关于“正确的软件需求引出技术”的研究与实践的比较

D. Carrizo
{"title":"关于“正确的软件需求引出技术”的研究与实践的比较","authors":"D. Carrizo","doi":"10.1109/QUATIC.2016.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In terms of capturing software requirements, the most appropriate elicitation technique must be selected, but what does this mean? This paper makes a comparison between what researchers and software engineers see as adequate technique for capturing relevant information to meet software requirements. A systematic mapping of constructs which researchers define as good techniques is presented and compared with practitioners' opinions. The study identified 13 constructs that were finally whittled down to six. The software engineers' survey showed no significant difference between these constructs. This work demonstrates the divergence of views between researchers and practitioners about the quality of software requirement elicitation techniques. The results call for more empirical research to define a common way to measure the performance of techniques and so to support their selection.","PeriodicalId":157671,"journal":{"name":"2016 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Research and Practice Regarding What We Mean by \\\"The Right Software Requirements Elicitation Technique\\\"\",\"authors\":\"D. Carrizo\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/QUATIC.2016.022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In terms of capturing software requirements, the most appropriate elicitation technique must be selected, but what does this mean? This paper makes a comparison between what researchers and software engineers see as adequate technique for capturing relevant information to meet software requirements. A systematic mapping of constructs which researchers define as good techniques is presented and compared with practitioners' opinions. The study identified 13 constructs that were finally whittled down to six. The software engineers' survey showed no significant difference between these constructs. This work demonstrates the divergence of views between researchers and practitioners about the quality of software requirement elicitation techniques. The results call for more empirical research to define a common way to measure the performance of techniques and so to support their selection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":157671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2016 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC)\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2016 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2016.022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2016.022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在获取软件需求方面,必须选择最合适的引出技术,但是这意味着什么呢?本文对研究人员和软件工程师所认为的捕获相关信息以满足软件需求的适当技术进行了比较。研究人员定义为良好技术的构造的系统映射被提出并与从业者的意见进行比较。该研究确定了13种结构,最终减少到6种。软件工程师的调查显示这些构造之间没有显著的差异。这项工作证明了研究者和实践者之间关于软件需求引出技术质量的观点分歧。这些结果需要更多的实证研究来定义一种通用的方法来衡量技术的性能,从而支持他们的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Research and Practice Regarding What We Mean by "The Right Software Requirements Elicitation Technique"
In terms of capturing software requirements, the most appropriate elicitation technique must be selected, but what does this mean? This paper makes a comparison between what researchers and software engineers see as adequate technique for capturing relevant information to meet software requirements. A systematic mapping of constructs which researchers define as good techniques is presented and compared with practitioners' opinions. The study identified 13 constructs that were finally whittled down to six. The software engineers' survey showed no significant difference between these constructs. This work demonstrates the divergence of views between researchers and practitioners about the quality of software requirement elicitation techniques. The results call for more empirical research to define a common way to measure the performance of techniques and so to support their selection.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Customizable Approach for the Automated Quality Assessment of Modelling Artifacts A Process Framework with Agile Practices for Implementation of Project Portfolio Management Process Towards a Model about Quality of Software Requirements Specification in Agile Projects Expressing Measurement Uncertainty in Software Models Adopting Logical Architectures within Agile Projects
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1