An emerging theory on the interaction between requirements engineering and systems architecting based on a suite of exploratory empirical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting are often considered the most important phases of the software development lifecycle. Because of their close proximity in the software development lifecycle, there is a high degree of interaction between these two processes. While such interaction has been recognized and researched in terms of new technology (particularly methods and tools), there is a distinct lack of empirical understanding regarding the scientific properties of this interaction. Furthermore, in Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting, not only technical but human aspects are considered critical for the success of these processes due to these processes lying at the front-end of the development cycle and therefore being more aligned with real-world issues. Thus, the scientific properties of the interactions between Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting can be broken down into these two key aspects. For instance, the following example research questions relate to such scientific properties: What is the impact of an existing system’s architecture on requirements decision-making? What kinds of requirements-oriented problems are encountered during architecting? What is the impact of an existing systems architecture on new requirements being elicited? What is the impact of requirements engineering knowledge on systems architecting? There is little in the literature addressing such questions.\nThis thesis explores such issues through a suite of six exploratory empirical studies that were conducted over the last five years. Based on the observations from these studies, an emerging theory is proposed that describes the impact of human and process factors in the interaction between Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting. The impact of this emerging body of knowledge is deemed to be on the following: technology development for Requirements Engineering and Software Architecting (methods, tools, processes, etc.); hiring and training personnel for Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecture processes in industry; Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecture project planning; curriculum improvement in academia; and future empirical research in Requirements Engineering and Systems Architecting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".