Reducing the risks of communication failures through software models

In the development process, software models support communication among members of the development team. Communication failures caused by software models may generate inconsistencies in the system, impairing its quality. Aiming to reduce risks of communication failures through software models, researchers can use the Directives of Communicability (DCs). The DCs were created based on Semiotic Engineering Theory and Grice's Cooperative Principle to improve the quality of communication among software development team members through software models. The aim of this paper is to present an empirical study assessing the use of DCs in the production of three software models. The results indicated that the DCs achieved the intended potential to reduce communication failures of what software models meant to those who produced them. The DCs also contributed to the quality of artifacts produced by their consumers, given that communication failures through software models can cause inconsistencies.

[1]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Detecting defects in object-oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality , 1999, OOPSLA '99.

[2]  Nicu Sebe,et al.  Human-Centered Computing , 2010, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering.

[3]  Mark von Rosing,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN , 2015, The Complete Business Process Handbook, Vol. I.

[4]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  Applications of linguistic techniques for use case analysis , 2003, Requirements Engineering.

[5]  Silvia Mara Abrahão,et al.  Further analysis on the validation of a usability inspection method for model-driven web development , 2012, Proceedings of the 2012 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement.

[6]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  The impact of agile practices on communication in software development , 2008, Empirical Software Engineering.

[7]  Tanja E. J. Vos,et al.  What do we know about the defect types detected in conceptual models? , 2015, 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS).

[8]  Tom McBride.  The Role of Boundary Objects in the Fuzzy Front End of IT Development , 2014, 2014 23rd Australian Software Engineering Conference.

[9]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Directives of Communicability: Towards Better Communication through Software Models , 2019, 2019 IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE).

[10]  Mario Piattini,et al.  The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams , 2010, Inf. Sci..

[11]  Gabriele Bavota,et al.  Identifying the weaknesses of UML class diagrams during data model comprehension , 2011, MODELS'11.

[12]  Filippo Ricca,et al.  What are the used Activity Diagram Constructs , 2014, MODELSWARD 2014.

[13]  Aldo Bongio,et al.  Model-driven development of cross-platform mobile applications with WebRatio and IFML , 2015, MOBILESoft '15.

[14]  Linda V. Knight,et al.  Effect of a virtual project team environment on communication-related project risk , 2010 .

[15]  Clarisse Sieckenius deSouza.  The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction (Acting with Technology) , 2005 .

[16]  Juan Carlos Augusto,et al.  Handbook of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments , 2009, HAIS 2010.

[17]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Characterizing the tool-notation-people Triplet in software modeling tasks , 2014, IHC.

[18]  Piero Fraternali,et al.  Interaction Flow Modeling Language: Model-Driven UI Engineering of Web and Mobile Apps with IFML , 2014 .

[19]  Filippo Ricca,et al.  What are the used activity diagram constructs? a survey , 2014, 2014 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD).

[20]  Tayana Conte,et al.  Evaluating Usability of IFML Models: How Usability is Perceived and Propagated , 2018, IHC.