ersare, J. Kahler, Thorsteinn D. Jorundsson, I. Hammouda
[Context] The market for software targeting children, both for education and entertainment, is growing. Existing work, mainly from HCI, has considered the effectiveness of elicitation techniques for eliciting requirements from children as part of a design process. [Objective] However, we are lacking work which compares requirements elicitation techniques when used with children. [Methods] This study compares five elicitation techniques, taking into consideration the effectiveness and efficiency of each technique. Techniques were used with a total of 54 children aged 8-13, eliciting requirements for a museum flight simulator. We compare techniques by looking at the number and type of requirements discovered, perceived participant satisfaction, resources required, perceived usefulness, and requirements coverage of domain specific categories. [Conclusions] We observed notable differences between the techniques, including the effectiveness of observations and relative ineffectiveness of questionnaires. We present a set of guidelines to aid industry in eliciting requirements for child-friendly software.
{"title":"Efficiency and Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation Techniques for Children","authors":"Jennifer Horkoff, Jerker Ersare, J. Kahler, Thorsteinn D. Jorundsson, I. Hammouda","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00028","url":null,"abstract":"[Context] The market for software targeting children, both for education and entertainment, is growing. Existing work, mainly from HCI, has considered the effectiveness of elicitation techniques for eliciting requirements from children as part of a design process. [Objective] However, we are lacking work which compares requirements elicitation techniques when used with children. [Methods] This study compares five elicitation techniques, taking into consideration the effectiveness and efficiency of each technique. Techniques were used with a total of 54 children aged 8-13, eliciting requirements for a museum flight simulator. We compare techniques by looking at the number and type of requirements discovered, perceived participant satisfaction, resources required, perceived usefulness, and requirements coverage of domain specific categories. [Conclusions] We observed notable differences between the techniques, including the effectiveness of observations and relative ineffectiveness of questionnaires. We present a set of guidelines to aid industry in eliciting requirements for child-friendly software.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128139873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Albert Kalim, J. Hayes, Satrio Husodo, Erin Combs, Jared Payne
Empirical validation is an important component of sound requirements engineering research. Many researchers develop a gold standard or answer set against which to compare techniques that they also developed in order to calculate common measures such as recall and precision. This poses threats to validity as the researchers developed the gold standard and the technique to be measured against it. To help address this and to help reduce bias, we introduce a prototype of Multi-user Input in Determining Answer Sets (MIDAS), a web-based tool to permit communities of researchers to jointly determine the gold standard for a given research data set. To date, the tool permits community members to add items to the answer set, vote on items in the answer set, comment on items, and view the latest status of community opinion on answer set items. It currently supports traceability data sets and classification data sets.
{"title":"Multi-user Input in Determining Answer Sets (MIDAS)","authors":"Albert Kalim, J. Hayes, Satrio Husodo, Erin Combs, Jared Payne","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00070","url":null,"abstract":"Empirical validation is an important component of sound requirements engineering research. Many researchers develop a gold standard or answer set against which to compare techniques that they also developed in order to calculate common measures such as recall and precision. This poses threats to validity as the researchers developed the gold standard and the technique to be measured against it. To help address this and to help reduce bias, we introduce a prototype of Multi-user Input in Determining Answer Sets (MIDAS), a web-based tool to permit communities of researchers to jointly determine the gold standard for a given research data set. To date, the tool permits community members to add items to the answer set, vote on items in the answer set, comment on items, and view the latest status of community opinion on answer set items. It currently supports traceability data sets and classification data sets.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134158010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michael Vierhauser, J. Cleland-Huang, Rick Rabiser, Thomas Krismayer, P. Grünbacher
Industrial software systems are often systems of systems (SoS) whose full behavior only emerges during operation. They therefore require monitoring techniques to observe systems and detect deviations from their requirements. The focus of existing monitoring approaches, however, is mainly on detecting violations of expected behavior, while support for diagnosing violations is typically limited or even neglected. Diagnosis is particularly challenging in SoS due to their technological heterogeneity and the diversity of development tools in use. Uncovering the root cause of a violation typically requires developers to trace violations to artifacts such as source code or requirements documents, which is difficult without detailed domain knowledge. In this paper we describe our experiences of developing a tool-supported approach facilitating the diagnosis of requirements violations in SoS. We describe how we complemented a requirements monitoring model with a system artifact model relating SoS artifacts needed for diagnosis with monitored events. We customized our approach to an industrial SoS and conducted a scenario-based walkthrough with engineers developing the SoS and engineers and researchers unfamiliar with it. The results of our evaluation have shown that our approach can significantly ease diagnosing violations in a real-world SoS.
