Economic models of quality assurance can be an important tool for decision-makers in software development projects. They enable to base quality assurance planning on economical factors of the product and the used defect-detection techniques. A variety of such models has been proposed but many are too abstract to be used in practice. Furthermore, even the more concrete models lack an integration with existing software development process models to increase their applicability. This paper describes an integration of a thorough stochastic model of the economics of analytical quality assurance with the systems development process model V-Modell XT. The integration is done in a modular way by providing a new process module - a concept directly available in the V-Modell XT for extension purposes - related to analytical quality assurance. In particular, we describe the work products, roles, and activities defined in our new process module and their effects on existing V-Modell XT elements.
@cite_9 aim also at a practical application of product evaluation with specific goals. However, they concentrate more on the actual evaluation process using the ISO 14598 standard which we assume given by the V-Modell XT. They also do not explicitly discuss the aim of using the evaluation results for future optimisations.
@cite_9
2113690872 1992743299 2338709924 1979917213
The importance of software product evaluations will grow with the awareness of the need for better software quality. The process to conduct such evaluations is crucial to get evaluation results that can be applied and meet customers' expectations. This paper reviews a well-known evaluation process: the ISO 14598 standard. The review focuses on the difficulties in selecting and evaluating the appropriate evaluation techniques. The review shows that the standard has problems in applying evaluation processes in practice due to insufficient attention to goal definition and to relationships between activities being implicit. Also, the standard ignores the trade-off between goals and resources and pays insufficient attention to feedback. To address these deficiencies, the W-process is proposed. It extends the standard through an improved process structure and additional guidelines. We present an assessment of the state and historic development of evaluation practices as reported in papers published at the IEEE Visualization conference. Our goal is to reflect on a meta-level about evaluation in our community through a systematic understanding of the characteristics and goals of presented evaluations. For this purpose we conducted a systematic review of ten years of evaluations in the published papers using and extending a coding scheme previously established by [2012]. The results of our review include an overview of the most common evaluation goals in the community, how they evolved over time, and how they contrast or align to those of the IEEE Information Visualization conference. In particular, we found that evaluations specific to assessing resulting images and algorithm performance are the most prevalent (with consistently 80-90 of all papers since 1997). However, especially over the last six years there is a steady increase in evaluation methods that include participants, either by evaluating their performances and subjective feedback or by evaluating their work practices and their improved analysis and reasoning capabilities using visual tools. Up to 2010, this trend in the IEEE Visualization conference was much more pronounced than in the IEEE Information Visualization conference which only showed an increasing percentage of evaluation through user performance and experience testing. Since 2011, however, also papers in IEEE Information Visualization show such an increase of evaluations of work practices and analysis as well as reasoning using visual tools. Further, we found that generally the studies reporting requirements analyses and domain-specific work practices are too informally reported which hinders cross-comparison and lowers external validity. Product reviews have become an important resource for customers before they make purchase decisions. However, the abundance of reviews makes it difficult for customers to digest them and make informed choices. In our study, we aim to help customers who want to quickly capture the main idea of a lengthy product review before they read the details. In contrast with existing work on review analysis and document summarization, we aim to retrieve a set of real-world user questions to summarize a review. In this way, users would know what questions a given review can address and they may further read the review only if they have similar questions about the product. Specifically, we design a two-stage approach which consists of question retrieval and question diversification. We first propose probabilistic retrieval models to locate candidate questions that are relevant to a review. We then design a set function to re-rank the questions with the goal of rewarding diversity in the final question set. The set function satisfies submodularity and monotonicity, which results in an efficient greedy algorithm of submodular optimization. Evaluation on product reviews from two categories shows that the proposed approach is effective for discovering meaningful questions that are representative for individual reviews. (Background) Empirical Software Engineering (SE) strives to provide empirical evidence about the pros and cons of SE approaches. This kind of knowledge becomes relevant when the issue is whether to change from a currently employed approach to a new one or not. An informed decision is required and is particularly important in the development of safety-critical systems. For example, for the safety analysis of safety-critical embedded systems, methods such as Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) are used. With the advent of model-based systems and software development, the question arises whether safety engineering methods should also be adopted. New technologies such as Component Integrated Fault Trees (CFT) come into play. Industry demands to know the benefits of these new methods over established ones such as Fault Trees (FT). (Methods) For the purpose of comparing CFT and FT with regard to the capabilities of the safety analysis methods (such as quality of the results) and to the participants' rating of the consistency, clarity, and maintainability of the methods, we designed a comparative study as a controlled experiment using a within-subject design. The experiment was run with seven academic staff members working towards their PhD. The study was replicated with eleven domain experts from industry. (Results) Although the analysis of the tasks' solutions showed that the use of CFT did not yield a significantly different number of correct or incorrect solutions, the participants rated the modeling capacities of CFT higher in terms of model consistency, clarity, and maintainability. (Conclusion) From this first evidence, we conclude that CFT have the potential of being beneficial for companies looking for a safety analysis approachfor projects using model-based development.