An empirical comparative evaluation of requirements engineering methods

Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 3-19

  España, Sergio ^a   Condori Fernandez, Nelly ^a   González, Arturo ^a   Pastor, Óscar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Communication Analysis; Conceptual model quality framework; Experiment; Method Evaluation Model; Perceived ease of use; Perceived usefulness; Requirements specification; Use Cases

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857624422     PISSN: 01046500     EISSN: 16784804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13173-010-0003-5     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. España S, Condori-Fernández N, González A, Pastor Ó (2009) Evaluating the completeness and granularity of functional requirements specifications: a controlled experiment. In: 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE'09), Atlanta, GA, USA. IEEE, New York, pp 161-170.
2. Boehm B, McClean RK, Ufrig DB (1975) Some experience with automated aids to the design of large-scale reliable software. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 1(1): 125-133.
3. Wieringa RJ, Heerkens JMG (2004) Evaluating the structure of research papers: a case study. In: 2nd international workshop in comparative evaluation of requirements engineering, Kyoto, Japan. IEEE Press, New York, pp 41-50.
4. Wieringa RJ, Heerkens JMG (2006) The methodological soundness of requirements engineering papers: a conceptual framework and two case studies. Requir Eng 11(4): 295-307.
5. Höfer A, Tichy WF (2007) Status of empirical research in software engineering. In: Empirical software engineering issues. Critical assessment and future directions. LNCS, vol 4336. Springer, Berlin, pp 10-19.
6. Iivari J, Kerola P (1983) A sociocybernetic framework for the feature analysis of information systems development methodologies. In: Olle TW, Sol HG, Tully CJ (eds) Information systems methodologies: a feature analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 87-139.
7. Dieste O, Lopez M, Ramos F (2008) Updating a systematic review about selection of software requirements specification techniques. In: 11th workshop on requirements engineering (WER 2008), Barcelona, Spain.
8. Siau K, Rossi M (1998) Evaluation of information modeling methods-a review. In: 31st Hawaii international conference on systems science (HICSS 1998), Kohala Coast, USA, vol 5. IEEE, New York, pp 314-322.
9. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in Software Engineering: an introduction. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
10. Cockburn A (2000) Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
11. España S, González A, Pastor Ó (2009) Communication Analysis: a requirements elicitation approach for information systems. In: 21st international conference on advanced information systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. LNCS. Springer, Berlin.
12. Wieringa RJ (1996) Requirements engineering: frameworks for understanding. Wiley, New York.
13. Dobing B, Parsons J (2006) How UML is used. Commun ACM 49(5): 109-113.
14. Simons AJH (1999) Use cases considered harmful. In: Technology of object-oriented languages and systems, Nancy, France. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 194-203.
15. Dano B, Briand H, Barbier F (1997) A use case driven requirements engineering process. In: Third IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE'97), Antapolis, MD. IEEE, New York.
16. Rolland C, Achour CB (1998) Guiding the construction of textual use case specifications. Data Knowl Eng J 25(1-2): 125-160.
17. Constantine LL, Lockwood LAD (1999) Software for use: a practical guide to the models and methods of usage-centered design. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
18. Cockburn A (1997) Structuring use cases with goals. J Object-Oriented Program.
19. Phalp KT, Jonathan V, Cox K (2007) Improving the quality of use case descriptions: empirical assessment of writing guidelines. Softw Qual Control 15(4): 383-399.
20. Cox K, Phalp K, Shepperd M (2001) Comparing use case writing guidelines. In: 7th international workshop on requirements engineering: foundations for software quality (REFSQ'2001), Interlaken, Switzerland.
21. Pastor O, González A, España S (2007) Conceptual alignment of software production methods. In: Conceptual modelling in information systems engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 209-228.
22. González A, España S, Pastor O (2008) Towards a communicational perspective for enterprise information systems modelling. In: IFIP WG 8. 1 working conference on the practice of enterprise modeling, Stockholm, Sweden. LNBIP. Springer, Berlin.
23. González A, España S, Pastor O (2009) Unity criteria for business process modelling: a theoretical argumentation for a software engineering recurrent problem. In: 3rd international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS 2009), Fes, Morocco. IEEE, New York.
24. Moody DL (2003) The Method Evaluation Model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2003), Naples, Italy, 16-21 June 2003.
25. Yadav SB, Bravoco RR, Chatfield AT, Rajkumar TM (1988) Comparison of analysis techniques for information requirement determination. Commun ACM 31(9): 1090-1097.
26. Lindland OI, Sindre G, Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw 11(2): 42-49.
