Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review

Alves, Vander; Niu, Nan; Alves, Carina; Valença, George

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.014

Cited by 156 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of a systematic review is mentioned as a way to limit bias, provides a clear and replicable research process, and provides more reliable results upon which to make draw conclusions and decisions (Becheikh, Landry, & Amara, 2006). The research method of systematic review used is based on the proposition developed by Kitchenham (2004), and it is widely used in literature (Afzal & Torkar, 2011;Alves, Niu, Alves, & Valença 2010;Brereton et al, 2007;Kitchenham et al, 2009). Its application follows six steps: (i) research issues, (ii) research process, (iii) criteria for inclusion and exclusion, (iv) assessment of study quality, (v) data collection and (iv) data analysis.…”

Section: Research Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

New product development for mass customization: a systematic review

Fettermann

Echeveste

2014

Production & Manufacturing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incorporation of tools into New Product Development (NPD) process tends to contribute to the implementation of Mass Customization strategy in companies. Different knowledge areas -such as marketing, design and engineering -offer tools for different stages of product development. The specificity of those tools makes their selection and application to NPD process difficult. This paper aims at carrying out a literature review of applicable tools in respect to the NPD aimed at MC promotion. It also aims at identifying, according to its objective, its localization and application to NPD process. By means of a systematic review, 39 tools for NPD were identified. The results present bibliometrics on the tools, identify four tool clusters according to their contributions to product development, and also identify opportunities for research about the theme.

show abstract

Section: Research Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

New product development for mass customization: a systematic review

Fettermann

Echeveste

2014

Production & Manufacturing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, Dybå and Dingsøyr [10] developed a questionnaire that they used in their study of agile methods [11] and that other researchers have since adopted e.g. [2], [4], [7].…”

Section: Using Checklists For Quality Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bornmann [5] reports the results from 16 studies for which the Kappa or ICC "generally fall in the range from 0.2 to 0.4", which is regarded as fair (see Table 2). He also refers to a meta-analysis currently under review that included 48 studies and found overall agreements of approximately 0.23 for ICC, 0.34 for the Pearson product moment correlation and 0.17 for Kappa [4]. Values of Kappa between 0 and 0.2 indicate only slight agreement.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three empirical studies on the agreement of reviewers about the quality of software engineering experiments

Kitchenham

Sjøberg

Dybå

et al. 2012

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: During systematic literature reviews it is necessary to assess the quality of empirical papers. Current guidelines suggest that two researchers should independently apply a quality checklist and any disagreements must be resolved. [Type text]However, there is little empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of these guidelines. Aims: This paper investigates the three techniques that can be used to improve the reliability (i.e. the consensus among reviewers) of quality assessments, specifically, the number of reviewers, the use of a set of evaluation criteria and consultation among reviewers. We undertook a series of studies to investigate these factors. Method: Two studies involved four research papers and eight reviewers using a quality checklist with nine questions. The first study was based on individual assessments, the second study on joint assessments with a period of inter-rater discussion. A third more formal randomised block experiment involved 48 reviewers assessing two of the papers used previously in teams of one, two and three persons to assess the impact of discussion among teams of different size using the evaluations of the "teams" of one person as a control. Results: For the first two studies, the inter-rater reliability was poor for individual assessments, but better for joint evaluations. However, the results of the third study contradicted the results of study 2. Inter-rater reliability was poor for all groups but worse for teams of two or three than for individuals. Conclusions: When performing quality assessments for systematic literature reviews, we recommend using three independent reviewers and adopting the median assessment. A quality checklist seems useful but it is difficult to ensure that the checklist is both appropriate and understood by reviewers. Furthermore, future experiments should ensure participants are given more time to understand the quality checklist and to evaluate the research papers.

show abstract

“…However, the references included in the primary studies were not systematically followed up since most of the relevant conferences were already manually or automatically searched (see Table 1). Several systematic reviews conducted in the Software Engineering field (e.g., [5], [13], [44]) have also been left out or replaced in the secondary search by other practices. Nevertheless, the previously mentioned grey literature included six new primary studies that did not appear using the automatic search.…”

Section: Identification Of Data Sources and Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely accepted that software measures provide an appropriate mechanism for understanding, monitoring, controlling and predicting the quality of software development projects. In Software Product Lines (SPL), quality is even more important than in a single software product since, owing to systematic reuse, a fault or an inadequate design decision could be propagated to several products in the family. Over the last few years, a great number of quality attributes and measures for assessing the quality of SPL have been reported in literature. However, no studies summarizing the current knowledge about them exist. This paper presents a systematic literature review with the objective of identifying and interpreting all the available studies from 1996 to date that present quality attributes and/or measures for SPL. These attributes and measures have been classified using a set of criteria that includes the life cycle phase in which the measures are applied; the corresponding quality characteristics; their support for specific SPL characteristics (e.g., variability, compositionality); the procedure used to validate the measures, etc. We found 165 measures related to 98 different quality attributes. The results of the review indicated that 92% of the measures evaluate attributes that are related to maintainability. In addition, 67% of the measures are used during the design phase of Domain Engineering, and 56% are applied to evaluate the product line architecture. However, only 25% of them have been empirically validated.In conclusion, the results provide a global vision of the state of the research within this area in order to help researchers in detecting weaknesses, directing research efforts, and identifying new research lines. In particular, there is a need for new measures with which to evaluate both the quality of the artifacts produced during the entire SPL life cycle and other quality characteristics. There is also a need for more validation (both theoretical and empirical) of existing measures. In addition, our results may be useful as a reference guide for practitioners to assist them in the selection or the adaptation of existing measures for evaluating their software product lines.

show abstract

Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review

Cited by 156 publications

References 20 publications

New product development for mass customization: a systematic review

New product development for mass customization: a systematic review

Three empirical studies on the agreement of reviewers about the quality of software engineering experiments

A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About