Advertisement

Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 245–267 | Cite as

Replicating the CREWS Use Case Authoring Guidelines Experiment

  • Karl Cox
  • Keith Phalp
Article

Abstract

Use cases have become an important toolin software engineering. There has been much focus on the diagramnotation but relatively little on use-case descriptions. As partof a welcome and important research project into the use of scenariosin requirements engineering, the CREWS (Co-operative RequirementsEngineering With Scenarios, an EU funded ESPRIT project 21903)team has proposed a set of guidelines for writing use-case descriptions.This paper describes the replication of a CREWS project experimentthat suggests CREWS use-case authoring guidelines improve thecompleteness of use-case descriptions. Our results show thatthe CREWS guidelines do not necessarily improve the use-casedescriptions, only that the subjects implemented varying numbersof guidelines in their use-case descriptions. Subjects in thecontrol group implemented a significant percentage of the guidelinesby `chance.' To further justify our results, we also apply adifferent marking scheme to compare with the CREWS approach.The results from the alternative marking approach show that therewas no significant difference between the qualities of the use-casedescriptions across the various groups.

use cases use-case descriptions experiment replication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ben Achour, C. 1998. Guiding scenario authoring. Proc. 8th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modeling and Knowledge Bases. Finland, 181-200.Google Scholar
  2. Ben Achour, C., Rolland, C., Maiden, N., and Souveyet, C. 1998. Guiding use case authoring: Results of an empirical study. Proc. Fourth IEEE Int. Symposium on Requirements Engineering University of Limerick, Ireland. Version taken from the CREWS web site: http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/CREWS/reports.htm. Report Number: 93-31.Google Scholar
  3. Ben Achour, C., and Maiden, N. 1999. Empirical study of use case authoring: Experimental material. Internal Report. Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Universite de Paris 1-Sorbonne. http://panoramix.univparis1.fr/CRINFO/users/benachour/ESEM/.Google Scholar
  4. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., and Jacobson, I. 1999. The Unified Modelling Language User Guide. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Cockburn, A. 1997. Using goal-based use cases. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming Nov–Dec.Google Scholar
  6. Cockburn, A. 2000. Writing Effective Use Cases: Part One. In Print. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, K., and Phalp, K. T. 2000. A case study implementing the unified modeling language use-case notation version 1.3. Proc. Sixth Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  8. Ericksson, H., and Penker, M. 1993. UML Toolkit. Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Fowler, M., and Scott, K. 2000. UML Distilled Second Edition: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modelling Language. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Greene, J., and D'Oliveira, M. 1982. Learning to Use Statistical Tests in Psychology: A Student's Guide. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harwood, R. 1997. Use case formats: Requirements, analysis and design. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming January: 54-66.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobson, I. 1987. Object-oriented development in an industrial environment. Proc. OOPSLA'87. Special Issue of SIGPPLAN NOTICES 22(12): 183-197.Google Scholar
  13. Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., and Oevergaard, G. 1992. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Jarke, M., Pohl, K., Haumer, P., Weidenhaupt, K., Dubois, E., Heymans, P., Rolland, C., Ben Achour, C., Cauvet, C., Ralyte, J., Sutcliffe, A., Maiden, N., and Minocha, S. 1997. Scenario use in European software organisations—Results from the site visits and questionnaires. Taken from the CREWS web site: http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/CREWS/reports.htm. Report Number: 97-10.Google Scholar
  15. Nardi, B. 1992. The use of scenarios in design. SIGCHI Bulletin 24(4): 13-14.Google Scholar
  16. Pooley, R., and Stevens, P. 1999. Using UML: Software Engineering with Objects and Components. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Rational Software Corporation. 1997. UML notation version 1.1. http://www.rational.com/umlGoogle Scholar
  18. Robson, C. 1993. Real World Research. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenberg, G., with Scott, K. 1999 Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML: A Practical Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Swan, M. 1980. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Weidenhaupt, K., Pohl, K., Jarke, M., and Haumer, P. 1998. Scenarios in System Development: Current practice. IEEE Software March/April: 34-45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl Cox
    • 1
  • Keith Phalp
    • 1
  1. 1.Empirical Software Engineering Research Group, School of Design, Engineering & ComputingBournemouth UniversityDorsetUK

Personalised recommendations