PhD Thesis Presentation - Evaluating Requirements Engineering Tools and Catalogue-Based Reuse of Natural-Language Requirements in Global Software Engineering
1 like596 views
The dissertation by Juan Manuel Carrillo de Gea evaluates requirements engineering tools and proposes catalogue-based reuse techniques for natural-language requirements in global software engineering. It identifies challenges associated with globally distributed teams and emphasizes the value of reusing existing requirements artifacts to enhance productivity and reduce ambiguity. The work includes the development of a prototypical tool named Pantalasa, along with empirical validation of its effectiveness in a global software engineering context.
![5 February 2016
Empirical validation of the proposal
A contribution for Goal 3
Non-reuse task (example)
• Original text (Paragraph 4, Article
12, Spanish Regulation on
Security Measures):
– Only the authorized personnel in
the security document may grant,
alter or cancel authorized access to
data and resources, according to
the criteria established by
responsible for the file
• Elicited req.:
– The system shall allow authorized
personnel in the security
document, grant, alter or cancel
permissions and access privileges
of users
Reuse task (example)
• S3. The person in charge of the file will
define and verify the process of data
backup and recovery
– Article “14. Backup and recovery” from the
Spanish PDP/RMS
• C3. The person in charge of the file will
use [hardware backup] for the backup
– Refined from the Spanish PDP domain req.
S3, and included in the PDP catalogue
– Parameter [hardware backup] with
alternatives DVD, CD and USB memory
• R3. The person in charge of the file will
use DVD for the backup
– From parameterised req. C3
– Parameter instantiated with value DVD
Development – Contributions
45](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/presentationuploaded-160630134025/85/PhD-Thesis-Presentation-Evaluating-Requirements-Engineering-Tools-and-Catalogue-Based-Reuse-of-Natural-Language-Requirements-in-Global-Software-Engineering-45-320.jpg)
PhD Thesis Presentation - Evaluating Requirements Engineering Tools and Catalogue-Based Reuse of Natural-Language Requirements in Global Software Engineering
- 1. Evaluating Requirements Engineering Tools and Catalogue-Based Reuse of Natural-Language Requirements in Global Software Engineering A dissertation presented by Juan Manuel Carrillo de Gea and supervised by Dr. Joaquín Nicolás Ros Faculty of Computer Science University of Murcia Spain 5 February 2016
- 2. 5 February 2016 Agenda • Introduction – Problem – Hypothesis – Goals • Development – Overview – Contributions • Conclusions – Context – Results – Further work 2
- 3. 5 February 2016 Agenda • Introduction – Problem – Hypothesis – Goals • Development – Overview – Contributions • Conclusions – Context – Results – Further work 3
- 4. 5 February 2016 • Software companies are moving towards globally-distributed development teams • Many benefits, but… – Temporal, geographic, socio-cultural and linguistic distance – Specific challenges for Requirements Eng. (RE) Global Software Engineering (GSE) Requirements specification Requirements reuse Introduction Problem Introduction – Problem 4
- 5. 5 February 2016 • Unstructured natural language (NL) is very common in industry – Easier to understand than non-textual notations – Inherently ambiguous, different interpretations! • Exacerbated by (globally) distributed stakeholders – Lack of tacit knowledge and informal communication – Distance Requirements specification Global Software Engineering (GSE) Requirements reuse Introduction Problem Introduction – Problem 5
- 6. 5 February 2016 • Use preexisting requirements artifacts rather than build from scratch – time and effort to build software and quality – time and effort to maintain software – The earlier it is applied, the better Requirements reuse Requirements specification Global Software Engineering (GSE) Introduction Problem Introduction – Problem 6
- 7. 5 February 2016 • Requirements reuse can help to interpret the real meaning of the reqs. in a given context by leaving little room for misunderstandings and misconceptions in GSE • No other proposals addressing catalogue- based NL requirements reuse in GSE Requirements specification Global Software Engineering (GSE) Requirements reuse Introduction Hypothesis Introduction – Hypothesis 7
