Review improvement by requirements classification at Mercedes-Benz: Limits of empirical studies in educational environments

Daniel Ott, Alexander Raschke
{"title":"Review improvement by requirements classification at Mercedes-Benz: Limits of empirical studies in educational environments","authors":"Daniel Ott, Alexander Raschke","doi":"10.1109/EmpiRE.2012.6347677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviews are the most common way to ensure quality in natural language (NL) requirements specifications. But with increasing size (up to 3,000 pages in the automotive domain) and complexity of the specification documents, the review task tends to be less effective. To improve the review task for large documents, one possible solution is the `topic landscape'. The idea of this approach is to introduce a pre-classification and clustering of requirements according to topics. In a first empirical study with eight students, we analyzed the effectiveness of the topic landscape approach. During this study, we encountered a general limitation of experiments with large requirements specifications, especially in external environments like universities. Industries have a strong demand on new approaches and methods to deal with large specifications. However, there is a growing gap between the number of requirements that can be examined during an empirical study and the number of requirements required to ensure results that are valid for real requirements specifications. This paper describes the conducted empirical study in detail and shows recognized problems concerning the limits of educational environments.","PeriodicalId":335310,"journal":{"name":"2012 Second IEEE International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 Second IEEE International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EmpiRE.2012.6347677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Reviews are the most common way to ensure quality in natural language (NL) requirements specifications. But with increasing size (up to 3,000 pages in the automotive domain) and complexity of the specification documents, the review task tends to be less effective. To improve the review task for large documents, one possible solution is the `topic landscape'. The idea of this approach is to introduce a pre-classification and clustering of requirements according to topics. In a first empirical study with eight students, we analyzed the effectiveness of the topic landscape approach. During this study, we encountered a general limitation of experiments with large requirements specifications, especially in external environments like universities. Industries have a strong demand on new approaches and methods to deal with large specifications. However, there is a growing gap between the number of requirements that can be examined during an empirical study and the number of requirements required to ensure results that are valid for real requirements specifications. This paper describes the conducted empirical study in detail and shows recognized problems concerning the limits of educational environments.
梅赛德斯-奔驰需求分类的评审改进:教育环境中实证研究的局限性
评审是确保自然语言(NL)需求规范质量的最常见方法。但是随着规格文档规模的增加(在汽车领域达到3000页)和复杂性的增加,审查任务变得不那么有效。为了改进大型文档的审查任务,一个可能的解决方案是“主题景观”。这种方法的思想是根据主题引入需求的预分类和聚类。在对8名学生的第一次实证研究中,我们分析了主题景观方法的有效性。在这个研究过程中,我们遇到了一个大需求规范实验的普遍限制,特别是在像大学这样的外部环境中。工业对处理大规格的新方法和方法有强烈的需求。然而,在经验性研究期间可以检查的需求数量与确保对实际需求规范有效的结果所需的需求数量之间存在越来越大的差距。本文详细描述了所进行的实证研究,并指出了有关教育环境局限性的公认问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信