Logo des Repositoriums

Auflistung nach Autor:in "Mendez, Daniel"

1 - 2 von 2
  • ConferencePaper
    Data-driven Risk Management for Requirements Engineering: An Automated Approach based on Bayesian Networks
    (Software Engineering 2021, 2021) Wiesweg, Florian; Vogelsang, Andreas; Mendez, Daniel
    This paper has been accepted at the 2020 IEEE Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). RE is a means to reduce the risk of delivering a product that does not fulfill the stakeholders' needs. Therefore, a major challenge in RE is to decide how much RE is needed and what RE methods to apply. The quality of such decisions is strongly based on the RE expert's experience and expertise in carefully analyzing the context and current state of a project. Recent work, however, shows that lack of experience and qualification are common causes for problems in RE. We trained a series of Bayesian Networks on data from the NaPiRE survey to model relationships between RE problems, their causes, and effects in projects with different contextual characteristics. These models were used to conduct (1) a post-mortem (diagnostic) analysis, deriving probable causes of sub-optimal RE performance, and (2) to conduct a preventive analysis, predicting probable issues a young project might encounter. The method was subject to a rigorous cross-validation procedure for both use cases before assessing its applicability to real-world scenarios with a case study.
  • ConferencePaper
    Views on Quality Requirements in Academia and Practice: Commonalities, Differences, and Context-Dependent Grey Areas
    (Software Engineering 2021, 2021) Vogelsang, Andreas; Eckhardt, Jonas; Mendez, Daniel; Berger, Moritz
    This article originally appeared in Information and Software Technology (IST). Context: Quality requirements (QRs) are a topic of constant discussions both in industry and academia. While many academic endeavors contribute to the body of knowledge about QRs, practitioners may have different views. Objective: We report on a study to better understand the extent to which available research statements on QRs from academic publications, are reflected in the perception of practitioners. Our goal is to analyze differences, commonalities, and context-dependent grey areas in the views of academics and practitioners. Method: We conducted a survey with 109 practitioners to assess their agreement with the selected research statements about QRs. Based on a statistical model, we evaluate the impact of a set of context factors to the perception of research statements. Results: Our results show that a majority of the statements is well respected by practitioners; however, not all of them. When examining the different groups of respondents, we noticed deviations of perceptions that lead to new research questions. Conclusions: Our results help identifying context-dependent differences about how academics and practitioners view QRs and statements where further research is useful.