项目特定可追溯性策略的实证研究

P. Rempel, Patrick Mäder, Tobias Kuschke
{"title":"项目特定可追溯性策略的实证研究","authors":"P. Rempel, Patrick Mäder, Tobias Kuschke","doi":"10.1109/RE.2013.6636719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Effective requirements traceability supports practitioners in reaching higher project maturity and better product quality. Researchers argue that effective traceability barely happens by chance or through ad-hoc efforts and that traceability should be explicitly defined upfront. However, in a previous study we found that practitioners rarely follow explicit traceability strategies. We were interested in the reason for this discrepancy. Are practitioners able to reach effective traceability without an explicit definition? More specifically, how suitable is requirements traceability that is not strategically planned in supporting a project's development process. Our interview study involved practitioners from 17 companies. These practitioners were familiar with the development process, the existing traceability and the goals of the project they reported about. For each project, we first modeled a traceability strategy based on the gathered information. Second, we examined and modeled the applied software engineering processes of each project. Thereby, we focused on executed tasks, involved actors, and pursued goals. Finally, we analyzed the quality and suitability of a project's traceability strategy. We report common problems across the analyzed traceability strategies and their possible causes. The overall quality and mismatch of analyzed traceability suggests that an upfront-defined traceability strategy is indeed required. Furthermore, we show that the decision for or against traceability relations between artifacts requires a detailed understanding of the project's engineering process and goals; emphasizing the need for a goal-oriented procedure to assess existing and define new traceability strategies.","PeriodicalId":6342,"journal":{"name":"2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An empirical study on project-specific traceability strategies\",\"authors\":\"P. Rempel, Patrick Mäder, Tobias Kuschke\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/RE.2013.6636719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Effective requirements traceability supports practitioners in reaching higher project maturity and better product quality. Researchers argue that effective traceability barely happens by chance or through ad-hoc efforts and that traceability should be explicitly defined upfront. However, in a previous study we found that practitioners rarely follow explicit traceability strategies. We were interested in the reason for this discrepancy. Are practitioners able to reach effective traceability without an explicit definition? More specifically, how suitable is requirements traceability that is not strategically planned in supporting a project's development process. Our interview study involved practitioners from 17 companies. These practitioners were familiar with the development process, the existing traceability and the goals of the project they reported about. For each project, we first modeled a traceability strategy based on the gathered information. Second, we examined and modeled the applied software engineering processes of each project. Thereby, we focused on executed tasks, involved actors, and pursued goals. Finally, we analyzed the quality and suitability of a project's traceability strategy. We report common problems across the analyzed traceability strategies and their possible causes. The overall quality and mismatch of analyzed traceability suggests that an upfront-defined traceability strategy is indeed required. Furthermore, we show that the decision for or against traceability relations between artifacts requires a detailed understanding of the project's engineering process and goals; emphasizing the need for a goal-oriented procedure to assess existing and define new traceability strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"47\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2013.6636719\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2013.6636719","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

摘要

有效的需求跟踪支持从业者达到更高的项目成熟度和更好的产品质量。研究人员认为,有效的可追溯性几乎不会偶然发生,也不会通过特别的努力而发生,而且可追溯性应该预先明确定义。然而,在之前的研究中,我们发现实践者很少遵循明确的可追溯性策略。我们对产生这种差异的原因很感兴趣。执行者是否能够在没有明确定义的情况下达到有效的可追溯性?更具体地说,在支持项目的开发过程中,没有战略性规划的需求可追溯性有多适合。我们的访谈研究涉及17家公司的从业人员。这些实践者熟悉开发过程、现有的可追溯性和他们所报告的项目的目标。对于每个项目,我们首先基于收集到的信息建模一个可跟踪性策略。其次,我们对每个项目的应用软件工程过程进行了检查和建模。因此,我们关注已执行的任务、涉及的参与者和追求的目标。最后,我们分析了项目可追溯性策略的质量和适用性。我们报告所分析的可追溯性策略中的常见问题及其可能的原因。分析的可追溯性的总体质量和不匹配表明,确实需要预先定义的可追溯性策略。此外,我们表明,决定支持或反对工件之间的可追溯性关系需要对项目的工程过程和目标的详细理解;强调需要一个目标导向的过程来评估现有的和定义新的可追溯性策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An empirical study on project-specific traceability strategies
Effective requirements traceability supports practitioners in reaching higher project maturity and better product quality. Researchers argue that effective traceability barely happens by chance or through ad-hoc efforts and that traceability should be explicitly defined upfront. However, in a previous study we found that practitioners rarely follow explicit traceability strategies. We were interested in the reason for this discrepancy. Are practitioners able to reach effective traceability without an explicit definition? More specifically, how suitable is requirements traceability that is not strategically planned in supporting a project's development process. Our interview study involved practitioners from 17 companies. These practitioners were familiar with the development process, the existing traceability and the goals of the project they reported about. For each project, we first modeled a traceability strategy based on the gathered information. Second, we examined and modeled the applied software engineering processes of each project. Thereby, we focused on executed tasks, involved actors, and pursued goals. Finally, we analyzed the quality and suitability of a project's traceability strategy. We report common problems across the analyzed traceability strategies and their possible causes. The overall quality and mismatch of analyzed traceability suggests that an upfront-defined traceability strategy is indeed required. Furthermore, we show that the decision for or against traceability relations between artifacts requires a detailed understanding of the project's engineering process and goals; emphasizing the need for a goal-oriented procedure to assess existing and define new traceability strategies.
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