- 8. 5 February 2016 Requirements specification Global Software Engineering (GSE) Requirements reuse If adequate catalogue-based reuse techniques and an automated tool support were defined for NL requirements specification when stakeholders are globally distributed, then relevant gains of effectiveness and productivity in software development projects would be obtained Introduction Hypothesis Propose catalogue-based reuse techniques and an automated tool support for NL requirements specification in GSE, and validate them empirically HYPOTHESIS Introduction – Hypothesis 8
- 9. 5 February 2016 Requirements specification Global Software Engineering (GSE) Requirements reuse Introduction Goal Introduction – Goal 9 If adequate catalogue-based reuse techniques and an automated tool support were defined for NL requirements specification when stakeholders are globally distributed, then relevant gains of effectiveness and productivity in software development projects would be obtained Propose catalogue-based reuse techniques and an automated tool support for NL requirements specification in GSE, and validate them empirically GOAL
- 10. 5 February 2016 Provide automated support for the requirements reuse techniques by using a prototypical tool Devise reuse-based techniques for NL requirements specification in GSE Introduction Goal refinement Validate the techniques and the prototype empirically in a GSE scenario Propose catalogue-based reuse techniques and an automated tool support for NL requirements specification in GSE, and validate them empirically Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Introduction – Goal 10
- 11. 5 February 2016 Agenda • Introduction – Problem – Hypothesis – Goals • Development – Overview – Contributions • Conclusions – Context – Results – Further work 11
- 12. 5 February 2016 Development Overview: Goal 1 36 12 18 35 8 23 20 6 11 23 19 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Com m unication and dista nce Know ledge m anagem ent and awareness Cultural diffe re nces M anagem entand pro je ctcoord in ation Tools whichsupport th eprocesses Custo m er-supplier dista nce Risks Safeguards Challenges for RE Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE • State-of-the-art on RE in GSE – Specific challenges for RE • Inherent collaborative nature – Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE • SLR and quantitative approach Development – Overview 12
- 13. 5 February 2016 Development Overview: Goal 1 PANGEA reuse-based techniques PANGEA repository of reusable reqs. • Reuse-based techniques for NL reqs. specification in GSE – In the context of the PANGEA method • Requirements reference model • Repository of reusable catalogues Development – Overview 13
- 14. 5 February 2016 Development Overview: Goal 2 State-of-the-practice on RE tools Classification framework Development – Overview 14 • Classification framework for RE tool capabilities – ISO/IEC TR 24766 • State-of-the-practice on commercial RE tools – DESMET and survey
- 15. 5 February 2016 • Prototypical tool support for the reuse-based techniques for NL reqs. specification in GSE – Needs analysis and SRS – High-level design – PANTALASA RE tool (proof-of- concept) • Social networking software, (semantic) wiki and CMS Development Overview: Goal 2 PANTALASA RE tool (proof-of-concept) Development – Overview 15
- 16. 5 February 2016 • Empirical validation of the proposal – Experiment planning, design and execution • Two experiments • Distributed university students – Nearshore GSE scenario • Rabat (Morocco) and Murcia (Spain) – Data analysis Development Overview: Goal 3 Validation (two experiments) Development – Overview 16
- 17. 5 February 2016 Development Overview State-of-the-practice on RE tools Classification framework 36 12 18 35 8 23 20 6 11 23 19 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Com m unication and dista nce Know ledge m anagem ent and awareness Cultural diffe re nces M anagem entand pro je ctcoord in ation Tools whichsupport th eprocesses Custo m er-supplier dista nce Risks Safeguards Challenges for RE Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE PANGEA reuse-based techniques PANGEA repository of reusable reqs. PANTALASA RE tool (proof-of-concept) Validation (two experiments) Development – Overview 17
