Martin Glinz

SE
4papers
119citations
Novelty20%
AI Score17

4 Papers

SEMay 28, 2021
A Study about the Knowledge and Use of Requirements Engineering Standards in Industry

Xavier Franch, Martin Glinz, Daniel Mendez et al.

Context: The use of standards is considered a vital part of any engineering discipline. So one could expect that standards play an important role in Requirements Engineering (RE) as well. However, little is known about the actual knowledge and use of RE-related standards in industry. Objective: In this article, we investigate to which extent standards and related artifacts such as templates or guidelines are known and used by RE practitioners. Method: To this end, we have conducted a questionnaire-based online survey. We could analyze the replies from 90 RE practitioners using a combination of closed and open-text questions. Results: Our results indicate that the knowledge and use of standards and related artifacts in RE is less widespread than one might expect from an engineering perspective. For example, about 47% of the respondents working as requirements engineers or business analysts do not know the core standard in RE, ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148. Participants in our study mostly use standards by personal decision rather than being imposed by their respective company, customer, or regulator. Beyond insufficient knowledge, we also found cultural and organizational factors impeding the widespread adoption of standards in RE. Conclusions: Overall, our results provide empirically informed insights into the actual use of standards and related artifacts in RE practice and - indirectly - about the value that the current standards create for RE practitioners.

SEFeb 1, 2019
Do We Preach What We Practice? Investigating the Practical Relevance of Requirements Engineering Syllabi - The IREB Case

Daniel Méndez Fernández, Xavier Franch, Norbert Seyff et al.

Nowadays, there exist a plethora of different educational syllabi for Requirements Engineering (RE), all aiming at incorporating practically relevant educational units (EUs). Many of these syllabi are based, in one way or the other, on the syllabi provided by the International Requirements Engineering Board (IREB), a non-profit organisation devoted to standardised certification programs for RE. IREB syllabi are developed by RE experts and are, thus, based on the assumption that they address topics of practical relevance. However, little is known about to what extent practitioners actually perceive those contents as useful. We have started a study to investigate the relevance of the EUs included in the IREB Foundation Level certification programme. In a first phase reported in this paper, we have surveyed practitioners mainly from DACH countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) participating in the IREB certification. Later phases will widen the scope both by including other countries and by not requiring IREB-certified participants. The results shall foster a critical reflection on the practical relevance of EUs built upon the de-facto standard syllabus of IREB.

SEJul 10, 2017
Choosing Requirements for Experimentation with User Interfaces of Requirements Modeling Tools

Parisa Ghazi, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Martin Glinz

When designing a new presentation front-end called FlexiView for requirements modeling tools, we encountered a general problem: designing such an interface requires a lot of experimentation which is costly when the code of the tool needs to be adapted for every experiment. On the other hand, when using simplified user interface (UI) tools, the results are difficult to generalize. To improve this situation, we are developing a UI experimentation tool which is based on so-called ImitGraphs. ImitGraphs can act as a simple, but an accurate substitute for a modeling tool. In this paper, we define requirements for such a UI experimentation tool based on an analysis of the features of existing requirements modeling tools.

SEJul 7, 2017
What Works Better? A Study of Classifying Requirements

Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Oliver Karras, Parisa Ghazi et al.

Classifying requirements into functional requirements (FR) and non-functional ones (NFR) is an important task in requirements engineering. However, automated classification of requirements written in natural language is not straightforward, due to the variability of natural language and the absence of a controlled vocabulary. This paper investigates how automated classification of requirements into FR and NFR can be improved and how well several machine learning approaches work in this context. We contribute an approach for preprocessing requirements that standardizes and normalizes requirements before applying classification algorithms. Further, we report on how well several existing machine learning methods perform for automated classification of NFRs into sub-categories such as usability, availability, or performance. Our study is performed on 625 requirements provided by the OpenScience tera-PROMISE repository. We found that our preprocessing improved the performance of an existing classification method. We further found significant differences in the performance of approaches such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation, Biterm Topic Modeling, or Naive Bayes for the sub-classification of NFRs.