Date post: | 28-Jan-2018 |
Category: |
Engineering |
Upload: | daniel-mendez |
View: | 162 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Technische Universität München
Theory building in RE - The NaPiRE* Initiative
* Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering (www.re-survey.org)
Daniel MéndezTechnical University of Munich
www.mendezfe.org@mendezfe
RE@40 Seminar, 2017Kappel am Albis, Switzerland
“[…] judging a theory by assessing the number, faith, and vocal energy of its supporters […] basic political credo of contemporary religious maniacs”
— Imre Lakatos, 1970
‣ In Software Engineering, too, truth often lies in power rather than in empirical evidence.
“[…] judging a theory by assessing the number, faith, and vocal energy of its supporters […] basic political credo of contemporary religious maniacs”
— Imre Lakatos, 1970
RE research and practice often dominated by conventional wisdom
For a problem-driven research, we nee a reliable body of knowledge about industrial practices and problems.
Naming the Pain in Requirements Engineering (NaPiRE)
‣Foundation for problem-driven research
Overall goal: (First) Theory on industrial practices and problems in Requirements Engineering
201722 countries
51 researchers from 43 institutions
201410 countries
23 researchers
20121 country,
2 researchers
Overall approach: By the community for the community
Bi-yearly replicated, globally distributed family of surveys (w/ synthesis) on practices and problems‣Collaborative instrument design‣ Independent surveys in different countries‣Collaborative synthesis and publication
www.re-survey.org
Principles
‣Theory-centric‣Anonymity, but closed‣ Full open science practices
201722 countries
51 researchers from 43 institutions
201410 countries
23 researchers
Overall approach: By the community for the community
Bi-yearly replicated, globally distributed family of surveys (w/ synthesis) on practices and problems‣Collaborative instrument design‣ Independent surveys in different countries‣Collaborative synthesis and publication
www.re-survey.org
Principles
‣Theory-centric‣Anonymity, but closed‣ Full open science practices
201722 countries
51 researchers from 43 institutions
Overall approach: By the community for the community
Bi-yearly replicated, globally distributed family of surveys (w/ synthesis) on practices and problems‣Collaborative instrument design‣ Independent surveys in different countries‣Collaborative synthesis and publication
www.re-survey.org
Principles
‣Theory-centric‣Anonymity, but closed‣ Full open science practices
Excerpt results NapiRE 2015/16
Country # Companies(full survey completion)
Response rate
Austria 14 72 %Germany 41 36,8 %UK (Northern Ireland) 18 39,7 %Canada 13 75 %USA 15 36,2 %Estonia 8 25,7 %Finland 15 37,5 %Norway 10 70,8 %Sweden 20 51,8 %Brazil 74 35,3 %Total 228
crosscutting (60)
public (28)
sector (28)
enterprise (20)
finance (26)
planning (20)
resource (23)
automotive (15)
healthcare (14)
management (16)
business (9)
energy (11)
insurance (11)
logistics (8)
telecom (9) transportation (8)
aerospace (5)
education (5)
gas (5) geoprocessing (4)
informed (5)
intelligence (4) oil (5)
process (5)
aviation (3)
communication (3) construction (3)
defence (3) e-commerce (3)
entertainment (3) games (3)
human (3)
shipping (3)
workforce (3)
agriculture (2)
chemicals (2)
customer (2)
electronic (2)
railway (2) relationship (2)
scientific (2) software (2)
automation (1)
e-
government (1)
funerary (1)
goods (1) industrial (1)
networking (1)
pulp (1)
steel (1)
Distributed over industry sectors
Status quo in practices used [1]‣Requirements Elicitation‣Requirements Documentation‣Requirements Change and Alignment ‣Requirements Engineering Standards‣Requirements Engineering Improvement
Problems in RE [2]‣Problems and criticality‣Causes‣Effects
[2] Mendez, Wagner, et al. Naming the pain in requirements engineering Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice , 2017[1] Wagner, Mendez, et al. Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys, 2017
Req Elicitation TechniqueInterviewScenarioPrototypingFacilitated MeetingsObservation