- 18. 5 February 2016 • Systematic Literature Review (SLR) – 148 risks and 90 safeguards – 6 categories (concerns): • Communication and distance • Knowledge management and awareness • Cultural differences • Management and project coordination • Tools which support the process • Customer-supplier distance Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 18
- 19. 5 February 2016 • Customizable repository – Help in finding strategies to face problems that can arise in GSE – Specially useful for organisations without previous experience in GSE – Initial and extendable knowledge base Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 19
- 20. 5 February 2016 Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 20
- 21. 5 February 2016 • Quantitative analysis of the results of the SLR – Relationships between canonical risks and safeguards – The ratio assesses each canonical risk • 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑟𝑠𝑘𝑖 = 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑟𝑠𝑘𝑖 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑟𝑠𝑘𝑖 – ratio > 1 the ith canonical risk is well covered by canonical safeguards – 0 ≤ ratio < 1 the ith canonical risk is not well covered – ratio = 1 balanced scenario Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 21
- 22. 5 February 2016 • Quantitative analysis of the results of the SLR – Bivariate correlation tests (Pearson correlation coefficient) measures linear dependence b/w the risks and the safeguards of each concern • r-value indicates strength and direction (±) 1. Communication and distance (0.017) 2. Knowledge management and awareness (0.937) 3. Cultural differences (-1.000**) 4. Management and project coordination (0.411) 5. Tools which support the process (1.000**) 6. Customer-supplier distance (0.644) Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 22
- 23. 5 February 2016 • Most populated canonical risks: 1. Conflict between client and vendor 2. Communication problems, Lack of face-to-face meetings and Lack of informal communication 3. Not well-defined processes • Risks that are not faced by any safeguards: – Lack of speed when communicating changes in requirements – Difficulty in identifying the key users and High number of users and requirements • Uncovered specific challenges for RE in GSE – Our proposal: a reqs. reuse approach Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 – Conclusions Development – Contributions 23
- 24. 5 February 2016 NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Security Privacy i18n CARE Development for reuse Development with reuse Guidelines, recommendations, regulations, laws, standards Domain knowledge (experts, previous projects, docs…) IRS SRS STS SyRS SyTS Development – Contributions 24
- 25. 5 February 2016 NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Security Privacy i18n CARE Development for reuse Development with reuse Guidelines, recommendations, regulations, laws, standards Domain knowledge (experts, previous projects, docs…) IRS SRS STS SyRS SyTS Elicitation Analysis and negotiation Validation Documentation or specification (for reuse) Development – Contributions 25
- 26. 5 February 2016 NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Security Privacy i18n CARE Development for reuse Development with reuse Guidelines, recommendations, regulations, laws, standards Domain knowledge (experts, previous projects, docs…) IRS SRS STS SyRS SyTS Elicitation Analysis and negotiation Validation Documentation or specification (for reuse) Elicitation (with reuse) Analysis and negotiation (with reuse) Validation Documentation or specification (with reuse) Development – Contributions 26
- 27. 5 February 2016 • PANGEA extends the SIREN reqs. reuse method to GSE starting from the repository of risks and safeguards – Changes in the process model • New activities and tasks • New set of roles – Changes in part of the techniques • The requirements reference model – New requirements attributes – New attribute values – New traceability relationships – No changes in another part of the techniques • The documents hierarchy • The repository of reusable catalogues NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 27
- 28. 5 February 2016 NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 28
- 29. 5 February 2016 • Requirements reference model – SIREN metadata • Requirements attributes (e.g. Text, UniqueIdentifier) • Parameterised requirements • Traceability model (i.e. Parent-child, Requires, RelatedTo, MutuallyExclusive) – PANGEA metadata • SIREN requirements + • Additional attributes (i.e. SourceTeam, SourceAnalyst, DestinationTeam) and attribute values (i.e. State: Deallocated discussion pending) NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 Development – Contributions 29
