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}
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.
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.