scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Alan M. Davis

Bio: Alan M. Davis is an academic researcher from University of Colorado Colorado Springs. The author has contributed to research in topics: Software requirements specification & Requirement. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 86 publications receiving 4677 citations. Previous affiliations of Alan M. Davis include AmeriCorps VISTA & University of Colorado Boulder.


Papers
More filters
Book
14 Mar 1993
TL;DR: 1. The Software Requirements Specification: Specifying Behavioral Requirements and Nonbehavioral Requirements and Requirements Prototyping.
Abstract: 1. Introduction. 2. Problem Analysis. 3. The Software Requirements Specification. 4. Specifying Behavioral Requirements. 5. Specifying Nonbehavioral Requirements. 6. Requirements Prototyping. 7. Some Final Thoughts. Glossary. Annotated Bibliography.

740 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
11 Sep 2006
TL;DR: A systematic review of empirical studies concerning the effectiveness of elicitation techniques, and the subsequent aggregation of empirical evidence gathered from those studies, finds that interviews, preferentially structured, appear to be one of the most effective elicit techniques.
Abstract: This paper reports a systematic review of empirical studies concerning the effectiveness of elicitation techniques, and the subsequent aggregation of empirical evidence gathered from those studies. The most significant results of the aggregation process are as follows: (1) Interviews, preferentially structured, appear to be one of the most effective elicitation techniques; (2) Many techniques often cited in the literature, like card sorting, ranking or thinking aloud, tend to be less effective than interviews; (3) Analyst experience does not appear to be a relevant factor; and (4) The studies conducted have not found the use of intermediate representations during elicitation to have significant positive effects. It should be noted that, as a general rule, the studies from which these results were aggregated have not been replicated, and therefore the above claims cannot be said to be absolutely certain. However, they can be used by researchers as pieces of knowledge to be further investigated and by practitioners in development projects, always taking into account that they are preliminary findings.

329 citations

Book
03 Jan 1990

327 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A framework is provided that can serve as a basis for analyzing the similarities and differences among alternate life-cycle models; as a tool for software engineering researchers to help describe the probable impacts of a life- Cycle mode; and as a means to help software practitioners decide on an appropriate life- cycle model to utilize on a particular project or in a particular application area.
Abstract: It is difficult to compare and contrast models of software development because their proponents often use different terminology, and the models often have little in common except their beginnings (marked by a recognition that a problem exists) and ends (marked by the existence of a software solution). A framework is provided that can serve: as a basis for analyzing the similarities and differences among alternate life-cycle models; as a tool for software engineering researchers to help describe the probable impacts of a life-cycle mode; and as a means to help software practitioners decide on an appropriate life-cycle model to utilize on a particular project or in a particular application area. >

281 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A unified model of the requirements elicitation process is presented that emphasizes the iterative nature of elicitation as it transforms the current state of the requirement and the situation to an improved understanding ofThe requirements and, potentially, a modified situation.
Abstract: Effective requirements elicitation is essential to the success of software development projects. Many papers have been written that promulgate specific elicitation methods. A few model elicitation in general. However, none have yet modeled elicitation in a way that makes clear the critical role played by situational knowledge. This paper presents a unified model of the requirements elicitation process that emphasizes the iterative nature of elicitation as it transforms the current state of the requirements and the situation to an improved understanding of the requirements and, potentially, a modified situation. One meta-process of requirements elicitation, selection of an appropriate elicitation technique, is also captured in the model. The values of this model are: (1) an improved understanding of elicitation helps analysts improve their elicitation efforts and (2) as we improve our ability to perform elicitation, we improve the likelihood that systems we create will meet their intended cus-tomers' needs.

271 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The designed methodology effectively satisfies the three objectives of design science research methodology and has the potential to help aid the acceptance of DS research in the IS discipline.
Abstract: The paper motivates, presents, demonstrates in use, and evaluates a methodology for conducting design science (DS) research in information systems (IS). DS is of importance in a discipline oriented to the creation of successful artifacts. Several researchers have pioneered DS research in IS, yet over the past 15 years, little DS research has been done within the discipline. The lack of a methodology to serve as a commonly accepted framework for DS research and of a template for its presentation may have contributed to its slow adoption. The design science research methodology (DSRM) presented here incorporates principles, practices, and procedures required to carry out such research and meets three objectives: it is consistent with prior literature, it provides a nominal process model for doing DS research, and it provides a mental model for presenting and evaluating DS research in IS. The DS process includes six steps: problem identification and motivation, definition of the objectives for a solution, design and development, demonstration, evaluation, and communication. We demonstrate and evaluate the methodology by presenting four case studies in terms of the DSRM, including cases that present the design of a database to support health assessment methods, a software reuse measure, an Internet video telephony application, and an IS planning method. The designed methodology effectively satisfies the three objectives and has the potential to help aid the acceptance of DS research in the IS discipline.

5,420 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The mechanisms of generation and potential impacts of microplastics in the ocean environment are discussed, and the increasing levels of plastic pollution of the oceans are understood, it is important to better understand the impact of microPlastic in the Ocean food web.

4,706 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
26 Jun 2008
TL;DR: This work describes how to conduct a systematic mapping study in software engineering and provides guidelines for conducting systematic maps, and compares systematic maps with systematic reviews by systematically analyzing existing systematic reviews.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: A software engineering systematic map is a defined method to build a classification scheme and structure a software engineering field of interest. The analysis of results focuses on frequencies of publications for categories within the scheme. Thereby, the coverage of the research field can be determined. Different facets of the scheme can also be combined to answer more specific research questions. OBJECTIVE: We describe how to conduct a systematic mapping study in software engineering and provide guidelines. We also compare systematic maps and systematic reviews to clarify how to chose between them. This comparison leads to a set of guidelines for systematic maps. METHOD: We have defined a systematic mapping process and applied it to complete a systematic mapping study. Furthermore, we compare systematic maps with systematic reviews by systematically analyzing existing systematic reviews. RESULTS: We describe a process for software engineering systematic mapping studies and compare it to systematic reviews. Based on this, guidelines for conducting systematic maps are defined. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic maps and reviews are different in terms of goals, breadth, validity issues and implications. Thus, they should be used complementarily and require different methods (e.g., for analysis).

2,486 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
01 May 2000
TL;DR: An overview of the field of software systems requirements engineering (RE) is presented, describing the main areas of RE practice, and highlights some key open research issues for the future.
Abstract: This paper presents an overview of the field of software systems requirements engineering (RE). It describes the main areas of RE practice, and highlights some key open research issues for the future.

2,114 citations