- 30. 5 February 2016 • We postulate that certain problems in GSE could be mitigated by means of reuse: – Knowledge availability (gathering and understanding) – Communication (overhead, misunderstandings, interpretation) • PANGEA is a reuse-based RE method for GSE – Specifies knowledge in the form of NL reqs. – Encompasses process model, requirements reference model and RE tool (PANTALASA) • No other proposals are aimed at both GSE and catalogue-based requirements reuse NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE A contribution for Goal 1 – Conclusions Development – Contributions 30
- 31. 5 February 2016 State-of-the-practice on RE tools A contribution for Goal 2 Define a classification framework for RE tool capabilities Collect data about RE tools Depict the state-of-the-art on RE tools (i): descriptive analysis Define a statistical approach to assess and categorise RE tools Depict the state-of-the-art on RE tools (ii): inferential analysis Development – Contributions 31
- 32. 5 February 2016 State-of-the-practice on RE tools A contribution for Goal 2 Category (classification framework) No. of capabilities 1. Elicitation 20 2. Analysis 11 3. Specification 7 4. Modelling 13 5. V&V 11 6. Management 18 7. Traceability 29 8. Collaboration and GSD 42 9. Other tool capabilities 17 Total 168 • Goal/Question Metric (GQM) framework – Goal: The goal is to depict the state-of-the-art of RE tools – Question: Do current RE tools adequately support the RE process? – Metric: The capabilities supported by the RE tools within distinct categories of features in an ISO/IEC TR 24766-based classification framework Development – Contributions 32
- 33. 5 February 2016 • DESMET method for evaluating SE methods and tools – Feature Analysis─Survey • 188-item (168 tech. + 20 gen.) questionnaire – ISO/IEC TR 24766 categories of features (6) + Modelling + Traceability + Collaboration and GSD • Web-based survey using LimeSurvey – 38 participants out of 94 RE tool vendors invited • Another survey already performed – From CFv1 to CFv2: CFv1 + reuse – Data analysis: work-in-progress State-of-the-practice on RE tools A contribution for Goal 2 Development – Contributions 33
- 34. 5 February 2016 State-of-the-practice on RE tools A contribution for Goal 2 • Bivariate correlation tests (Pearson correlation coefficient) – Strong direct correlation between each distinct category of features – Cost per individual license– • Analysis (0.336*) • Modelling (0.404*) • Traceability (0.329*) • Specification (0.545**) • Global score (0.358) – Number of licenses in use– • Other tool capab. (0.513**) • Cost per license (0.243) • Global score (0.183) Development – Contributions 34
- 35. 5 February 2016 State-of-the-practice on RE tools A contribution for Goal 2 • Goal/Question Metric (GQM) framework – Goal: The goal is to investigate the commonalities and differences b/w current RE tools empirically, through the assessment of their features, the application of a clustering process to group them, and the execution of a formal experiment – Question: Have the clusters of RE tools got significant differences in coverage of features? – Metric: The capabilities supported by the RE tools within the distinct categories of features included in our classification framework Development – Contributions 35
- 36. 5 February 2016 • The RE process is well-covered by RE tools – Association b/w the scores achieved in each category – The more expensive, the better analysis, specification, modelling and traceability support – No association b/w cost and global score – No association b/w amount of licenses in use and cost nor global score • The quantitative approach analyses commonalities and differences b/w RE tools – High variability in functionality • The RE tool landscape pointed out desirable capabilities to take into account later on State-of-the-practice on RE tools A contribution for Goal 2 – Conclusions Development – Contributions 36
- 37. 5 February 2016 Tool for NL reqs. reuse in GSE A contribution for Goal 2 ISO/IEC TR 24766 Classification framework SRS Development – Contributions 37
