使用专业知识作为评估需求技术的框架

B. Al-Ani, S. Sim
{"title":"使用专业知识作为评估需求技术的框架","authors":"B. Al-Ani, S. Sim","doi":"10.1109/CERE.2006.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The field of requirements engineering (RE) is rich with a myriad of technologies that aim to support activities within the requirements engineering process. These range from elicitation to management of RE work products. As such, the range and nature of these technologies are broad; this makes an evaluation of their effectiveness challenging. This position paper proposes an expertise framework as a basis for conducting comparative evaluation of RE technologies. Expertise is characterized using three dimensions: Practical Skill, Theoretical Knowledge, and Problem Domain. Expertise is increased by applying different processes to each dimension: Practical Skill needs to be abstracted; Theoretical Knowledge needs to be conditionalized, and Problem Domains need to be Contextualized. These dimensions and processes can be used as the basis for evaluating requirements tools and methods. In other words, to what extent does a particular technology raise the level of expertise for a requirements engineer by augmenting one of these processes? The framework is presented by applying it to evaluate four different techniques (ethnography, use cases, scenarios, and traceability matrix).","PeriodicalId":148770,"journal":{"name":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Expertise as a Framework for Evaluating Requirements Technology\",\"authors\":\"B. Al-Ani, S. Sim\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CERE.2006.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The field of requirements engineering (RE) is rich with a myriad of technologies that aim to support activities within the requirements engineering process. These range from elicitation to management of RE work products. As such, the range and nature of these technologies are broad; this makes an evaluation of their effectiveness challenging. This position paper proposes an expertise framework as a basis for conducting comparative evaluation of RE technologies. Expertise is characterized using three dimensions: Practical Skill, Theoretical Knowledge, and Problem Domain. Expertise is increased by applying different processes to each dimension: Practical Skill needs to be abstracted; Theoretical Knowledge needs to be conditionalized, and Problem Domains need to be Contextualized. These dimensions and processes can be used as the basis for evaluating requirements tools and methods. In other words, to what extent does a particular technology raise the level of expertise for a requirements engineer by augmenting one of these processes? The framework is presented by applying it to evaluate four different techniques (ethnography, use cases, scenarios, and traceability matrix).\",\"PeriodicalId\":148770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CERE.2006.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fourth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'06 - RE'06 Workshop)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CERE.2006.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

需求工程(RE)领域拥有大量旨在支持需求工程过程中的活动的技术。这些范围从引出到RE工作产品的管理。因此,这些技术的范围和性质是广泛的;这使得对其有效性的评估具有挑战性。本立场文件提出了一个专门知识框架,作为对可再生能源技术进行比较评估的基础。专业知识有三个维度:实践技能、理论知识和问题领域。通过对每个维度应用不同的过程来增加专业知识:实用技能需要抽象;理论知识需要被条件化,问题域需要被语境化。这些维度和过程可以用作评估需求、工具和方法的基础。换句话说,通过增加这些过程中的一个,特定的技术在多大程度上提高了需求工程师的专业水平?该框架通过应用它来评估四种不同的技术(人种学、用例、场景和可追溯性矩阵)来呈现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using Expertise as a Framework for Evaluating Requirements Technology
The field of requirements engineering (RE) is rich with a myriad of technologies that aim to support activities within the requirements engineering process. These range from elicitation to management of RE work products. As such, the range and nature of these technologies are broad; this makes an evaluation of their effectiveness challenging. This position paper proposes an expertise framework as a basis for conducting comparative evaluation of RE technologies. Expertise is characterized using three dimensions: Practical Skill, Theoretical Knowledge, and Problem Domain. Expertise is increased by applying different processes to each dimension: Practical Skill needs to be abstracted; Theoretical Knowledge needs to be conditionalized, and Problem Domains need to be Contextualized. These dimensions and processes can be used as the basis for evaluating requirements tools and methods. In other words, to what extent does a particular technology raise the level of expertise for a requirements engineer by augmenting one of these processes? The framework is presented by applying it to evaluate four different techniques (ethnography, use cases, scenarios, and traceability matrix).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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