Req Documentation TechniqueStructured req listDomain/business process modelUse case modelGoal modelData modelNon-functional reqTextualSemi-formalFormal
Technology
Req Test Alignment ApproachReq review by testerCoverage by testsAcceptance criteriaTest derivation from models
Req Change ApproachProduct backlog updateChange requestsTrace management Impact analysis
Activity
Req Elicitation
Req Documentation
Req Change Management
Req Test Alignment
P 1-5
P 6-13
P 14-20
P 21-24
Actor
Req Engineer
Test Engineer
Req Standard ApplicationPracticeControlTailoring
Req Eng Process Standard
P 25-28
Req Standard DefintionComplianceDevelopmentTool supportQuality assuranceProject managementKnowledge transferProcess complexityCommunication demandWilligness to changePossibility of standardisation
P 26-45
Req Improvement MeansContinuous improvementStrengths/weaknessesOwn business unit/role
Req Eng ImprovementP 46--48
Excerpt results NapiRE 2015/16
Status quo in practices used [1]‣Requirements Elicitation‣Requirements Documentation‣Requirements Change and Alignment ‣Requirements Engineering Standards‣Requirements Engineering Improvement
Problems in RE [2]‣Problems and criticality‣Causes‣Effects
[2] Mendez, Wagner, et al. Naming the pain in requirements engineering Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice , 2017[1] Wagner, Mendez, et al. Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys, 2017
Req Elicitation TechniqueInterviewScenarioPrototypingFacilitated MeetingsObservation
Req Documentation TechniqueStructured req listDomain/business process modelUse case modelGoal modelData modelNon-functional reqTextualSemi-formalFormal
Technology
Req Test Alignment ApproachReq review by testerCoverage by testsAcceptance criteriaTest derivation from models
Req Change ApproachProduct backlog updateChange requestsTrace management Impact analysis
Activity
Req Elicitation
Req Documentation
Req Change Management
Req Test Alignment
P 1-5
P 6-13
P 14-20
P 21-24
Actor
Req Engineer
Test Engineer
Req Standard ApplicationPracticeControlTailoring
Req Eng Process Standard
P 25-28
Req Standard DefintionComplianceDevelopmentTool supportQuality assuranceProject managementKnowledge transferProcess complexityCommunication demandWilligness to changePossibility of standardisation
P 26-45
Req Improvement MeansContinuous improvementStrengths/weaknessesOwn business unit/role
Req Eng ImprovementP 46--48
Excerpt results NapiRE 2015/16
Teaser
In scope of artefact-based standard (reference) models
In scope of artefact-based standard (reference) models
Unclearrolesandresponsabilitiesatcustomerside
WeakqualificationofREteammembers
Subjectiveinterpretations
Stakeholderslackbusinessvisionandunderstanding
(1.28%)Customerdoesnotknowwhathewants
(6.41%)
LackofexperienceofREteammembers
Complexityofdomain
Insufficientresources
Lackoftime
Conflictingstakeholderviewpoints
(8.97%)
Stricttimeschedulebycustomer
Missingreq.specificationtemplate
MissingITprojectexperienceatcustomerside
Weakqualificationofstakeholders
(6.41%)
Input(33%)
(3.85%)
(6.41%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(2.56%)
(10.26%)
(2.56%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)
(1.10%)
Method(38%)
Req.tooabstract
Missingcompletenesscheckofrequirements
Insufficientagility
Communicationflawsbetweenteamandcustomer
Lackofawell-definedREprocess
ComplexityofRE
Unclearterminology
(11.54%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)(2.56%) (2.56%)
(1.28%) (1.28%)
People(17%)
Tools(3%)
(1.28%)
Communicationflawscustomer
Missingengagementbycustomer
Missingcustomerinvolvement (2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%) Policyrestrictions (1.28%)
(1.28%)MissingREawarenessatcustomerside (1.28%)
Weakmanagementatcustomerside
(1.28%)
Missingdirectcommunicationtocustomer
Missinginvolvementofdev. (2.56%)
Poorprojectmanagement
Missingsolutionapproach
Organization(9%)
Toohighteamdistribution
Manycustomers
LanguageBarriers
Notfollowing thecommunicationplan
Missingtoolsupport (1.28%)
Customer(19%)
DesignorImplementation(9%)
Product(22%)
ValidationorVerification(3%)
Increasednumberofreq.changes
(16.18%)
IncompleteReq.
