Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Videos vs. use cases Can videos capture more requirements under time pressure? Olesia Brill, Kurt Schneider, and Eric Knauss.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Videos vs. use cases Can videos capture more requirements under time pressure? Olesia Brill, Kurt Schneider, and Eric Knauss."— Presentation transcript:

1 Videos vs. use cases Can videos capture more requirements under time pressure? Olesia Brill, Kurt Schneider, and Eric Knauss

2 Agenda About the paper About the method PDD Related literature Questions 09-04-2014Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions2

3 About the paper 09-04-2014Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions3 Goal: to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of creating ad-hoc videos under time pressure for validating early requirements compared to use cases. Method: Goal-question-metric Conclusion: videos are a better tool to use for the indentification of performance and basic requirements. For excitement requirements there is no difference between the performance of videos and use cases.

4 About the method 09-04-2014Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions4 GoalsQuestionsMetricsGoalsAnsweresValues Created by Basili & Weis (1984)

5 PDD (1) 09-04-20145Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

6 PDD (2) 09-04-20146Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

7 PDD (3) 09-04-20147Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

8 PDD (4) 09-04-20148Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

9 PDD (5) 09-04-20149 Goals QuestionsMetrics Goals Answeres Measurements Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

10 Related literature 09-04-201410Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions Solingen & Berkhout (1991) Basili, Heidrich, Lindvall, Münch, Seanian, Regardie & Trendowicz (2009)

11 References Basili, V., & Weiss, D. (1984). A methodology for collecting valid software engineering data. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on(6), 728-738. Basili, V., Heidrich, J., Lindvall, M., Münch, J., Seanian, C., Regardie, M., & Trendowicz, A. (2009). Determining the Impact of Business Strategies Using Principles from Goal-oriented Measurement. Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik, Wien, Austria, 545-554. Brill, O., Schneider, K., & Knauss, E. (2010). Videos vs. Use Cases: Can Videos Capture More Requirements under Time Pressure? In R. Wieringa & A. Persson (Eds.), Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (pp. 30-44) Essen: Springer. Solingen, R. van, Berghout, E. (1999). The Goal/Question/Metric Method – A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill. 09-04-201411Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

12 Questions? 09-04-201412Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

13 Example 09-04-201413Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions

14 RQ  Goals Research question: What’s the difference in effectiveness and efficiency of paper prototyping compared to wireframes. Goals: 1.Analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of wireframes 2.Analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of paper prototyping 3.Compare wireframes and paper prototyping with respect to their efficiency and effectiveness 4.Analyze the subjective preference of wireframes and paper prototypes 09-04-2014Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions14 M1 M4

15 Facet classification 09-04-201415 M1 Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions GoalPurposeConcerning aspectOf objectIn contextFrom perspective 1Analyze Efficiency and effectiveness Wireframes Selecting the best technique to use Usability expert 2Analyze Efficiency and effectiveness Paper prototypingUsability expert 3Compare Efficiency and effectiveness Wireframes and paper prototyping Usability expert 4AnalyzePreferences Wireframes and paper prototyping Usability expert

16 Goals  Hypotheses Goals: 1.Analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of wireframes 2.Analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of paper prototyping 3.Compare wireframes and paper prototyping with respect to their efficiency and effectiveness 4.Analyze the subjective preference of wireframes and paper prototypes Hypotheses: 1.For the efficiency aspect of goal 1,2 and 3: usability experts will be able to complete a wireframe faster than a paper prototype 2.For the effectiveness aspect of goal 1,2 and 3: usability expert will yield more feedback points when using wireframes instead of paper prototyping 3.To answer goal 4: usability experts will have a preference for making wireframes instead of paper prototypes 09-04-2014Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions16 M1 M4

17 Hypotheses  Metrics Hypotheses: 1.For the efficiency aspect of goal 1,2 and 3: usability experts will be able to complete a wireframe faster than a paper prototype 2.For the effectiveness aspect of goal 1,2 and 3: usability expert will yield more feedback points when using wireframes instead of paper prototyping 3.To answer goal 4: usability experts will have a preference for making wireframes instead of paper prototypes Metrics: 1.Time to complete wireframe 2.Time to complete paper prototype 3.Number of feedbackpoints when using a wire frame 4.Number of feedbackpoint when using a paper prototype 5.Subjective evaluation based on a 5-point likert scale 09-04-2014Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions17 M1 M4

