Quality Evaluation of Requirements Models: The Case of Goal Models and Scenarios

Context: Requirements Engineering approaches provide expressive model techniques for requirements elicitation and analysis. Yet, these approaches struggle to manage the quality of their models, causing difficulties in understanding requirements, and increase development costs. The models’ quality should be a permanent concern. Objectives: We propose a mixed-method process for the quantitative evaluation of the quality of requirements models and their modelling activities. We applied the process to goal-oriented (i* 1.0 and iStar 2.0) and scenario-based (ARNE and ALCO use case templates) models, to evaluate their usability in terms of appropriateness recognisability and learnability. We defined (bio)metrics about the models and the way stakeholders interact with them, with the GQM approach. Methods: The (bio)metrics were evaluated through a family of 16 quasi-experiments with a total of 660 participants. They performed creation, modification, understanding, and review tasks on the models. We measured their accuracy, speed, and ease, using metrics of task success, time, and effort, collected with eye-tracking, electroencephalography and electro-dermal activity, and participants’ opinion, through NASA-TLX. We characterised the participants with GenderMag, a method for evaluating usability with a focus on gender-inclusiveness. Results: For i*, participants had better performance and lower effort when using iStar 2.0, and produced models with lower accidental complexity. For use cases, participants had better performance and lower effort when using ALCO. Participants using a textual representation of requirements had higher performance and lower effort. The results were better for ALCO, followed by ARNE, iStar 2.0, and i* 1.0. Participants with a comprehensive information processing and a conservative attitude towards risk (characteristics that are frequently seen in females) took longer to start the tasks but had a higher accuracy. The visual and mental effort was also higher for these participants. Conclusions: A mixed-method process, with (bio)metric measurements, can provide reliable quantitative information about the success and effort of a stakeholder while working on different requirements models’ tasks

Building bridges for better machines : from machine ethics to machine explainability and back

Be it nursing robots in Japan, self-driving buses in Germany or automated hiring systems in the USA, complex artificial computing systems have become an indispensable part of our everyday lives. Two major challenges arise from this development: machine ethics and machine explainability. Machine ethics deals with behavioral constraints on systems to ensure restricted, morally acceptable behavior; machine explainability affords the means to satisfactorily explain the actions and decisions of systems so that human users can understand these systems and, thus, be assured of their socially beneficial effects. Machine ethics and explainability prove to be particularly efficient only in symbiosis. In this context, this thesis will demonstrate how machine ethics requires machine explainability and how machine explainability includes machine ethics. We develop these two facets using examples from the scenarios above. Based on these examples, we argue for a specific view of machine ethics and suggest how it can be formalized in a theoretical framework. In terms of machine explainability, we will outline how our proposed framework, by using an argumentation-based approach for decision making, can provide a foundation for machine explanations. Beyond the framework, we will also clarify the notion of machine explainability as a research area, charting its diverse and often confusing literature. To this end, we will outline what, exactly, machine explainability research aims to accomplish. Finally, we will use all these considerations as a starting point for developing evaluation criteria for good explanations, such as comprehensibility, assessability, and fidelity. Evaluating our framework using these criteria shows that it is a promising approach and augurs to outperform many other explainability approaches that have been developed so far.DFG: CRC 248: Center for Perspicuous Computing; VolkswagenStiftung: Explainable Intelligent System

Constructing a Public Community College Presidency: A Retrospective Study

This retrospective, qualitative case study examined the complexities of leadership in a community college setting under a single, long-term president. Six critical events were identified by 16 key informants as a basis for reflection on their views of the 23-year presidency of Dr. William Seeker at Florida Keys Community College. The researcher found a highly participatory leadership model and a college that functions in a less hierarchical manner than is traditionally encountered in community colleges. The study further revealed that the president of Florida Keys Community College expanded the role of president by giving priority to the construction of a positive and productive learning culture, honoring local resources, both tangible and intangible. The driving force behind the institution throughout this 23 year period was the development of human capital. A philosophy of approaching tough decisions swiftly and deliberately while maintaining a sense of inclusion in the decision making process is a hallmark of this presidency. A better understanding of the role of the president is necessary for present and future leaders of community colleges, for the Boards of Trustees who act as policy makers, and for state legislators. Indeed, anyone who leads a public organization that must be responsive to local community needs and to a local governing board can gain valuable insights from this examination of one community college presidency

Un-constraining the medium: design software systems to support situated action

This dissertation is concerned with Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and in particular with ways in which insights from ethnomethodology can be melded into the design of CSCW systems—a relationship that has been labelled technomethodology. The dissertation outlines a number of possible ways in which system design can learn from ethnomethodology and concentrates on one particular aspect—namely that CSCW should look closely at its foundational assumptions and, if necessary, re-specify any concepts which appear problematic in their formulation. [Continues.