(2.94%)
Decreaseduseracceptance
Customerdissatisfaction
(2.94%)
Needforpostimplementation
PoorproductqualityDecreasedbusinessvalue
(10.29%)
(8.82%)(2.94%)
Increasedcommunication
Implementationofirrelevantreq.
Effortoverrun
Timeoverrun
Budgetoverrun
Decreasedefficiency(overall)
Increasednumberofchangerequests
Wrongestimates
Increaseddifficultyofreq.elicitation
Validationofreq.becomesdifficult
ProjectorOrganization(47%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%)
(13.24%)
(5.88%)
(4.41%)
(2.94%)(2.94%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(2.94%)
Poor(system)designquality (1.47%)
Misunderstanding(overall)
Latedecision (2.94%)
(2.94%) (2.94%)
Overalldemotivation
InformationgetslostIncreasedcomplexityinRE
Unclearrolesandresponsabilitiesatcustomerside
WeakqualificationofREteammembers
Subjectiveinterpretations
Stakeholderslackbusinessvisionandunderstanding
(1.28%)Customerdoesnotknowwhathewants
(6.41%)
LackofexperienceofREteammembers
Complexityofdomain
Insufficientresources
Lackoftime
Conflictingstakeholderviewpoints
(8.97%)
Stricttimeschedulebycustomer
Missingreq.specificationtemplate
MissingITprojectexperienceatcustomerside
Weakqualificationofstakeholders
(6.41%)
Input(33%)
(3.85%)
(6.41%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(2.56%)
(10.26%)
(2.56%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)
(1.10%)
Method(38%)
Req.tooabstract
Missingcompletenesscheckofrequirements
Insufficientagility
Communicationflawsbetweenteamandcustomer
Lackofawell-definedREprocess
ComplexityofRE
Unclearterminology
(11.54%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)(2.56%) (2.56%)
(1.28%) (1.28%)
People(17%)
Tools(3%)
(1.28%)
Communicationflawscustomer
Missingengagementbycustomer
Missingcustomerinvolvement (2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%) Policyrestrictions (1.28%)
(1.28%)MissingREawarenessatcustomerside (1.28%)
Weakmanagementatcustomerside
(1.28%)
Missingdirectcommunicationtocustomer
Missinginvolvementofdev. (2.56%)
Poorprojectmanagement
Missingsolutionapproach
Organization(9%)
Toohighteamdistribution
Manycustomers
LanguageBarriers
Notfollowing thecommunicationplan
Missingtoolsupport (1.28%)
Customer(19%)
DesignorImplementation(9%)
Product(22%)
ValidationorVerification(3%)
Increasednumberofreq.changes
(16.18%)
IncompleteReq.
(2.94%)
Decreaseduseracceptance
Customerdissatisfaction
(2.94%)
Needforpostimplementation
PoorproductqualityDecreasedbusinessvalue
(10.29%)
(8.82%)(2.94%)
Increasedcommunication
Implementationofirrelevantreq.
