Bahir Dar UniversityBahir Dar Institute of TechnologyFaculty of Computing: Department of Software EngineeringArticle Review PresentationMultilevel Ontology Framework for Improving Requirements Change Management in Global Software DevelopmentbyABEER ABDULAZIZ ALSANAD, AZEDDINE CHIKH, AND ABDULRAHMAN MIRZAIn May 15, 2019Published by IEEE Reviewed by: Abdirahman Ali Dahir Email: dirixanto@gmail.com ID: BDU1209507PG Introduction Brief summary Methodology Results Proposed framework contribution Foundation Critique Questions

1. Lero© 2012
Bahir Dar University
Bahir Dar Institute of Technology
Faculty of Computing: Department of Software Engineering
Article Review Presentation
Multilevel Ontology Framework for Improving Requirements Change
Management in Global Software Development
by
ABEER ABDULAZIZ ALSANAD, AZEDDINE CHIKH, AND ABDULRAHMAN MIRZA
In
May 15, 2019
Published by IEEE
Reviewed by: Abdirahman Ali Dahir
Email: dirixanto@gmail.com ID: BDU1209507PG
1

2. Lero© 2012
OUTLINE
Introduction
Brief summary
Methodology
Results
Proposed framework
contribution
Foundation
Critique
Questions
2

3. Lero© 2012
INTRODUCTION
• Requirements engineering is one of the most important pillars of
software engineering.
• changing Requirement is inevitable problem.
• Global Software Development (GSD).
• So Requirement change management (RCM) is important in RE
especially in GSD.
3

4. Lero© 2012
CHALLENGES FACING RCM IN GSD
4
The Bar chart is adopted from Holtkamp et al.

5. Lero© 2012
BRIEF SUMMARY
• The problem that this research tries to address
–Miscommunication and misunderstanding
• Proposed solution
–ensure the semantic correctness of the requirement change
requests by using a common language.
• The authors proposed a framework for improving the RCM
in GSD by improving the semantic correctness of the
Change Requests.
5

6. Lero© 2012
HYPOTHESIS
• Two sub-hypotheses.
• they claim that their framework will improve the RCM process
through increasing the reliability of CRs .
• And decrease the time spent for RCM process, especially in
GSD environment.
6

7. Lero© 2012
METHODOLOGY
• The authors adopted Questionnaire survey and case study to
evaluate their framework and test their two hypotheses.
• In the questionnaire there are the following things to be
measured
1. The significance of the problem.
2. The reliability factor of the framework.
3. Time factor of the framework.
• In the case study the prototype of their framework is
applied in RioMetro software application which is ticket
reservation app.
7

8. Lero© 2012
RESULTS
• The results of the questionnaire are as flows
1. The percentage of the problem significance reached 89%.
2. The percentage of the framework’s effectiveness in
supporting the reliability ranged between 65% and 92%.
3. The percentage of the framework’s effectiveness in
saving time ranged between 69% and 85%.
8

9. Lero© 2012
Cont..
• Case Study Results
1. the prototype of the framework is successfully applied in
RioMetro app.
2. The reliability of the change is increased.
3. The time spent for the change management is decreased
accordingly.
9

10. Lero© 2012
PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
• THREE LEVELS OF THE FRAMEWORK
1. FIRST-LEVEL ONTOLOGY: requirement change ontology (RCO),
2. SECOND-LEVEL ONTOLOGY : ontology for requirement engineering domain.
3. THIRD-LEVEL ONTOLOGY: ontology for the software application domain
10

11. Lero© 2012
EXAMPLE RCO
11

12. Lero© 2012
EXAMPLE RE ONTOLOGY
12

13. Lero© 2012
PROPOSED FRAMEWORK CONT…
13

14. Lero© 2012
CONTRIBUTION
• The contribution of this research is as follows
• The framework increases the reliability of the change of
RCM in GSD.
• The framework decreases the time spent on change
management in GSD.
14

15. Lero© 2012
FOUNDATION
• The authors used articles and books from different researchers.
• The following are some of the important foundations they used
– P. Holtkamp et al, ‘‘How software development competences change in global settings—An
explorative study,’’ J. Softw., Evol. Process, vol. 27, pp. 50–72, Jan. 2015.
– S. Jayatilleke et al, ‘‘A systematic review of requirements change management,’’ Inf. Softw.
Technol., vol. 93, pp. 163–185, Jan. 2018
– M. A. Akbar et al, ‘‘AZ-model of software requirements change management in global software
development,’’inProc.Int.Conf.Comput.,Electron.Elect. Eng. (ICE Cube), Nov. 2018, pp. 1–6.
15

16. Lero© 2012
CRITIQUE
• Strengths
1. The structure
2. They choose appropriate methodologies which are
Questionnaire and Survey.
3. They use tables and graphs to present the results.
4. Coherence:
5. Appropriate foundation.
16

17. Lero© 2012
Cont..
• weaknesses
1. Novelty.
2. They didn’t provide sufficient examples.
3. No recommendations provided.
17

18. Lero© 2012
Questions
• What are the features that make your framework better than the
other frameworks?
• What makes your research novel?
18

19. Lero© 2012 19