Ekonominen unifikaatio filosofisen analyysin metodina

This doctoral dissertation introduces economical unification as a method of analysis and shows how it is applied in dealing with some topics that are central in contemporary philosophy. The method resembles a production line that consists of three successive elements which are interconnected in two stages: Economy > Ontology > Applications In the first stage, an economically unified ontology is explicated by applying the principle of economy, which is an evaluation criterion of alternative ontologies. An economically unified ontology is an empirically sufficient, metaphysically minimal and generally virtuous world-view or a belief system of a human being. In the second stage everything else is dealt with in terms of the ontology. The central argument is that economical unification is a more progressive method than plain conceptual analysis which proceeds in the absence of an economically unified ontology and without the principle of economy. Its progressiveness results from having economy as an unambiguous evaluation criterion, which enables explicating a stable and minimal unified ontology which functions as a common base for all topics, and which enables defining and disambiguating meanings of concepts, thereby facilitating their genuine understanding and resolving problems around them, more efficiently than without an economically unified ontology, and without an unambiguous evaluation criterion that would enable explicating it. The progressiveness of the method is substantiated by applying it in disambiguating some of the central concepts that are dealt with in contemporary philosophy such as time, truth and possibility, and in resolving problems around them. The method works: unification efficiently resolves problems whose central source is disunification itself. In other words, the absence of an economically unified ontology is a central source of problems and ambiguities in contemporary philosophy; in economical unification such problems are resolved by removing their source; their source is removed by replacing the absence of an economically unified ontology by bringing it in the center of the analysis. The holistic method that handles special topics in the top-down order by relying on an understandable world-view, is very different from traditional conceptual analysis that proceeds in the absence of an economically unified ontology, and even in the absence of having it as the goal, i.e., without economy or the degree of virtuousness as the criterion. Moreover, the method was formulated in order to systematically overcome those limitations of plain conceptual analysis which result from their absence. Traditional conceptual analysis proceeds typically by investigating isolated topics and various angles to them, but this does not manage to interconnect the isolated topics and thus does not resolve problems which are due to the isolation itself. It is practically impossible to unify many things by concentrating on one thing only, and the optimal rate of progress in philosophy and in science in general cannot be achieved if the analysis is limited into investigating isolated fragments. In order to achieve the optimal rate of progress, unification is needed in counterbalancing specialization. By looking at many individual pieces together, one can start streamlining them into a functional totality. In this process much is revealed about what kinds of parts are needed in the totality and what are not. The totality consists of interrelated parts, but in economical unification the overall picture of reality guides the development of its parts at least as strongly as the requirements for the parts guide the development of the totality. Economical unification can thus be seen merely as the project getting hold of the natural order where the totality and its parts interact, and whose alternative is to keep on investigating details of isolated parts blindfolded without worrying about their roles in a totality, for all parts that are applicable do have a role in a totality. One can and one should scrutinize any suggested totality and replace it when a better one is available, but not before a better one has been presented. This holds for contemporary paradigmatic theories and for everything that comes after them. This brings the focus to the question of what is the objective meaning of better. The suggested answer is: the more economically unified, the better. The most important starting point in the project of economical unification is the acceptance of the principle of economy or the degree of virtuousness as the evaluation criterion, for without a commonly accepted and acknowledged criterion the path towards consensus is unnecessarily long and painful. The easiest way of accepting economy as the criterion is understanding that its general acceptance would accelerate the progress rate of science, including philosophy: virtuousness as the criterion of theories likely results into more virtuous science, faster than without it. Once we have a common criterion, people no longer have to settle on agreeing to disagree, but people have