- 38. 5 February 2016 Tool for NL reqs. reuse in GSE A contribution for Goal 2 Vision (38 FEAT) Use Case Specification (16 Use Cases) Supplementary Specification (195 Suppl. Requirements) FEAT25 The system shall be able to manage at reuse time both the horizontal and vertical traceability relationships that are associated to a requirement SUPL122 The system shall be able to reuse requirements following existing parent-child traceability relationships (i.e. the child requirement refines the parent requirement) UC16 Reuse Requirements from a Catalogue … 3.1.4 REUSE REQUIREMENTS 1. For each requirements document in the catalogue, if the document type does not exist in the project, the system creates it and copies the requirements from the requirements catalogue to the document. 2. If the document type already exists, the system copies the requirements to the document. 3. In both cases, the system controls the order of the identification number of each reused requirement. 4. The system copies all the traceability relationships and requirements attributes. 5. In the case of requirements without associated document, the system copies them, their traceability relationships and attributes from the requirements catalogue to the project. Development – Contributions 38
- 39. 5 February 2016 Tool for NL reqs. reuse in GSE A contribution for Goal 2 Development – Contributions 39
- 40. 5 February 2016 Tool for NL reqs. reuse in GSE A contribution for Goal 2 Social networking sw. + wiki Adding enterprise wiki sw. SMW repository SMW PHP + JavaScript Go-b/w app. JS Facebook PHP Web browser HTML + JavaScript Development – Contributions 40
- 41. 5 February 2016 Tool for NL reqs. reuse in GSE A contribution for Goal 2 Content management system Development – Contributions 41
- 42. 5 February 2016 • Information sources for the PANTALASA SRS: – Risks and safeguards for RE in GSE – NL reqs. reuse techniques in GSE – State-of-the-practice on RE tools (standard + classification framework + evaluation of RE tools) • PANTALASA is a prototypical RE tool that… – Main features: • Access control, roles, users, teams; Projects, catalogues, documents, sections, requirements; Baselines; Discussion threads; Reqs. reuse • …allowed us to test our hypothesis (proof-of-concept) – What: catalogue-based reuse techniques and tool support – Where: NL reqs. specification in GSE – Why: effectiveness and productivity gains Tool for NL reqs. reuse in GSE A contribution for Goal 2 – Conclusions Development – Contributions 42
- 43. 5 February 2016 • Experimentation with students 1. Find a suitable GSE scenario for reqs. reuse • Murcia-Rabat: nearshore development – Temporal distance (different time zones) – Physical distance (almost 700 km) – Socio-cultural distance (linguistic/cultural differences) 2. Identify factors that could improve reqs. specification in GSE • Reuse techniques, reqs. catalogues, tool support 3. Carry out the experiment • Non-reuse versus reuse-based techniques in GSE Empirical validation of the proposal A contribution for Goal 3 Development – Contributions 43
- 44. 5 February 2016 Empirical validation of the proposal A contribution for Goal 3 Group formation • Teams of two people • Participation modalities: – Global (GLO): UMU and MVU – Co-located in Murcia (CLM) – Co-located in Rabat (CLR) • Working language: English • Informal communication in the native language (co- located modalities) Provided materials 1. Exercise statement 2. Group assignments 3. Summary on the techniques and the tool 4. I18n standards (e.g. ISO/IEC 24751) 5. I18n reqs. catalogue 6. Questionnaire (demographics, techniques, tool) Development – Contributions 44
- 45. 5 February 2016 Empirical validation of the proposal A contribution for Goal 3 Non-reuse task (example) • Original text (Paragraph 4, Article 12, Spanish Regulation on Security Measures): – Only the authorized personnel in the security document may grant, alter or cancel authorized access to data and resources, according to the criteria established by responsible for the file • Elicited req.: – The system shall allow authorized personnel in the security document, grant, alter or cancel permissions and access privileges of users Reuse task (example) • S3. The person in charge of the file will define and verify the process of data backup and recovery – Article “14. Backup and recovery” from the Spanish PDP/RMS • C3. The person in charge of the file will use [hardware backup] for the backup – Refined from the Spanish PDP domain req. S3, and included in the PDP catalogue – Parameter [hardware backup] with alternatives DVD, CD and USB memory • R3. The person in charge of the file will use DVD for the backup – From parameterised req. C3 – Parameter instantiated with value DVD Development – Contributions 45
