2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)最新文献

How smartphone users assess the value/risk trade-off of apps: An observational study 智能手机用户如何评估应用程序的价值/风险权衡:一项观察性研究

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890111

M. Ceccato, A. Marchetto, A. Perini, A. Susi

{"title":"How smartphone users assess the value/risk trade-off of apps: An observational study","authors":"M. Ceccato, A. Marchetto, A. Perini, A. Susi","doi":"10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890111","url":null,"abstract":"The rapid and worldwide diffusion of applications for smartphones (apps hereafter) has produced a complex ecosystem composed by users, apps, developers and vendors with sometimes contrasting and sometimes matching interests. In the literature, this ecosystem has been investigated from multiple perspectives with different kinds of empirical approaches, however some crucial dimensions are still unexplored. In this paper we adopt the perspective of Requirements Engineering. We are interested in collecting empirical observations on users' perception of the risks associated to apps when they decide about which app to select and install on their smartphone. Which apps' requirements do users consider? How do they evaluate them with respect to benefits, security and privacy risks? How users decide about this is still unclear. We think that relevant variables and underlying dynamics must be identified before we can successfully conduct large-scale controlled experiments, as it is already done in other fields of software engineering. This paper presents the design of an observational study proposed to explore how users assess features and costs/risks when installing apps. The experimental design is then validated and adopted in a feasibility study with a limited set of participants. Preliminary findings are summarised in a set of observations and then discussed in terms of their potential impacts on the app ecosystem.","PeriodicalId":259907,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127040785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

An experiment design for validating a test case generation strategy from requirements models 用于从需求模型验证测试用例生成策略的实验设计

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890115

Maria Fernanda Granda

引用次数: 5

An experiment on comparing textual vs. visual industrial methods for security risk assessment 比较文本和视觉工业安全风险评估方法的实验

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890113

Katsiaryna Labunets, F. Paci, F. Massacci, R. Ruprai

{"title":"An experiment on comparing textual vs. visual industrial methods for security risk assessment","authors":"Katsiaryna Labunets, F. Paci, F. Massacci, R. Ruprai","doi":"10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890113","url":null,"abstract":"Many security risk assessment methods have been proposed both from academia and industry. However, little empirical evaluation has been done to investigate how these methods are effective in practice. In this paper we report a controlled experiment that we conducted to compare the effectiveness and participants' perception of visual versus textual methods for security risk assessment used in industry. As instances of the methods we selected CORAS, a method by SINTEF used to provide security risk assessment consulting services, and SecRAM, a method by EUROCONTROL used to conduct security risk assessment within air traffic management. The experiment involved 29 MSc students who applied both methods to an application scenario from Smart Grid domain. The dependent variables were effectiveness of the methods measured as number of specific threats and security controls identified, and perception of the methods measured through post-task questionnaires based on the Technology Acceptance Model. The experiment shows that while there is no difference in the actual effectiveness of the two methods, the visual method is better perceived by the participants.","PeriodicalId":259907,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132483135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 19

Systematic reviews in requirements engineering: A tertiary study 需求工程中的系统评审:一项高等教育研究

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890110

Muneera Bano, D. Zowghi, N. Ikram

引用次数: 31

A review of practice and problems in requirements engineering in small and medium software enterprises in Thailand 泰国中小型软件企业需求工程实践与问题综述

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890109

Supha Khankaew, S. Riddle

引用次数: 17

A framework for understanding collaborative creativity in requirements engineering: Empirical validation 理解需求工程中的协作创造性的框架:经验验证

