QUPER Paper Outline Yuri Sprockel

Update Unfortunate CCV date pick Cost view elaboration New QUPER PDD almost finished

Message to the world Concerning QUPER’s applicability in domains other than Telecom AND How Method Engineering was involved in the tailoring the QUPER method.

Outlet Requirements Enigneering: -Journals -Conferences -Workshops IEEE RE was 31 August – 4 September

Paper Outline Abstract Introduction  Quality in Requirements Engineering Acknowledgements References Related Work Conclusion and Further Research Case Study Findings Results Evaluation Research Method/Approach

Paper Outline Abstract Introduction  Quality in Requirements Engineering The QUPER Model Research Method/Approach Case Study Findings Results Evaluation Related Work Acknowledgements References Conclusion and Further Research

Introduction  Quality Requirements and main introduction of QUPER  Introduce main interesting result  Paper Outline  Hypotheses: -General Applicability of QUPER (over all domains) -The Suitability of ISO9128 and QUPER  RQ: How can the applicability of QUPER be evaluated for other domains with Method Engineering as a Research Method? How can the applicability of QUPER be evaluated for other domains using Method Engineering?  Problem Statement: QUPER has been designed, but only tested in the Telecom Domain. The validity of QUPER (General or Tailored)

Introduction(The Quper Model)  Main introduction of QUPER  Motives for creating a model like QUPER  QUPER Goals and Assumptions  Concepts  Views  Problems that QUPER ‘hopes’ to solve

Research Method  CCV Case study -Experiment Set-up -Interview instrument -Workshop  Key Contribution of Research  The role of Method Engineering in the tailoring of QUPER for CCV -QUPER PDD -QUPER Template

Case Study Findings  Most interesting examples of elaborated Quality aspects -Quality levels -Breakpoints and Barriers -Roadmap  QUPER PDD tailored for CCV -Difference with Original QUPER PDD  Quality Factors covered; with respect to ISO9128 -Or not?

Quality Factors Regnell, 2009

CCV possible quality domains Quality Domain/FactorIndicator Usability, OperabilityKey-reaction-time in Seconds Usability, AttractivenessLook and Feel Usability, OperabilityOperating features (reporting, other app.) Efficiency (Performance)Computing power in MHz Efficiency, Time behaviourBattery life in Seconds Efficiency, Time behaviourTransaction speed in Seconds Functionality, SecurityEncryption certifications, bits Functionality, InteroperabilityData transfer rate in Bits per second Functionality, InteroperabilityConnectivity interfaces Reliability, MaturityNumber of Reported Bugs Reliability, Fault toleranceService center calls or incidents Reliability, Fault toleranceNumber of PIN transactions failures Reliability, RecoverabilityDown/offline-time in Seconds

Results Evaluation  Evaluation of Interview data -In depth analysis of answers of the interviews  ?  Evaluation of Workshop data -Practitioners’ actions in working with QUPER  Evaluation of possible documents on existing RE Processes  Collaboration with Svensson

Related Work  Literature of QUPER’s authors -Early work of Svensson and Regnell  Software Product Management (I. van de Weerd) -Release planning -Requirements Engineering  Catalina’s work on QUPER

Conclusion and Further Research  Recap of QUPER and problem statement  Lessons learned for future research with/on QUPER  Recap of most important and relevant finding  Limitations -QUPER -Case Study  Answer to the RQ  Validate Hypotheses

Acknowledgements and References  Thanks -CCV -Svensson and Regnell