- 46. 5 February 2016 Empirical validation of the proposal A contribution for Goal 3 • Questionnaire – Demographic information (e.g. age, gender, course, previous experience) – Perception of the techniques applied during the tasks (e.g. difficulty, speed, understanding) – Perception of the automated tool support (e.g. ease of use, functionality, robustness) • Outcome measures – Productivity, effectiveness – Difficulty, Speed, Quality, Understanding Development – Contributions 46
- 47. 5 February 2016 Empirical validation of the proposal A contribution for Goal 3 First experiment Family of experiments Development – Contributions 47
- 48. 5 February 2016 Empirical validation of the proposal A contribution for Goal 3 – Conclusions First experiment • In general, no significant differences (non-reuse vs. reuse) – Lack of proper tool support for searching the catalogue, managing traceability and variation points • RE tool support is required if the expected benefits of reqs. reuse are to be achieved • Sufficient specific training is required to effectively apply the reuse-based reqs. specification techniques Family of experiments • Significant differences in productivity and effectiveness (non-reuse vs. reuse) – Reuse provides benefits over traditional reqs. specification – No significant interaction between the process (non- reuse/reuse) and the co-factor distribution (co-located/ global) • The reuse techniques are not (so much) hampered by distance as other RE activities, tasks and/or techniques Development – Contributions 48
- 49. 5 February 2016 Agenda • Introduction – Problem – Hypothesis – Goals • Development – Overview – Contributions • Conclusions – Context – Results – Further work 49
- 50. 5 February 2016 • According to our results the hypothesis is valid – It is feasible to apply our proposal • The catalogue-based reuse techniques are simple, practical • The NL reqs. are widespread in industry • Globally distributed stakeholders benefit from the mitigation of knowledge and communication problems • The gains of effectiveness and productivity are satisfying Conclusions The hypothesis revisited If adequate catalogue-based reuse techniques and an automated tool support were defined for NL requirements specification when stakeholders are globally distributed, then relevant gains of effectiveness and productivity in software development projects would be obtained HYPOTHESIS Conclusions 50
- 51. 5 February 2016 • National research projects and technology transfer contracts – PEGASO/PANGEA (January 2010–December 2012) – ORIGIN. Technology transfer contract in the context of the ORIGIN project (March 2012–October 2012) – GEODAS/GEODAS-REQ (January 2013–December 2015) • International mobility scholarships and research stays – Mediterranean Office for Youth (July–November 2013) • Mohammed V University (Rabat, Morocco) • Dr. Ali Idri (Full Professor at the Mohammed V University) – German Academic Exchange Service (February–April 2014) • University of Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) • Dr. Christof Ebert (Managing Director at Vector Consulting Sevices; Professor at the University of Stuttgart) Conclusions Context Conclusions – Context 51
- 52. 5 February 2016 Conclusions Results Contribution type Amount Journal indexed in JCR 7 (5 + 2 accepted with revision) International book chapter 1 National book chapter 1 International conference or workshop 4 National conference or workshop 1 Intellectual property registry 4 National research project 2 Technology transfer contract 1 International mobility scholarship 2 International research stay (≥ 3 moths) 2 Conclusions – Results 52
- 53. 5 February 2016 Conclusions Publication results • *: accepted with revision • **: accepted • ***: in press No. of contribution Contribution type Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Contribution 1* Journal article (JCR Q1) Contribution 2 Journal article (JCR Q1) Contribution 3 Journal article (JCR Q1) Contribution 4 Journal article (JCR Q3) Contribution 5* Journal article (JCR Q4) Contribution 6** Journal article (JCR Q4) Contribution 7*** Journal article (JCR Q2) Contribution 8 Intl. book chapter Contribution 9 Natl. book chapter Contribution 10 Intl. conf. or workshop Contribution 11 Intl. conf. or workshop Contribution 12 Intl. conf. or workshop Contribution 13 Intl. conf. or workshop Contribution 14 Natl. conf. or workshop Contribution 15 Intellect. prop. regist. Contribution 16 Intellect. prop. regist. Contribution 17 Intellect. prop. regist. Contribution 18 Intellect. prop. regist. Conclusions – Results 53