27. Moody DL, Sindre G, Brasethvik T, Solvberg A (2003) Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. In: 25th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2003), Portland, USA, pp 295-305.
28. Moody DL, Sindre G, Brasethvik T, Solvberg A (2002) Evaluating the quality of process models: empirical testing of a quality framework. In: 21st international conference on conceptual modeling. Springer, Berlin.
29. Larman C (1997) Applying UML and patterns. Prentice Hall, New York (see p 53).
30. Övergaard G, Palmkvist K (2004) Use Cases: patterns and blueprints. Addison-Wesley, Reading (see Part V).
31. Kulak D, Guiney E (2000) Use cases: requirements in context. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 94-95.
32. Langlois RN (2002) Modularity in technology and organization. J Econ Behav Organ 49(1): 19-37.
33. Reijers H, Mendling J (2008) Modularity in process models: review and effects. In: 6th international conference on business process management (BPM 2008), Milan, Italy. LNCS, vol 5240. Springer, Berlin, pp 20-35.
34. Rescher N (1977) Methodological pragmatism: systems-theoretic approach to the theory of knowledge. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
35. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8): 982-1003.
36. Davis AM, Overmyer S, Jordan K, Caruso J, Dandashi F, Dinh A, Kincaid G, Ledeboer G, Reynolds P, Sitaram P, Ta A, Theofanos M (1993) Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In: 1st international software metrics symposium, pp 141-152.
37. Pohl K (1994) The three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications. In: 5th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Paris, France. Pergamon, New York.
38. Krogstie J, Sindre G, Jorgensen H (2006) Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur J Inf Syst 15(1): 91-102.
39. Falkenberg E, Hesse W, Lindgreeen P, Nilsson B, Oei JLH, Rolland C, Stamper RK, VanAssche F, Verrijn-Stuart A, Voss K (1998) FRISCO. A framework of information systems concepts. IFIP WG 8. 1 report.
40. Krogstie J, Lindland OI, Sindre G (1995) Towards a deeper understanding of quality in requirements engineering. In: 7th international conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 82-95.
41. Moody DL, Shanks GG (1994) What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: 13th international conference on the entity-relationship approach, Manchester, UK. Springer, Berlin, pp 94-111.
42. Schuette R, Rotthowe T (1998) The guidelines of modeling-an approach to enhance the quality in information models. In: Conceptual modeling (ER'98), Singapore. LNCS, vol 1507. Springer, Berlin, pp 240-254.
43. Schuette R (1999) Architectures for evaluating the quality of information models-a meta and an object level comparison. In: 18th international conference on conceptual modeling (RE 1999). Springer, Berlin, pp 490-505.
44. Shanks GG, Darke P (1997) Quality in conceptual modelling: linking theory and practice. Asia-Pacific conference on information systems (PACIS 1007), Brisbane, pp 805-814.
45. Moody DL (2005) Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl Eng 55(3): 243-276.
46. Lockemann PC, Mayr HC (1986) Information system design: techniques and software support. Information processing, vol 86. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
47. Zave P, Jackson M (1997) Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 6(1): 1-30.
48. Jacobson I (2004) Use cases-yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Softw Syst Model 3(3): 210-220.
49. Kroll P (2004) Dr Process how many use cases should you have in a system? IBM Rational developerWorks documentation. Accessed 02-2009.
50. Juristo N, Moreno A (2001) Basics of software engineering experimentation. Kluwer, Boston.
51. Achour CB, Rolland C, Maiden NAM, Souveyet C (1999) Guiding use case authoring: results of an empirical study. In: IEEE symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE, Los Alamitos.
52. Cox K, Phalp K (2000) Replicating the CREWS use case authoring guidelines experiment. Empir Softw Eng 5(3): 245-267.
53. Anda B, Sjøberg DIK, Jørgensen M (2001) Quality and understandability of use case models. In: 15th European conference on object-oriented programming (ECOOP 2001). LNCS, vol 2072. Springer, Berlin, pp 402-428.
54. Fortuna M, Werner C, Borges M (2007) Um modelo integrado de requisitos com casos de uso. In: Workshop de ingeniería de requisitos y ambientes software IDEAS 2007.
55. Jacobson I (1987) Object-oriented development in an industrial environment. In: Conference on object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications, Orlando, FL, USA. ACM, New York, pp 183-191.
56. OMG (2009) OMG unified modeling language (OMG UML), superstructure, V2. 2. http://www. omg. org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/09-02-02. Accessed 02-2010.
57. Basili V, Rombach HD (1988) The TAME project: towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(6): 758-773.
58. Garson D (1998) Scales and standard measures. North Carolina State University. Updated September 2008. http://www2. chass. ncsu. edu/garson/pa765/standard. htm.
59. Runeson P (2003) Using students as experiment subjects-an analysis on graduate and freshmen student data. In: 7th international conference on empirical assessment in software engineering, pp 95-102.