18 Activity table 09-04-201418 M1 M4 Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, References, Questions Activity table ActivitySub activityDescriptionRole Goal Identification Identify goals From the formulated RESEARCH QUESTION, multiple GOALs can be identified. These GOALs will therefore all support the same cause; finding an answer to this RESEARCH QUESTION. Researchers Include facets For each GOAL multiple FACETs must be specified. These FACETs make sure the GOALs are focused and helps avoid ambiguities. See Table 1 for an example of this FACET classification. Researchers Hypothesis identification Operationalize goals The GOALs should be operationalized, in order for them to transform in HYPOTHESES. This operationalization is necessary to avoid HYPOTHESES that are deemed too abstract. Researchers Identify hypotheses Based on the (operationalized) GOALs, HYPOTHESES can be identified. This can be done by a pre-study, other research and/or assumptions. For each GOAL, at least one HYPOTHESIS is identified in order to reach that GOAL. Researchers Add estimates For each HYPOTHESIS at least one ESTIMATE is added. Including ESTIMATEs makes sure that the researchers, after collecting data, do not think "I knew this before"(Brill et al., 2010).Brill et al., 2010 Researchers Metric identification Identify metrics Based on the explicit HYPOTHESIS, METRICs can be defined. Each HYPOTHESIS should have one or several METRICs. These METRICs are the measurable units of the HYPOTHESIS and therefore make sure an answer to a HYPOTHESIS is yielded when measuring a METRIC. Researchers Form experimental setupBased on the METRIC LIST, which is a list consisting of all identified METRICs in the previous sub-activity, the EXPERIMENTAL SETUP can be designed. This is done by combining all METRICS in certain stages/phases of an experiment. Researchers

19 Concept table 09-04-201419 M1 M4 Agenda, About the paper, About the method, PDD, Related literature, References, Questions Concept table ConceptDescription RESEARCH QUESTION A RESEARCH QUESTION is a clear, focused, concise, complex and arguable question around which someone can center its research (The Wrinting Center, 2012). In the GQM method as used in the paper of Brill et al. (2010) this RESEARCH QUESTION is already present before starting the method.The Wrinting Center, 2012 Brill et al. (2010) GOAL GOALs in the GQM may be defined for any object, for a variety of reasons, with respect to various models of quality, from various points of view, relative to a particular environment (Basili, Caldiera, & Rombach, 1994). To makes this clear FACETs are added to the GOALs.Basili, Caldiera, & Rombach, 1994 FACET FACETS are template parameters that in GQM include purpose (what object and why), perspective (what aspect and who) and the environmental characteristics (where) (V. Basili, 1993).V. Basili, 1993 HYPOTHESIS A HYPOTHESIS is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. In the GQM method the HYPOTHESIS is extracted from one or more GOALs, has one or more ESTIMATEs and METRICs (Oxford Dictonaries, 2014).Oxford Dictonaries, 2014 ESTIMATE An ESTIMATE gives a HYPOTHESIS a quantitative idea of the effect expected by the researcher (Brill et al., 2010). In the GQM method ESTIMATES are used as references to the expectations of the researchers.Brill et al., 2010 METRIC METRICs are measures needed to collect answers to specific HYPOTHESIS. METRICs can be divided between OBJECTIVE METRICs or an SUBJECTIVE METRICs (V. Basili, 1993).V. Basili, 1993 OBJECTIVE METRIC An OBJECTIVE METRIC is an absolute measure taken on the product or process. For example: time for development, number of lines of code etc.(V. Basili, 1993).V. Basili, 1993 SUBJECTIVE METRIC A SUBJECTIVE METRIC is an estimate of extent or degree in the application of some technique or a classification or qualification of problem or experience. They are used in situations where there is no exact measurement, usually on a relative scale. For example: the experience of programmers, the experience of fun when using a program (V. Basili, 1993).V. Basili, 1993 METRIC LIST The word METRIC LIST is a composition of two words. The first word METRIC is already defined. A LIST is a number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014). Together these two words result in METRIC LIST, which is a LIST that includes every identified METRIC. EXPERIMENTAL SETUPThe EXPERIMENTAL SETUP in the GQM method used in the paper of Brill et al. (2010) is based on the METRIC LIST. The EXPERIMENTAL SETUP is designed in a way that all METRICs in the METRIC LIST are measured.Brill et al. (2010)


Download ppt "Videos vs. use cases Can videos capture more requirements under time pressure? Olesia Brill, Kurt Schneider, and Eric Knauss."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google