- 54. 5 February 2016 • Empirical studies (survey, case study and experiment) – The survey allows to describe a situation using data obtained from a sample of the population under study – The experiment enables manipulation of variables and measurement of their effects • Systematic Literature Review (SLR) – Rigorously synthesises the scientific literature in relation to a question asked by the researcher – It allows to characterise the evidence on a particular issue and helps identify gaps in the state-of-the-art • DESMET – Method designed for evaluating SE methods and tools Conclusions Training results Conclusions – Results 54
- 55. 5 February 2016 • A theory for RE tools – Dr. Anil Thurimella (Requirements Manager at Harman Intl.; Researcher at the Technical University of Munich) – Commonality and variability analysis • Data gathering process • Clustering and statistical analysis for variations across tools • Guidelines on making strategic decisions – Application of a theory building framework to develop guidelines for implementing RE tool plug-ins • Use theory building concepts from social sciences • Also analysis of RE tool capabilities and their grouping • Guidelines on plug-in development – Extend commonality and variability analysis of RE tools with a theory building framework Conclusions Further work Conclusions – Further work 55
- 56. 5 February 2016 • RE tools evaluation – Dr. Christof Ebert – Criteria ranking • Relative value of RE tool capabilities • The classification framework could be too generic • Supporting all capabilities in the CF is not optimal from a cost/benefit perspective – Update classification framework and dataset – Recommendation system • Expert guidance is usually missing or very expensive Conclusions Further work Conclusions – Further work 56
- 57. 5 February 2016 • Integration architecture between analysis and design artefacts – Dr. Javier Bermúdez and Dr. Jesús García Molina (Lecturer and Full Professor respectively at the University of Murcia) – Automatic synchronisation b/w reqs. (what) and design diagrams (how) • Catalogue of reqs. templates (ReqIF representation) • Intermediate models (MOF, Ecore representation) • Design diagrams (UML class diagrams, sequence diagrams) – Powerful traceability throughout lifecycle artefacts – Data engineering domain (initially) Conclusions Further work Conclusions – Further work 57
- 58. 5 February 2016 Acknowledgments • Software Engineering Research Group, University of Murcia • Mediterranean Office for Youth • German Academic Exchange Service 58
- 59. Thank you for your attention! Questions?
- 60. 5 February 2016 Results – Journals indexed in JCR • Juan Manuel Carrillo de Gea, Joaquín Nicolás, José Luis Fernández Alemán, Ambrosio Toval, Christof Ebert, and Aurora Vizcaíno. Requirements engineering tools. IEEE Softw., 28(4):86–91, Jul./Aug. 2011. ISSN 0740-7459. • Juan Manuel Carrillo de Gea, Joaquín Nicolás, José Luis Fernández Alemán, Ambrosio Toval, Christof Ebert, and Aurora Vizcaíno. Requirements engineering tools: capabilities, survey and assessment. Inf. Softw.Technol., 54(10):1142–1157, Oct. 2012. ISSN 0950-5849. • Juan Manuel Carrillo de Gea, Joaquín Nicolás, José Luis Fernández Alemán, Ambrosio Toval, Christof Ebert, and Aurora Vizcaíno. Commonalities and differences between requirements engineering tools: a quantitative approach. Comp. Sci. Inf. Syst., 12(1):257–288, Jan. 2015. ISSN 1820-0214. • Juan Manuel Carrillo de Gea, Joaquín Nicolás, José Luis Fernández Alemán, Ambrosio Toval, Sofia Ouhbi, and Ali Idri. Co-located and distributed natural- language requirements specification: traditional versus reuse-based techniques. J. Softw.-Evol. Proc., 28(3):205–227, Mar. 2016. ISSN 2047-7473. • José Luis Fernández Alemán, Juan Manuel Carrillo de Gea, Joaquín Vidal, Joaquín Nicolás, Ambrosio Toval, and Ali Idri. Effects of using requirements catalogs on effectiveness and productivity of requirements specification in a software project management course. IEEE Trans. Educ., 59(2):105–118, May 2016. ISSN 0018-9359. 60