Effortoverrun
Timeoverrun
Budgetoverrun
Decreasedefficiency(overall)
Increasednumberofchangerequests
Wrongestimates
Increaseddifficultyofreq.elicitation
Validationofreq.becomesdifficult
ProjectorOrganization(47%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%)
(13.24%)
(5.88%)
(4.41%)
(2.94%)(2.94%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(2.94%)
Poor(system)designquality (1.47%)
Misunderstanding(overall)
Latedecision (2.94%)
(2.94%) (2.94%)
Overalldemotivation
InformationgetslostIncreasedcomplexityinRE
Unclearrolesandresponsabilitiesatcustomerside
WeakqualificationofREteammembers
Subjectiveinterpretations
Stakeholderslackbusinessvisionandunderstanding
(1.28%)Customerdoesnotknowwhathewants
(6.41%)
LackofexperienceofREteammembers
Complexityofdomain
Insufficientresources
Lackoftime
Conflictingstakeholderviewpoints
(8.97%)
Stricttimeschedulebycustomer
Missingreq.specificationtemplate
MissingITprojectexperienceatcustomerside
Weakqualificationofstakeholders
(6.41%)
Input(33%)
(3.85%)
(6.41%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(2.56%)
(10.26%)
(2.56%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)
(1.10%)
Method(38%)
Req.tooabstract
Missingcompletenesscheckofrequirements
Insufficientagility
Communicationflawsbetweenteamandcustomer
Lackofawell-definedREprocess
ComplexityofRE
Unclearterminology
(11.54%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)(2.56%) (2.56%)
(1.28%) (1.28%)
People(17%)
Tools(3%)
(1.28%)
Communicationflawscustomer
Missingengagementbycustomer
Missingcustomerinvolvement (2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%) Policyrestrictions (1.28%)
(1.28%)MissingREawarenessatcustomerside (1.28%)
Weakmanagementatcustomerside
(1.28%)
Missingdirectcommunicationtocustomer
Missinginvolvementofdev. (2.56%)
Poorprojectmanagement
Missingsolutionapproach
Organization(9%)
Toohighteamdistribution
Manycustomers
LanguageBarriers
Notfollowing thecommunicationplan
Missingtoolsupport (1.28%)
Customer(19%)
DesignorImplementation(9%)
Product(22%)
ValidationorVerification(3%)
Increasednumberofreq.changes
(16.18%)
IncompleteReq.
(2.94%)
Decreaseduseracceptance
Customerdissatisfaction
(2.94%)
Needforpostimplementation
PoorproductqualityDecreasedbusinessvalue
(10.29%)
(8.82%)(2.94%)
Increasedcommunication
Implementationofirrelevantreq.
Effortoverrun
Timeoverrun
Budgetoverrun
Decreasedefficiency(overall)
Increasednumberofchangerequests
Wrongestimates
Increaseddifficultyofreq.elicitation
Validationofreq.becomesdifficult
ProjectorOrganization(47%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%)
(13.24%)
(5.88%)
(4.41%)
(2.94%)(2.94%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(2.94%)
Poor(system)designquality (1.47%)
Misunderstanding(overall)
Latedecision (2.94%)
(2.94%) (2.94%)
Overalldemotivation
InformationgetslostIncreasedcomplexityinRE
Unclearrolesandresponsabilitiesatcustomerside
WeakqualificationofREteammembers
Subjectiveinterpretations
Stakeholderslackbusinessvisionandunderstanding
(1.28%)Customerdoesnotknowwhathewants
(6.41%)
LackofexperienceofREteammembers
Complexityofdomain
Insufficientresources
Lackoftime
Conflictingstakeholderviewpoints
(8.97%)
Stricttimeschedulebycustomer
Missingreq.specificationtemplate
MissingITprojectexperienceatcustomerside
Weakqualificationofstakeholders
(6.41%)
Input(33%)
(3.85%)
(6.41%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(2.56%)
(10.26%)
(2.56%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)
(1.10%)
Method(38%)
Req.tooabstract
Missingcompletenesscheckofrequirements
Insufficientagility
Communicationflawsbetweenteamandcustomer
Lackofawell-definedREprocess
ComplexityofRE
Unclearterminology
(11.54%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)(2.56%) (2.56%)
(1.28%) (1.28%)
People(17%)
Tools(3%)
(1.28%)
Communicationflawscustomer
Missingengagementbycustomer
Missingcustomerinvolvement (2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%) Policyrestrictions (1.28%)
(1.28%)MissingREawarenessatcustomerside (1.28%)
Weakmanagementatcustomerside
(1.28%)
Missingdirectcommunicationtocustomer
Missinginvolvementofdev. (2.56%)
Poorprojectmanagement
Missingsolutionapproach
Organization(9%)
Toohighteamdistribution
Manycustomers
LanguageBarriers
Notfollowing thecommunicationplan
Missingtoolsupport (1.28%)
Customer(19%)
DesignorImplementation(9%)
Product(22%)
ValidationorVerification(3%)
Increasednumberofreq.changes
(16.18%)
IncompleteReq.
