建立需求技术债务量化模型

IF 2.1 3区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Judith Perera, Ewan Tempero, Yu-Cheng Tu, Kelly Blincoe
{"title":"建立需求技术债务量化模型","authors":"Judith Perera, Ewan Tempero, Yu-Cheng Tu, Kelly Blincoe","doi":"10.1007/s00766-024-00424-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Requirements Technical Debt (RTD) applies the Technical Debt (TD) metaphor to capture the consequences of sub-optimal decisions made concerning Requirements. Understanding the quantification of RTD is key to its management. To facilitate this understanding, we developed a conceptual model, the <i>Requirements Technical Debt Quantification Model (RTDQM)</i>. Our work is grounded in the literature found via a systematic mapping study and informed by prior work modeling the quantification of software code-related TD types. The key finding is that although RTD is similar to code-related TD in many aspects, it also has its own components. RTD can be incurred regardless of the presence of code-related TD. Unlike code-related TD, RTD has a feedback loop involving the user. RTD can have a cascading impact on other development activities, such as design and implementation, apart from the extra costs and efforts incurred during requirements engineering activities; this is modeled by the RTD Interest constituents in our model. The model was used to compare and analyze existing quantification approaches. It helped identify what RTD quantification concepts are discussed in the existing approaches and what concepts are supported by metrics for their quantification. The model serves as a reference for practitioners to select existing or to develop new quantification approaches to support informed decision-making for RTD management.</p>","PeriodicalId":20912,"journal":{"name":"Requirements Engineering","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modelling the quantification of requirements technical debt\",\"authors\":\"Judith Perera, Ewan Tempero, Yu-Cheng Tu, Kelly Blincoe\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00766-024-00424-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Requirements Technical Debt (RTD) applies the Technical Debt (TD) metaphor to capture the consequences of sub-optimal decisions made concerning Requirements. Understanding the quantification of RTD is key to its management. To facilitate this understanding, we developed a conceptual model, the <i>Requirements Technical Debt Quantification Model (RTDQM)</i>. Our work is grounded in the literature found via a systematic mapping study and informed by prior work modeling the quantification of software code-related TD types. The key finding is that although RTD is similar to code-related TD in many aspects, it also has its own components. RTD can be incurred regardless of the presence of code-related TD. Unlike code-related TD, RTD has a feedback loop involving the user. RTD can have a cascading impact on other development activities, such as design and implementation, apart from the extra costs and efforts incurred during requirements engineering activities; this is modeled by the RTD Interest constituents in our model. The model was used to compare and analyze existing quantification approaches. It helped identify what RTD quantification concepts are discussed in the existing approaches and what concepts are supported by metrics for their quantification. The model serves as a reference for practitioners to select existing or to develop new quantification approaches to support informed decision-making for RTD management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Requirements Engineering\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Requirements Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-024-00424-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Requirements Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-024-00424-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

需求技术债务(RTD)应用技术债务(TD)隐喻来捕捉有关需求的次优决策所造成的后果。了解 RTD 的量化是其管理的关键。为了便于理解,我们开发了一个概念模型,即需求技术债务量化模型(RTDQM)。我们的工作以通过系统映射研究发现的文献为基础,并借鉴了之前对软件代码相关 TD 类型进行量化建模的工作。主要发现是,尽管 RTD 在许多方面与代码相关 TD 相似,但它也有自己的组成部分。无论是否存在代码相关 TD,都会产生 RTD。与代码相关 TD 不同,RTD 有一个涉及用户的反馈回路。除了在需求工程活动中产生的额外成本和努力外,RTD 还会对其他开发活动(如设计和实施)产生连带影响;在我们的模型中,RTD 利息成分就是这种影响的模型。该模型用于比较和分析现有的量化方法。它有助于确定现有方法中讨论了哪些 RTD 量化概念,以及哪些概念得到了量化指标的支持。该模型可作为从业人员选择现有量化方法或开发新量化方法的参考,以支持对 RTD 管理做出知情决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Modelling the quantification of requirements technical debt

Modelling the quantification of requirements technical debt

Requirements Technical Debt (RTD) applies the Technical Debt (TD) metaphor to capture the consequences of sub-optimal decisions made concerning Requirements. Understanding the quantification of RTD is key to its management. To facilitate this understanding, we developed a conceptual model, the Requirements Technical Debt Quantification Model (RTDQM). Our work is grounded in the literature found via a systematic mapping study and informed by prior work modeling the quantification of software code-related TD types. The key finding is that although RTD is similar to code-related TD in many aspects, it also has its own components. RTD can be incurred regardless of the presence of code-related TD. Unlike code-related TD, RTD has a feedback loop involving the user. RTD can have a cascading impact on other development activities, such as design and implementation, apart from the extra costs and efforts incurred during requirements engineering activities; this is modeled by the RTD Interest constituents in our model. The model was used to compare and analyze existing quantification approaches. It helped identify what RTD quantification concepts are discussed in the existing approaches and what concepts are supported by metrics for their quantification. The model serves as a reference for practitioners to select existing or to develop new quantification approaches to support informed decision-making for RTD management.

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
Requirements Engineering
Requirements Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal provides a focus for the dissemination of new results about the elicitation, representation and validation of requirements of software intensive information systems or applications. Theoretical and applied submissions are welcome, but all papers must explicitly address: -the practical consequences of the ideas for the design of complex systems -how the ideas should be evaluated by the reflective practitioner The journal is motivated by a multi-disciplinary view that considers requirements not only in terms of software components specification but also in terms of activities for their elicitation, representation and agreement, carried out within an organisational and social context. To this end, contributions are sought from fields such as software engineering, information systems, occupational sociology, cognitive and organisational psychology, human-computer interaction, computer-supported cooperative work, linguistics and philosophy for work addressing specifically requirements engineering issues.
×
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