The state of the art in automated requirements elicitation

Meth, Hendrik; Brhel, Manuel; Maedche, Alexander

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.03.008

Cited by 64 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 3 also shows that the following topics are addressed in two studies each: user participation, stakeholder identification, goal-oriented RE, and requirements elicitation while all other topics were addressed in only one study each. (Herrmann & Daneva, 2008;Pitangueira et al, 2013;Rinkelevic et al, 2013;Pergher & Rossi, 2013) 4 Requirements specification techniques/notations (Teka et al, 2012;Da Silva et al, 2011;Condori-Fernandez et al, 2009;Amyot & Mussbacher, 2011) 4 Security requirements (Iankoulova & Daneva, 2012;Souag et al, 2012;Mellado, 2009;Goudarzi et al, 2013;) M a n u s c r i p t Creativity techniques for RE (Saha et al, 2012;Lemos et al, 2012;Nguyen, 2009) 3 User participation and client involvement (Bano & Zowghi, 2013;Abelein & Paech, 2013) 2 Stakeholder identification (Pecheco & Garcia, 2012;Cala & Ivan, 2008) 2 Goal-oriented RE frameworks (Ghanavati et al, 2011;Horkoff et al, 2014) 2 Requirements triage and selection (Khurumet et al, 2012) 2 Requirements elicitation techniques (Davis et al, 2006;Ouhbi et al, 2013) 2 Requirements analysis techniques (Yue et al, 2011;Aguilar et al, 2010) 2 Automated requirements elicitation techniques (Meth et al, 2013) 1 Requirements modelling and analysis techniques for self-adaptive systems (Yang et al, 2014) 1 Tracing techniques (Torkar et al, 2012) 1 Generation of requirements specification from SE models (Nicolas & Toral, 2009) (Yang et al, 2014), cloud systems in two reviews (Mellado, 2009;Iankoulova & Daneva, 2012), service-...…”

Section: Topics and Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

Daneva

Damian

Marchetto³

et al. 2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Topics and Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

Daneva

Damian

Marchetto³

et al. 2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In order to precisely validate requirement. Meth, H., Brhel, M., & Maedche [22] emphasized on automated requirement elicitation process. According to author dealing with manual requirement elicitation is time consuming process because of huge number of inputs and unstructured documents from customers.…”

Section: Research Question and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Unstructured source artifacts ontology for requirement validation in GDSD

Altaf¹,

Shah²,

Ali³

et al. 2018

IJET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyst while transformation, may not capture true representation of user opinion thus creating deviation from actual user needs. Role of stakeholder is primary in both requirement elicitation and validation process. In elicitation stage they are initiator whereas in validation stage they are authenticator of their needs. Invalid requirements if verified may not be a deviation from specified behavior but deviation from user needs. Requirement validation process ensure that requirements should be representing all primary and intermediary artifacts as well a shared opinions of their contributors. This highlights the importance of source artifacts without which requirement validation cannot assured. Researchers didn't propose any framework for requirement validation in context of GDSD in which source artifacts grows exponentially, and stakeholders are located in diversified locations. Due to unstructured nature of source artifacts, they are not electronically indexed and versioned controlled and this makes difficulty in preserving them. Requirement validation is not possible when source artifacts are not available along with their contributors. The major contribution of this paper to address problem of requirement validation in GDSD in absence of stakeholder to make it collocating environment. This paper introduced ontological solution of requirement validation in which target artifacts are validated against source artifact using their semantic relationship. This paper proposed an unstructured source artifact based ontological model for requirement validation in GDSD environment.

show abstract

“…For instance, authors of [20] propose a systematic process, similar to requirements elicitation workshops, to establish the requirements efficiently and effectively. In [21] authors even propose a system for automated requirements elicitation.…”

Section: Existing Methods For Requirements Elicitation and Classificamentioning

confidence: 99%

A discussion on new necessity-based method for requirements list elicitation and requirements classification

Brglez

Dolšak

2016

Teh. vjesn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A DISCUSSION ON NEW NECESSITY-BASED METHOD FOR REQUIREMENTS LIST ELICITATION AND REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION Špela Brglez, Bojan DolšakOriginal scientific paper Establishing appropriate requirements is essential in early phases of product design for obtaining enough information and in order not to over-constrain the product. Consequences of failing to do so are discussed. An overview of state-of-the-art methodologies for eliciting and classifying requirements is presented. Existing elicitation methods tend not to focus on the requirements content and the classification methods overlook the missing requirements. To overcome this gap a new method for requirements elicitation and classification is proposed. It defines the universally necessary requirements, productspecific necessary requirements and optional requirements. The appropriateness of the method is verified with a case-study on air ventilation register box and expert opinions. The positive contribution of the method is confirmed through evaluation with novice design engineers. Keywords: decision making; design knowledge; design methodology; product design Rasprava o novoj metodi za formiranje liste zahtjeva i klasifikaciju zahtjeva utemeljenoj na potrebamaIzvorni znanstveni članak Određivanje odgovarajućih zahtjeva od bitne je važnosti u ranim fazama projektiranja proizvoda kako bi se dobilo dovoljno informacija i da ne bi previše ograničili proizvod. U radu se razmatra što se može dogoditi ako se to ne učini. Daje se pregled najsuvremenijih metodologija za izbor i klasificiranje potrebnih svojstava proizvoda. Postojeće metode odabira uglavnom nisu usmjerene na sadržaj potrebnih zashtjeva i metode klasifikacije zahtjeva koji nedostaju. Zbog toga se predlaže nova metoda određivanja i klasifikacije porebnih zahtjeva. Njome se definiraju univerzalno potrebni zahtjevi, neophodni zahtjevi specifična za razvijani proizvod te zahtjevi po izboru. Prikladnost metode provjerena je na slučaju analize rada regulatora za ispuštanje zraka i mišljenja stručnjaka. Pozitivni doprinos metode potvrđen je evaluacijom od strane novih projektanata.

show abstract

The state of the art in automated requirements elicitation

Cited by 64 publications

References 48 publications

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

Unstructured source artifacts ontology for requirement validation in GDSD

A discussion on new necessity-based method for requirements list elicitation and requirements classification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About