leaped forward into evaluating which theory is objectively better. Everything can be scrutinised, including economy, but rejecting it without replacing it with a more progressive criterion means that one does not fully appreciate progress.Tämä väitöskirja esittelee ekonomisen unifikaation metodin ja soveltaa sitä filosofian keskeisiin aiheisiin. Metodi muistuttaa tuotantolinjaa mikä koostuu kolmesta peräkkäisestä elementistä jotka liittyvät toisiinsa kahdessa vaiheessa: Ekonomia > Ontologia > Sovellukset Ensimmäisessä vaiheessa eksplikoidaan ekonomisesti unifioitu ontologia soveltamalla ekonomian periaatetta, joka on vaihtoehtoisten ontologioiden arviointikriteeri. Ekonomisesti unifioitu ontologia on empiirisesti riittävä, metafyysisesti minimaalinen ja yleisesti hyveellinen maailmankuva. Toisessa vaiheessa sovellukset käsitellään ontologian avulla. Keskeinen väite on, että ekonominen unifikaatio on edistyksellisempi metodi kuin pelkkä käsitteellinen analyysi mikä etenee ilman ekonomisesti unifioitua ontologiaa, käyttämättä ekonomian periaatetta arviointikriteerinä. Metodin edistyksellisyys juontuu selkeästä ekonomian periaatteesta, mikä mahdollistaa stabiilin, yhtenäisen ja minimaalisen ontologian eksplikoinnin. Ontologia toimii kaikkien sovellusten käsittelyn yhtenäisenä pohjana ja mahdollistaa käsitteiden merkitysten selkeyttämisen ja niiden ympärillä olevien ongelmien ratkaisun, tehokkaammin kuin pelkkä käsitteellinen analyysi ilman yhtenäistä ontologiaa, ja ilman selkeää arviointikriteeriä mikä mahdollistaisi yhtenäisen ontologian eksplikoinnin. Metodin progressiivisuutta alleviivataan soveltamalla sitä. Joitain nykyfilosofian keskeisiä käsiteitä -kuten aika, totuus ja mahdollisuus- selkeytetään ja näitten ympärillä olevia ongelmia ratkaistaan. Metodi toimii: unifikaatio ratkaisee tehokkaasti ongelmia joiden keskinen syy on hajanaisuus. Toisin sanoen, ekonomisesti unifioidun ontologian poissaolo on nykyfilosofian ongelmien ja epämääräisyyksien keskeinen lähde; ekonomisen unifikaation metodissa tällaiset ongelmat ratkaistaan poistamalla niiden lähde; niiden lähde poistetaan korvaamalla ekonomisesti unifioidun ontologian poissaolo tuomalla se analyysin keskelle. Holistinen unifikaation metodi joka käsittelee sovelluksia ylhäältä-alas järjestyksessä, luottamalla intuitiiviseen maailmankuvaan on hyvin erilainen kuin perinteinen käsitteellinen analyysi joka etenee ilman yhtenäistä maailmankuvaa ja jopa tavoittelematta sitä, eli ilman ekonomian periaatetta arviointikriteerinä joka suosii yhtenäistä ja kaikin puolin hyveellistä maailmankuvaa. Ekonominen unifikaatio on luotu jotta näiden puutteesta johtuvista rajoitteista päästäisiin systemaattisesti yli. Perinteinen käsitteellinen analyysi etenee tyypillisesti tutkimalle lukuisia näkökulmia eristyneisiin aiheisiin; tällainen analyysi ei onnistu yhdistämään hajanaisia aiheita eikä täten kykene ratkaisemaan ongelmia joiden syy on hajanaisuus itse. Tieteen ja filosofian optimaalista edistystahtia ei voi saavuttaa rajoittumalla eristyneisiin fragmentteihin. Jotta optimaalinen edistystahti voitaisiin saavuttaa, unifikaatiota tarvitaan spesialisaation vastapainona. Katsomalla monia yksittäisiä osia yhdessä, voi ne saneerata toimivaksi kokonaisuudeksi. Tässä prosessissa selviää minkälaisia osia kokonaisuudessa tarvitaan ja mitä ei. Kokonaisuus koostuu yhteenliittyneistä osista, mutta ekonomisessa unifikaatiossa kokonaismaailmankuva ohjaa osiensa kehitystä vähintään yhtä vahvasti kuin vaatimukset osille ohjaavat kokonaisuuden kehitystä. Ekonomisen unifikaation voi täten nähdä luonnollisen järjestyksen tavoitteluna, missä kokonaisuus ja sen osat ovat interaktiossa, ja jonka vaihtoehto on jatkaa eristyneiden osien yksityiskohtien tutkimista side silmillä, huolehtimatta niiden roolista kokonaisuudessa, vaikka kaikki osat joita voi todellisuudessa käyttää, kuuluvat johonkin kokonaisuuteen. Kaikkia ehdotettuja kokonaisuuksia tulee tarkastella kriittisesti ja korvata ne paremmalla heti kun tällainen on saatavilla, mutta ei ennen kuin tällainen on esitetty. Tämä pätee nykyisiin paradigmaattisiin teorioihin ja kaikkeen mikä tulee niitten jälkeen. Tämä keskittää huomion kysymykseen siitä mikä on sanan parempi objektiivinen merkitys. Ehdotettu vastaus on: mitä enemmän ekonomisesti unifioitu, sitä parempi. Tärkein lähtökohta ekonomisessa unifikaatiossa on luonnollisesti ekonomian periaate tai teoreettisten hyveiden arvostaminen, koska tie konsensukseen on tarpeettoman pitkä ja tuskallinen ilman yleisesti hyväksyttyä ja tiedostettua arviointikriteeriä. Helpoin tapa hyväksyä ekonomian periaate on ymmärtää että sen yleinen hyväksyminen kiihdyttäisi tieteen ja filosofian kehitystahtia: hyveellisyys teorioiden arviointikriteerinä luonnollisesti johtaa hyveellisempään tieteeseen, nopeammin kuin ilman sitä. Yleisen kriteerin nojalla, ihmisten ei tarvitse tyytyä olemaan samaa mieltä siitä että he ovat subjektiivisesti eri mieltä, vaan he ovat harpanneet eteenpäin arvioimaan mikä teoria on objektiivisesti parempi. Ekonomian periaatetta voi kritisoida ja parantaa, mutta sen hylkääminen, korvaamatta sitä edistyksellisemmällä kriteerillä, ei ole edistyksellistä

Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming

This open access book constitutes the proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Agile Software Development, XP 2022, which was held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in June 2022. XP is the premier agile software development conference combining research and practice. It is a unique forum where agile researchers, practitioners, thought leaders, coaches, and trainers get together to present and discuss their most recent innovations, research results, experiences, concerns, challenges, and trends.  XP conferences provide an informal environment to learn and trigger discussions and welcome both people new to agile and seasoned agile practitioners. This year’s conference was held with the theme “Agile in the Era of Hybrid Work”. The 13 full papers and 1 short paper presented in this volume were carefully reviewed and selected from 40 submissions. They were organized in topical sections named: agile practices; agile processes; and agile in the large

Simulating academic entrepreneurship and inter-organisational collaboration in university ecosystems, a hybrid system dynamics agent-based simulation

Universities are increasingly expected to actively contribute to socio-economic development. Academic entrepreneurship and the evolution of the entrepreneurial university within ecosystems have received increasing attention from both policymakers and academic communities over the last decades. However, most studies on universities' external engagement have focused on individual activities and single universities, hereby neglecting the feedback effects between different activities and how universities are linked through an overlap of their ecosystems. The result is an incomplete understanding of how universities interact with their ecosystem and the resulting inter- and intra-organisational dynamics. This research addresses this issue by developing a hybrid system dynamics agent-based model, which captures feedback structure and the internal decision-making of universities and companies. Both the conceptual and simulation model are based on a triangulation of the literature, interviews with representatives of Scottish universities, and secondary data for Scottish universities and UK businesses. This research makes several theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, it contributes in two distinct ways to the field of entrepreneurship by defining university ecosystems in new way that provides a basis for future research and developing a multi-modal simulation model that can be applied in tested in different contexts. The methodological contributions to the field of modelling and simulation in management science include a modelling process for hybrid simulations, new practices for modelling the size of agent populations through different designs of stocks and flows in the system dynamics module in hybrid simulations, and complex events for recognising emergent behaviour. Lastly, this research makes two empirical contributions to the field of entrepreneurship. This research shines a light on the dynamics of academic entrepreneurship and how universities can partially overcome a low research prestige to increase academic entrepreneurship. Implications for policy and practice are outlined and opportunities for future research conclude this thesis.Universities are increasingly expected to actively contribute to socio-economic development. Academic entrepreneurship and the evolution of the entrepreneurial university within ecosystems have received increasing attention from both policymakers and academic communities over the last decades. However, most studies on universities' external engagement have focused on individual activities and single universities, hereby neglecting the feedback effects between different activities and how universities are linked through an overlap of their ecosystems. The result is an incomplete understanding of how universities interact with their ecosystem and the resulting inter- and intra-organisational dynamics. This research addresses this issue by developing a hybrid system dynamics agent-based model, which captures feedback structure and the internal decision-making of universities and companies. Both the conceptual and simulation model are based on a triangulation of the literature, interviews with representatives of Scottish universities, and secondary data for Scottish universities and UK businesses. This research makes several theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, it contributes in two distinct ways to the field of entrepreneurship by defining university ecosystems in new way that provides a basis for future research and developing a multi-modal simulation model that can be applied in tested in different contexts. The methodological contributions to the field of modelling and simulation in management science include a modelling process for hybrid simulations, new practices for modelling the size of agent populations through different designs of stocks and flows in the system dynamics module in hybrid simulations, and complex events for recognising emergent behaviour. Lastly, this research makes two empirical contributions to the field of entrepreneurship. This research shines a light on the dynamics of academic entrepreneurship and how universities can partially overcome a low research prestige to increase academic entrepreneurship. Implications for policy and practice are outlined and opportunities for future research conclude this thesis