{"title":"Supporting Diagnosis of Requirements Violations in Systems of Systems","authors":"Michael Vierhauser, J. Cleland-Huang, Rick Rabiser, Thomas Krismayer, P. Grünbacher","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00040","url":null,"abstract":"Industrial software systems are often systems of systems (SoS) whose full behavior only emerges during operation. They therefore require monitoring techniques to observe systems and detect deviations from their requirements. The focus of existing monitoring approaches, however, is mainly on detecting violations of expected behavior, while support for diagnosing violations is typically limited or even neglected. Diagnosis is particularly challenging in SoS due to their technological heterogeneity and the diversity of development tools in use. Uncovering the root cause of a violation typically requires developers to trace violations to artifacts such as source code or requirements documents, which is difficult without detailed domain knowledge. In this paper we describe our experiences of developing a tool-supported approach facilitating the diagnosis of requirements violations in SoS. We describe how we complemented a requirements monitoring model with a system artifact model relating SoS artifacts needed for diagnosis with monitored events. We customized our approach to an industrial SoS and conducted a scenario-based walkthrough with engineers developing the SoS and engineers and researchers unfamiliar with it. The results of our evaluation have shown that our approach can significantly ease diagnosing violations in a real-world SoS.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124522471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Felfernig, Martin Stettinger, Müslüm Atas, Ralph Samer, Jennifer Nerlich, Simon Scholz, J. Tiihonen, M. Raatikainen
Requirements Engineering in open source projects such as ECLIPSE faces the challenge of having to prioritize requirements for individual contributors in a more or less unobtrusive fashion. In contrast to conventional industrial software development projects, contributors in open source platforms can decide on their own which requirements to implement next. In this context, the main role of prioritization is to support contributors in figuring out the most relevant and interesting requirements to be implemented next and thus avoid time-consuming and inefficient search processes. In this paper, we show how utility-based prioritization approaches can be used to support contributors in conventional as well as in open source Requirements Engineering scenarios. As an example of an open source environment, we use BUGZILLA. In this context, we also show how dependencies can be taken into account in utility-based prioritization processes.
{"title":"Towards Utility-Based Prioritization of Requirements in Open Source Environments","authors":"A. Felfernig, Martin Stettinger, Müslüm Atas, Ralph Samer, Jennifer Nerlich, Simon Scholz, J. Tiihonen, M. Raatikainen","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00-17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00-17","url":null,"abstract":"Requirements Engineering in open source projects such as ECLIPSE faces the challenge of having to prioritize requirements for individual contributors in a more or less unobtrusive fashion. In contrast to conventional industrial software development projects, contributors in open source platforms can decide on their own which requirements to implement next. In this context, the main role of prioritization is to support contributors in figuring out the most relevant and interesting requirements to be implemented next and thus avoid time-consuming and inefficient search processes. In this paper, we show how utility-based prioritization approaches can be used to support contributors in conventional as well as in open source Requirements Engineering scenarios. As an example of an open source environment, we use BUGZILLA. In this context, we also show how dependencies can be taken into account in utility-based prioritization processes.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121889399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Software development has become increasingly software 'product' development, without the authoritative 'customer' stakeholder role that many requirements engineering processes assume exists in some form. Many progressive software product companies today are empowering cross-functional product teams to own their product – to collectively understand the product context, the true product needs, and manage its on-going evolution. Some teams do this better than others and neither established requirements elicitation and validation processes nor conventional team leadership practices explain the reasons for the differences. This research inquires into how cross-functional product teams, as a collective, create and nurture a shared mental model that accurately represents the external product domain and its realities. The research also examines how teams use that collective understanding to shape development plans, internal and external communications, new team member onboarding, etc. The aim of this research is to develop substantive theory that describes how self-directed, cross-functional product development teams take an empathic-based approach to discovering, understanding, and maintaining a deep, collective understanding of the domain and true product needs. This theory will support software product development leaders in creating rich-er conditions for teams to grok.
{"title":"Cross-Functional Teams That Grok It: The Collective Empathic Understanding of Product Requirements","authors":"R. Fuller","doi":"10.1109/RE.2018.00063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00063","url":null,"abstract":"Software development has become increasingly software 'product' development, without the authoritative 'customer' stakeholder role that many requirements engineering processes assume exists in some form. Many progressive software product companies today are empowering cross-functional product teams to own their product – to collectively understand the product context, the true product needs, and manage its on-going evolution. Some teams do this better than others and neither established requirements elicitation and validation processes nor conventional team leadership practices explain the reasons for the differences. This research inquires into how cross-functional product teams, as a collective, create and nurture a shared mental model that accurately represents the external product domain and its realities. The research also examines how teams use that collective understanding to shape development plans, internal and external communications, new team member onboarding, etc. The aim of this research is to develop substantive theory that describes how self-directed, cross-functional product development teams take an empathic-based approach to discovering, understanding, and maintaining a deep, collective understanding of the domain and true product needs. This theory will support software product development leaders in creating rich-er conditions for teams to grok.","PeriodicalId":445032,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127956139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：