头脑风暴与基于场景的方法:实证研究的结果

Aldrin Jaramillo Franco, Germán Urrego Giraldo
{"title":"头脑风暴与基于场景的方法:实证研究的结果","authors":"Aldrin Jaramillo Franco, Germán Urrego Giraldo","doi":"10.1145/3328833.3328848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although important advances have been made to improve the requirements elicitation process, this problem is still a challenging research topic for the Requirements Engineering community. Motivated by this fact, we propose the CREAS method (Creative Requirements Elicitation Assisted by Scenarios), an approach for requirements elicitation that leverages and brings together scenario-based and creativity techniques. In this paper, we seek to answer the following research question: Does CREAS have a better impact on the elicitation of requirements with respect to a Brainstorming process? To answer this question, we have designed and run a quasi-experiment to compare CREAS and Brainstorming under similar conditions. The participants were required to elicit the requirements for two different problems in two different sessions using both approaches. Results evidence the existence of significant differences between the methods. The statistical outcomes show that the requirements obtained with CREAS are more complete, precise and present less over-specification.","PeriodicalId":172646,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software and Information Engineering","volume":"51 2-4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brainstorming versus a Scenario-based Approach: Results of an Empirical Study\",\"authors\":\"Aldrin Jaramillo Franco, Germán Urrego Giraldo\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3328833.3328848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although important advances have been made to improve the requirements elicitation process, this problem is still a challenging research topic for the Requirements Engineering community. Motivated by this fact, we propose the CREAS method (Creative Requirements Elicitation Assisted by Scenarios), an approach for requirements elicitation that leverages and brings together scenario-based and creativity techniques. In this paper, we seek to answer the following research question: Does CREAS have a better impact on the elicitation of requirements with respect to a Brainstorming process? To answer this question, we have designed and run a quasi-experiment to compare CREAS and Brainstorming under similar conditions. The participants were required to elicit the requirements for two different problems in two different sessions using both approaches. Results evidence the existence of significant differences between the methods. The statistical outcomes show that the requirements obtained with CREAS are more complete, precise and present less over-specification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":172646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software and Information Engineering\",\"volume\":\"51 2-4\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software and Information Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3328833.3328848\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software and Information Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3328833.3328848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

尽管在改进需求引出过程方面已经取得了重要的进展,但是对于需求工程团体来说,这个问题仍然是一个具有挑战性的研究课题。基于这一事实,我们提出了CREAS方法(由场景辅助的创造性需求激发),这是一种利用并结合了基于场景和创造性技术的需求激发方法。在本文中,我们试图回答以下研究问题:与头脑风暴过程相比,CREAS对需求的激发是否有更好的影响?为了回答这个问题,我们设计并运行了一个准实验来比较CREAS和头脑风暴在相似的条件下。要求参与者使用两种方法在两个不同的会话中引出两个不同问题的要求。结果表明两种方法之间存在显著差异。统计结果表明,用CREAS方法得到的需求更完整、更精确,而且没有出现过多的规格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Brainstorming versus a Scenario-based Approach: Results of an Empirical Study
Although important advances have been made to improve the requirements elicitation process, this problem is still a challenging research topic for the Requirements Engineering community. Motivated by this fact, we propose the CREAS method (Creative Requirements Elicitation Assisted by Scenarios), an approach for requirements elicitation that leverages and brings together scenario-based and creativity techniques. In this paper, we seek to answer the following research question: Does CREAS have a better impact on the elicitation of requirements with respect to a Brainstorming process? To answer this question, we have designed and run a quasi-experiment to compare CREAS and Brainstorming under similar conditions. The participants were required to elicit the requirements for two different problems in two different sessions using both approaches. Results evidence the existence of significant differences between the methods. The statistical outcomes show that the requirements obtained with CREAS are more complete, precise and present less over-specification.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信