BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Tony Gorschek

Tony Gorschek contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Assets in Software Engineering: What are they after all?

During the development and maintenance of software-intensive products or services, we depend on various artefacts. Some of those artefacts, we deem central to the feasibility of a project and the product's final quality. Typically, these central artefacts are referred to as assets. However, despite their central role in the software development process, little thought is yet invested into what eventually characterises as an asset, often resulting in many terms and underlying concepts being mixed and used inconsistently. A precise terminology of assets and related concepts, such as asset degradation, are crucial for setting up a new generation of cost-effective software engineering practices. In this position paper, we critically reflect upon the notion of assets in software engineering. As a starting point, we define the terminology and concepts of assets and extend the reasoning behind them. We explore assets' characteristics and discuss what asset degradation is as well as its various types and the implications that asset degradation might bring for the planning, realisation, and evolution of software-intensive products and services over time. We aspire to contribute to a more standardised definition of assets in software engineering and foster research endeavours and their practical dissemination in a common, more unified direction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Continuous Software Engineering in the Wild

Software is becoming a critical component of most products and organizational functions. The ability to continuously improve software determines how well the organization can respond to market opportunities. Continuous software engineering promises numerous advantages over sprint-based or plan-driven development. However, implementing a continuous software engineering pipeline in an existing organization is challenging. In this invited position paper, we discuss the adoption challenges and argue for a more systematic methodology to drive the adoption of continuous engineering. Our discussion is based on ongoing work with several industrial partners as well as experience reported in both state-of-practice and state-of-the-art. We conclude that the adoption of continuous software engineering primarily requires analysis of the organization, its goals, and constraints. One size does not fit all purposes, meaning that many of the principles behind continuous engineering are relevant for most organizations, but the level of realization and the benefits may still vary. The main hindrances to continuous flow of software arise from sub-optimal organizational structures and the lack of alignment. Once those are removed, the organization can implement automation to further improve the software delivery.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

On Understanding the Relation of Knowledge and Confidence to Requirements Quality

Context and Motivation: Software requirements are affected by the knowledge and confidence of software engineers. Analyzing the interrelated impact of these factors is difficult because of the challenges of assessing knowledge and confidence. Question/Problem: This research aims to draw attention to the need for considering the interrelated effects of confidence and knowledge on requirements quality, which has not been addressed by previous publications. Principal ideas/results: For this purpose, the following steps have been taken: 1) requirements quality was defined based on the instructions provided by the ISO29148:2011 standard, 2) we selected the symptoms of low qualified requirements based on ISO29148:2011, 3) we analyzed five Software Requirements Specification (SRS) documents to find these symptoms, 3) people who have prepared the documents were categorized in four classes to specify the more/less knowledge and confidence they have regarding the symptoms, and 4) finally, the relation of lack of enough knowledge and confidence to symptoms of low quality was investigated. The results revealed that the simultaneous deficiency of confidence and knowledge has more negative effects in comparison with a deficiency of knowledge or confidence. Contribution: In brief, this study has achieved these results: 1) the realization that a combined lack of knowledge and confidence has a larger effect on requirements quality than only one of the two factors, 2) the relation between low qualified requirements and requirements engineers' needs for knowledge and confidence, and 3) variety of requirements engineers' needs for knowledge based on their abilities to make discriminative and consistent decisions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The State-of-Practice in Requirements Elicitation: An Extended Interview Study at 12 Companies

Context. Requirements engineering remains a discipline that is faced with a large number of challenges, including the implementation of a requirements elicitation process in industry. Although several proposals have been suggested by researchers and academics, little is known of the practices that are actually followed in industry. Objective. We investigate the SoTA with respect to requirements elicitation, examining practitioners' practices. We focus on the techniques, the roles involved, and the challenges associated to the process. Method. We conducted an interview-based survey study involving 24 practitioners from 12 different Swedish IT companies. Results. We found that group interaction techniques, including meetings and workshops, are the most popular type of elicitation techniques that are employed by the practitioners, except in the case of small projects. We noted that customers are frequently involved in the elicitation process, except in the case of market-driven organizations. Technical staff (for example, developers and architects) are more frequently involved in the elicitation process compared to the involvement of business- or strategic staff. Finally, we identified a number of challenges with respect to stakeholders. These challenges include difficulties in understanding and prioritizing their needs. Further, it was noted that requirements instability (i.e., caused by changing needs or priorities) was a predominant challenge. These observations need to be interpreted in the context of the study. Conclusion. The relevant observations regarding the survey participants' experiences should be of interest to the industry; experiences that should be analyzed in the practitioners' context. Researchers may find evidence for the use of academic results in practice, thereby inspiring future theoretical work, as well as further empirical studies in the same area.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access