(2.94%)
Decreaseduseracceptance
Customerdissatisfaction
(2.94%)
Needforpostimplementation
PoorproductqualityDecreasedbusinessvalue
(10.29%)
(8.82%)(2.94%)
Increasedcommunication
Implementationofirrelevantreq.
Effortoverrun
Timeoverrun
Budgetoverrun
Decreasedefficiency(overall)
Increasednumberofchangerequests
Wrongestimates
Increaseddifficultyofreq.elicitation
Validationofreq.becomesdifficult
ProjectorOrganization(47%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%)
(13.24%)
(5.88%)
(4.41%)
(2.94%)(2.94%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(2.94%)
Poor(system)designquality (1.47%)
Misunderstanding(overall)
Latedecision (2.94%)
(2.94%) (2.94%)
Overalldemotivation
InformationgetslostIncreasedcomplexityinRECauses rather not due to missing guidance via reference
models, but due to organisational and even social issues.
Do teams applying agile practices avoid these issues?
Unclearrolesandresponsabilitiesatcustomerside
WeakqualificationofREteammembers
Subjectiveinterpretations
Stakeholderslackbusinessvisionandunderstanding
(1.28%)Customerdoesnotknowwhathewants
(6.41%)
LackofexperienceofREteammembers
Complexityofdomain
Insufficientresources
Lackoftime
Conflictingstakeholderviewpoints
(8.97%)
Stricttimeschedulebycustomer
Missingreq.specificationtemplate
MissingITprojectexperienceatcustomerside
Weakqualificationofstakeholders
(6.41%)
Input(33%)
(3.85%)
(6.41%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)
(2.56%)
(10.26%)
(2.56%)
(2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)
(1.10%)
Method(38%)
Req.tooabstract
Missingcompletenesscheckofrequirements
Insufficientagility
Communicationflawsbetweenteamandcustomer
Lackofawell-definedREprocess
ComplexityofRE
Unclearterminology
(11.54%)
(1.28%)(1.28%)(2.56%) (2.56%)
(1.28%) (1.28%)
People(17%)
Tools(3%)
(1.28%)
Communicationflawscustomer
Missingengagementbycustomer
Missingcustomerinvolvement (2.56%)
(1.28%)
(1.28%) Policyrestrictions (1.28%)
(1.28%)MissingREawarenessatcustomerside (1.28%)
Weakmanagementatcustomerside
(1.28%)
Missingdirectcommunicationtocustomer
Missinginvolvementofdev. (2.56%)
Poorprojectmanagement
Missingsolutionapproach
Organization(9%)
Toohighteamdistribution
Manycustomers
LanguageBarriers
Notfollowing thecommunicationplan
Missingtoolsupport (1.28%)
Customer(19%)
DesignorImplementation(9%)
Product(22%)
ValidationorVerification(3%)
Increasednumberofreq.changes
(16.18%)
IncompleteReq.
(2.94%)
Decreaseduseracceptance
Customerdissatisfaction
(2.94%)
Needforpostimplementation
PoorproductqualityDecreasedbusinessvalue
(10.29%)
(8.82%)(2.94%)
Increasedcommunication
Implementationofirrelevantreq.
Effortoverrun
Timeoverrun
Budgetoverrun
Decreasedefficiency(overall)
Increasednumberofchangerequests
Wrongestimates
Increaseddifficultyofreq.elicitation
Validationofreq.becomesdifficult
ProjectorOrganization(47%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%)
(13.24%)
(5.88%)
(4.41%)
(2.94%)(2.94%)
(2.94%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(1.47%) (1.47%)
(2.94%)
Poor(system)designquality (1.47%)
Misunderstanding(overall)
Latedecision (2.94%)
(2.94%) (2.94%)
Overalldemotivation
InformationgetslostIncreasedcomplexityinRE
Small companies(1-50)
Medium companies (51-250)
Large companies(> 251)
#1 Problem Incomplete/hidden requirements
Communication flaws customer
Incomplete/hidden requirements
#2 Problem Communication flaws customer
Incomplete/hidden requirements
Moving targets
#3 Problem Underspecified requirements
Communication flaws project team
Communication flaws customer
#4 Problem Communication flaws project team
Separation reqs. / solutions
Time boxing
#5 Problem Time boxing Weak access customer needs
Underspecified requirements
Do teams applying agile practices avoid these issues?
