A situational approach for the definition and tailoring of a data-driven software evolution method

Successful software evolution heavily depends on the selection of the right features to be included in the next release. Such selection is difficult, and companies often report bad experiences about user acceptance. To overcome this challenge, there is an increasing number of approaches that propose intensive use of data to drive evolution. This trend has motivated the SUPERSEDE method, which proposes the collection and analysis of user feedback and monitoring data as the baseline to elicit and prioritize requirements, which are then used to plan the next release. However, every company may be interested in tailoring this method depending on factors like project size, scope, etc. In order to provide a systematic approach, we propose the use of Situational Method Engineering to describe SUPERSEDE and guide its tailoring to a particular context.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Managing Multi-Lingual User Feedback: The SUPERSEDE Project Experience

Context & Motivation] In the SUPERSEDE project, methods and tools have been developed to collect and analyze user feedback, to identify relevant information for deciding which are the most impor- tant requirements to be considered for the next release of a product. [Question/problem] Even if the project proposal was to analyze feed- back in the English language only, later it emerged that there was a need to analyze multi-lingual (German, English) feedback. [Principal ideas] We considered two different solutions: 1) translating user feed- back from German to English, and processing it with the techniques developed for the English language; 2) exploiting Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques for German to analyze directly the feed- back in German. [Contribution] In this short report we describe this project experience, summarizing main commonalities and differences between the aforementioned solutions

Design thinking and acceptance requirements for designing gamified software.

Gamification is increasingly applied to engage people in performing tool-supported collaborative tasks. From previous experiences we learned that available gamification guidelines are not sufficient, and more importantly that motivational and acceptance aspects need to be considered when designing gamified software applications. To understand them, stakeholders need to be involved in the design process. This paper aims to (i) identify key requirements for designing gamified solutions, and (ii) understand if existing methods (partially fitting those requirements) can be selected and combined to provide a comprehensive gamification design method. We discuss a set of key requirements for a suitable gamification design method. We illustrate how to select and combine existing methods to define a design approach that fits those requirements using Design Thinking and the Agon framework. Furthermore, we present a first empirical evaluation of the integrated design method, with participants including both requirements analysts and end-users of the gamified software. Our evaluation offers initial ideas towards a more general, systematic approach for gamification design

Prioritisation of requests, bugs and enhancements pertaining to apps for remedial actions. Towards solving the problem of which app concerns to address initially for app developers

Useful app reviews contain information related to the bugs reported by the app’s end-users along with the requests or enhancements (i.e., suggestions for improvement) pertaining to the app. App developers expend exhaustive manual efforts towards the identification of numerous useful reviews from a vast pool of reviews and converting such useful reviews into actionable knowledge by means of prioritisation. By doing so, app developers can resolve the critical bugs and simultaneously address the prominent requests or enhancements in short intervals of apps’ maintenance and evolution cycles. That said, the manual efforts towards the identification and prioritisation of useful reviews have limitations. The most common limitations are: high cognitive load required to perform manual analysis, lack of scalability associated with limited human resources to process voluminous reviews, extensive time requirements and error-proneness related to the manual efforts. While prior work from the app domain have proposed prioritisation approaches to convert reviews pertaining to an app into actionable knowledge, these studies have limitations and lack benchmarking of the prioritisation performance. Thus, the problem to prioritise numerous useful reviews still persists. In this study, initially, we conducted a systematic mapping study of the requirements prioritisation domain to explore the knowledge on prioritisation that exists and seek inspiration from the eminent empirical studies to solve the problem related to the prioritisation of numerous useful reviews. Findings of the systematic mapping study inspired us to develop automated approaches for filtering useful reviews, and then to facilitate their subsequent prioritisation. To filter useful reviews, this work developed six variants of the Multinomial Naïve Bayes method. Next, to prioritise the order in which useful reviews should be addressed, we proposed a group-based prioritisation method which initially classified the useful reviews into specific groups using an automatically generated taxonomy, and later prioritised these reviews using a multi-criteria heuristic function. Subsequently, we developed an individual prioritisation method that directly prioritised the useful reviews after filtering using the same multi-criteria heuristic function. Some of the findings of the conducted systematic mapping study not only provided the necessary inspiration towards the development of automated filtering and prioritisation approaches but also revealed crucial dimensions such as accuracy and time that could be utilised to benchmark the performance of a prioritisation method. With regards to the proposed automated filtering approach, we observed that the performance of the Multinomial Naïve Bayes variants varied based on their algorithmic structure and the nature of labelled reviews (i.e., balanced or imbalanced) that were made available for training purposes. The outcome related to the automated taxonomy generation approach for classifying useful review into specific groups showed a substantial match with the manual taxonomy generated from domain knowledge. Finally, we validated the performance of the group-based prioritisation and individual prioritisation methods, where we found that the performance of the individual prioritisation method was superior to that of the group-based prioritisation method when outcomes were assessed for the accuracy and time dimensions. In addition, we performed a full-scale evaluation of the individual prioritisation method which showed promising results. Given the outcomes, it is anticipated that our individual prioritisation method could assist app developers in filtering and prioritising numerous useful reviews to support app maintenance and evolution cycles. Beyond app reviews, the utility of our proposed prioritisation solution can be evaluated on software repositories tracking bugs and requests such as Jira, GitHub and so on

Tool-Supported Collaborative Requirements Prioritisation

Automated decision-making techniques are useful to support engineers when performing requirements engineering tasks. However, to be effectively used in practice they need to be integrated into the organisational context, in which stakeholder engagement becomes a critical adoption factor. In this paper, we propose a tool-supported collaborative requirements prioritisation process, called GRP, which exploits gamification elements to engage distributed stakeholders to contribute to the overall decision-making process. Analytic Hierarchy Process is used as key component of the game engine, and enables an iterative prioritisation process. The GRP process has been evaluated through an exploratory case study, which has been conducted at a small software company, providing us with preliminary evidence about the effectiveness of the proposed solution. The main findings and lessons learned from the case study are presented

DMGame: A Gamified Collaborative Requirements Prioritisation Tool

Automated decision-making techniques have been proposed to support engineers in selecting and prioritising requirements. However, to be effectively used in practice they need to be integrated into the organisational context, and their users, namely the members of the development team, and more generally the project's stakeholders, need to be engaged in the resulting tool-supported decision-making process. In this demo paper, we present a tool-supported collaborative requirements prioritisation process, which exploits game elements to engage distributed stakeholders to contribute to the overall decision-making process. AHP and Genetic Algorithms are used as key component of the game engine, which enables an iterative prioritisation process. The tool is part of the tool-suite developed in the SUPERSEDE project which aims at supporting a flexible feedback-anddata-driven software evolution approach