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890116

Martin Mahaux, Lemai Nguyen, Luisa Mich, Alistair Mavin

引用次数: 10

What stakeholders need to know about requirements 涉众需要了解哪些需求

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890118

W. Maalej, Zijad Kurtanović, A. Felfernig

{"title":"What stakeholders need to know about requirements","authors":"W. Maalej, Zijad Kurtanović, A. Felfernig","doi":"10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890118","url":null,"abstract":"Working with requirements is a knowledge-intensive task. Stakeholders need various information, e.g., for understanding or negotiating the requirements. To understand the information needs of stakeholders we conducted two case studies and interviewed 6 stakeholders. We identified 26 unique information needs, which we represented as questions asked by stakeholders such as “Are there redundant requirements?” or “How did other stakeholders prioritize the requirements”. We grouped the needs into five situations in which they were encountered. These were defining, understanding, evaluating, negotiating, and planning requirements. We then surveyed 307 practitioners to quantify the frequencies of these needs and assess how well current tools satisfy them. About 60% of the respondents confirmed that they frequently encounter the needs while their tool support was poor or absent. Requirements engineers and experienced stakeholders were particularly unsatisfied with their tools. The largest gap between the importance of the information and the degree of tool support could be detected for information about the opinions of other stakeholders and conflicting preferences while understanding and negotiating requirements.","PeriodicalId":259907,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130190683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

Eliciting contextual requirements at design time: A case study 在设计时引出上下文需求:一个案例研究

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890117

Alessia Knauss, D. Damian, K. Schneider

{"title":"Eliciting contextual requirements at design time: A case study","authors":"Alessia Knauss, D. Damian, K. Schneider","doi":"10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890117","url":null,"abstract":"The need to consider context in order to understand requirements is established in requirements engineering. Recently, this has been discussed more intensively for sociotechnical systems, which offer a rich spectrum of different operating contexts. Contextual requirements proved valuable to model requirements together with the context they are valid in, but there is a lack of research on how to derive them from stakeholder needs. Our goal in this paper is to explore the usefulness of existing requirements elicitation techniques for the identification of contextual requirements early, i.e. at design time. In a case study we investigate end-user viewpoints, together with interviews, scenarios, prototyping, goal-based analysis, and groupwork as a means to elicit and clarify contextual requirements already at design time. In our case study a certain combination of the applied requirements elicitation techniques stood out as most beneficial for the identification of contextual requirements. In addition, we discovered valuable indicators of differences in the operative context, for example when end-users cannot agree on refinements of specific requirements. Designers and operators of adaptive systems might benefit by taking such conflicts and resulting contextual requirements into account.","PeriodicalId":259907,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125484956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 14

Security requirement elicitation techniques: The comparison of misuse cases and issue based information systems 安全需求引出技术:误用案例和基于问题的信息系统的比较

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890114

N. Ikram, Surayya Siddiqui, N. Khan

{"title":"Security requirement elicitation techniques: The comparison of misuse cases and issue based information systems","authors":"N. Ikram, Surayya Siddiqui, N. Khan","doi":"10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890114","url":null,"abstract":"There are myriads of security elicitation techniques reported in the literature, but their industrial adoption is inadequate. Furthermore there is a shortage of empirical and comparative evaluations which can aid the software industry in this respect. This paper compares two security elicitation techniques - Misuse cases (MUC) and Issue based information systems (IBIS) by carrying out controlled experiments. A 2*2 factorial design was used with 30 undergraduate students selected randomly who solved security goal identification tasks on an individual basis using the two techniques. Two dependent variables chosen were; effectiveness of the techniques in terms of number of security goals identified and coverage of the techniques in terms of number of types of security goals, time taken to learn, execute and interpret results by each technique in three different situations. The main finding was that in a situation of low level of detail, the time taken to interpret results was lower in IBIS while in medium and high level of detail MUC is more effective for finding security goals and provides better coverage by taking less learning time. The generality of the results is limited due to the fact that undergraduate students participated in the experiment. The study provides guideline for the software industry about the choice of security elicitation technique in three different situations. The study can be extended by adding multiple techniques for comparison and a framework can be developed.","PeriodicalId":259907,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)","volume":"167 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134291611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

Security triage: A report of a lean security requirements methodology for cost-effective security analysis 安全分类:一份关于成本效益安全分析的精益安全需求方法的报告

2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE) Pub Date : 2014-09-04 DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2014.6890112

Matteo Giacalone, R. Mammoliti, F. Massacci, F. Paci, Rodolfo Perugino, Claudio Selli

引用次数: 9