Search

Software systems are increasingly regulated. Software engineers therefore must determine which requirements have met or exceeded their legal obligations and which requirements have not. Requirements that have met or exceeded their legal obligations are legally implementation ready, whereas requirements that have not met or exceeded their legal obligations need further refinement. In this paper, we examine how software engineers make these determinations using a multi-case study with three cases. Each case involves assessment of requirements for an electronic health record system that must comply with the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and is measured against the evaluations of HIPAA compliance subject matter experts. Our first case examines how individual graduate-level software engineering students assess whether the requirements met or exceeded their HIPAA obligations. Our second case replicates the findings from our first case using a different set of participants. Our third case examines how graduate-level software engineering students assess requirements using the Wideband Delphi approach to deriving consensus in groups. Our findings suggest that the average graduate-level software engineering student is ill-prepared to write legally compliant software with any confidence and that domain experts are an absolute necessity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

During the last decade, researchers have proposed a number of model transformations enabling performance predictions. These transformations map performance-annotated software architecture models into stochastic models solved by analytical means or by simulation. However, so far, a detailed quantitative evaluation of the accuracy and efficiency of different transformations is missing, making it hard to select an adequate transformation for a given context. This paper provides an in-depth comparison and quantitative evaluation of representative model transformations to, e.g., queueing petri nets and layered queueing networks. The semantic gaps between typical source model abstractions and the different analysis techniques are revealed. The accuracy and efficiency of each transformation are evaluated by considering four case studies representing systems of different size and complexity. The presented results and insights gained from the evaluation help software architects and performance engineers to select the appropriate transformation for a given context, thus significantly improving the usability of model transformations for performance prediction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]