Small companies(1-50)
Medium companies (51-250)
Large companies(> 251)
#1 Problem Incomplete/hidden requirements
Communication flaws customer
Incomplete/hidden requirements
#2 Problem Communication flaws customer
Incomplete/hidden requirements
Moving targets
#3 Problem Underspecified requirements
Communication flaws project team
Communication flaws customer
#4 Problem Communication flaws project team
Separation reqs. / solutions
Time boxing
#5 Problem Time boxing Weak access customer needs
Underspecified requirements
No.Do teams applying agile practices avoid these issues?
Small companies(1-50)
Medium companies (51-250)
Large companies(> 251)
#1 Problem Incomplete/hidden requirements
Communication flaws customer
Incomplete/hidden requirements
#2 Problem Communication flaws customer
Incomplete/hidden requirements
Moving targets
#3 Problem Underspecified requirements
Communication flaws project team
Communication flaws customer
#4 Problem Communication flaws project team
Separation reqs. / solutions
Time boxing
#5 Problem Time boxing Weak access customer needs
Underspecified requirements
Not at all.Do teams applying agile practices avoid these issues?
How can we make use of such insights?
How can we make use of such insights?‣ Support problem-driven research
How can we make use of such insights?
Raw data‣ Anonymised‣ Sanitised‣ Curated (w/ codebooks)
‣ Support problem-driven research
How can we make use of such insights?
Open data repository
tera-PROMISE http://openscience.us/repo/ (will probably change)
Raw data‣ Anonymised‣ Sanitised‣ Curated (w/ codebooks)
‣ Support problem-driven research
How can we make use of such insights?
Open data repository
tera-PROMISE http://openscience.us/repo/ (will probably change)
Raw data‣ Anonymised‣ Sanitised‣ Curated (w/ codebooks)
Problem-driven research
supports
‣ Support problem-driven research
Phenomena and measurements
How can we make use of such insights?‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
How can we make use of such insights?‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
Example: evidence-based Risk
Management*
* Based on two MSc. theses: Priscilla Mafra at UFF, Brazil; Michaela Tießler at TUM, Germany
How can we make use of such insights?
1 Build holistic model with cause-effect relationships
‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
How can we make use of such insights?
1 Build holistic model with cause-effect relationships
‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
Implement Bayesian network including context factors2
How can we make use of such insights?
1 Build holistic model with cause-effect relationships
‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
How can we make use of such insights?
3 Operationalise as a risk assessment approach
‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
Build holistic model with cause-effect relationships1
2 Implement Bayesian network including context factors
How can we make use of such insights?
3 Operationalise as a risk assessment approach
‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
Build holistic model with cause-effect relationships1
2 Implement Bayesian network including context factors
How can we make use of such insights?
3 Operationalise as a risk assessment approach
‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
Build holistic model with cause-effect relationships1
2 Implement Bayesian network including context factors
How can we make use of such insights?‣ Immediate operationalisation for practical environments
Build holistic model with cause-effect relationships1
2 Implement Bayesian network including context factors
3 Operationalise as a risk assessment approach
4 Offer situation-spec. guidelines (corrective/preventive measures)
Preparation
Where do we stand right now?
• Preparation instruments about to be completedNext steps• Data disclosure previous runs• Survey implementation & pilot phase next run‣ Start independent data collections;
(before summer break)
ISERN 2017 (October)• Discussion 1st Results• Analysis strategy
Survey / Data Collection(Coordinated local replications)
Survey ++Data Analysis and Publication
(Synthesis, planning, joint publication)
We are here...
ISERN 2018• Data analysis and publication (cont.)
You are cordially invited to join us!www.re-survey.org
Thank you!
Daniel MéndezTechnical University of Munich
www.mendezfe.org
@mendezfe