JP2011154662A - Evaluation support device, evaluation support method, and computer program - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To reduce risks of generating an estimation error caused by a requirement definition document of low quality, and of generating reworking and additional work. <P>SOLUTION: This evaluation support device includes a table-of-content extracting part for extracting a table-of-content item from the input requirement definition document, a recommendation item storage part for storing preliminarily a recommendation item recommended to be used in the requirement definition document, a table-of-content correlating part for correlating each recommendation item stored in the recommendation item storage part, with the table-of-content item extracted by the table-of-content extracting part, a quality characteristic storage part for storing preliminarily a quality characteristic to be evaluated in each recommendation item, a check part for receiving an input of an evaluation result as to the quality characteristic to be evaluated stored in the quality characteristic storage part, in each recommendation item, and an evaluation report preparing part for outputting a content of the evaluation result received by the check part, as an evaluation report. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2011,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to a quality evaluation technique for requirement definition documents.

  The requirement definition document is an important product in system development. Customers and vendors review the specifications of the system to be developed and describe the agreed content in the requirement definition document. The system specifications include, for example, work for introducing the system, required functions and performance, interfaces with existing systems and linked systems, service levels and work contents in maintenance and operation, and the like. The vendor examines the realization method based on the description contents of the requirement definition document and creates a project plan. The vendor then estimates the factors and costs, establishes the development system, and starts specific development such as detailed design.

  If there are omissions or vague descriptions in the requirement definition document, there is a risk of a gap between the customer's understanding and the vendor's understanding. Such divergence becomes a cause of estimation error and rework or follow-up work in a later process. For example, if a vendor advances the work while overlooking some of the specifications desired by the customer or misunderstood the contents, additional work to add functions that were not originally anticipated or incorrect creation Rework to correct the functions and architecture that were included is necessary. The occurrence of such additional work and rework leads to a delay in the progress of the development schedule, and the cost increases to secure personnel for a longer period. The swelled cost will cause an estimation error.

  As a technique for solving such a problem, Patent Document 1 discloses the following technique. The quality measure reading means inputs the quality measure and its importance, and creates a quality measure table based on the input. The review point reading means inputs a review point group for each table of contents item, and creates a review point table corresponding to each table of contents item based on the input. The review sheet creation means presents the quality scale table and the review point table to the user, and creates a review sheet based on an instruction from the user. The score calculation means calculates the actual value of the score for each quality measure based on the score of each review point input by the user to the review sheet. The score output means outputs a quality status table in the form of a graph based on this calculation.

Further, as another technique for solving the above problem, Patent Document 2 discloses the following technique. When a function headline is input, a function requirement item defined in advance and its requirement description syntax are extracted. Further, the quality requirement items and the requirement description syntax associated with the function heading are extracted. Further, an item of the abnormal requirement defined in advance relating to the function heading and its requirement description syntax are extracted. A requirement can be described in each extracted requirement description syntax.
There is also Non-Patent Document 1 as a document that defines the creation of a good requirement definition document.

Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 7-141171 JP 2008-3851 A

IEEE-SA Standards Board, “IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications,” Software Engineering Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Std 830-1998, 1998.

  However, both the technique disclosed in Patent Document 1 and the technique disclosed in Patent Document 2 have problems. In the technique disclosed in Patent Document 1, evaluation is performed from the viewpoint of whether or not a predetermined item is satisfied. Further, the technique disclosed in Patent Document 2 is a technique for enabling necessary items to be described in a predetermined format so as not to cause omission or leakage of items. Therefore, any technique disclosed in any patent document cannot be evaluated in consideration of quality characteristics as defined in Non-Patent Document 1. Therefore, even if the technology disclosed in Patent Document 1 is highly evaluated and even if it is described according to the technology disclosed in Patent Document 2, the understanding of the customer as described above and the understanding of the vendor It was not possible to prevent the gap between them, and there were still risks such as an estimation error, rework and additional work.

  In view of the above circumstances, an object of the present invention is to provide a technique that can reduce risks such as occurrence of estimation errors, rework, and follow-up work.

  One aspect of the present invention is an evaluation support apparatus, a table of contents extraction unit that extracts a table of contents items from an input requirement definition document, and a recommended item that stores in advance recommended items recommended for use in the requirement definition document A storage unit, a table of contents association unit for associating each recommended item stored in the recommended item storage unit with the table of contents item extracted by the table of contents extraction unit, and quality characteristics to be evaluated for each of the recommended items For each recommended item, a check unit for receiving an input of an evaluation result for the quality characteristic to be stored stored in the quality characteristic storage unit, and an evaluation received by the check unit An evaluation report creating unit that outputs the content of the result as an evaluation report.

  One aspect of the present invention is the evaluation support apparatus described above, wherein a quality characteristic score storage unit that associates and stores a quality characteristic score for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic, the quality characteristic score, and the check And a score calculation unit that calculates an evaluation score based on the evaluation result received by the unit.

  One aspect of the present invention is the above-described evaluation support apparatus, which accepts selection of quality characteristics that do not need to be evaluated for each of the recommended items, and omits the quality characteristic score corresponding to the quality characteristics that do not need to be evaluated. A baseline processing unit that calculates a total score according to a predetermined standard as a baseline using the other quality characteristic scoring, and the evaluation report creating unit includes the baseline calculated by the baseline processing Is further output as the evaluation report.

  One aspect of the present invention is the above-described evaluation support apparatus, in which for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic, a check item storage unit that stores an item to be checked and a check item allocation in association with each other The check unit accepts an input of a check for a matter to be checked stored in the check matter storage unit for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic, and calculates the score For each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic, a check item score corresponding to the item to be checked that is input as a corresponding item, and a quality characteristic stored in association with the combination The evaluation score is calculated based on the score.

  One aspect of the present invention is an evaluation support method, a recommended item storage unit that stores recommended items recommended to be used in a requirement definition document in advance, and a quality characteristic to be evaluated for each recommended item is stored in advance. A table of contents extraction step of extracting a table of contents item from the input requirement definition; and each of the recommended items stored in the recommended item storage unit. A table of contents association step for associating with the table of contents items extracted by the table of contents extraction step, and the evaluation support apparatus, for each recommended item, the quality characteristics to be evaluated stored in the quality characteristic storage unit A check step for accepting an input of an evaluation result for the output, and the evaluation support device outputs the content of the evaluation result accepted by the check step as an evaluation report And an evaluation report creation step.

  One aspect of the present invention is a computer program that pre-stores a recommended item storage unit that stores recommended items recommended to be used in a requirement definition document and a quality characteristic to be evaluated for each of the recommended items. A table of contents extraction step for extracting a table of contents item from the input requirement definition document, a recommended item stored in the recommended item storage unit, and the table of contents extraction step. A table of contents association step for associating with a table of contents item, a check step for receiving an input of an evaluation result for a quality characteristic to be evaluated stored in the quality characteristic storage unit for each of the recommended items, and the checking step To execute an evaluation report creation step for outputting the contents of the evaluation result accepted by as an evaluation report It is intended.

  According to the present invention, since the evaluation result is input for the quality characteristic to be evaluated stored in the quality characteristic storage unit for each recommended item, it is possible to appropriately evaluate the requirement definition document. Therefore, it is possible to reduce risks such as occurrence of estimation errors due to low quality requirement definition documents, and occurrence of rework and additional work.

It is a schematic block diagram showing the function structure of an evaluation assistance apparatus. It is a table showing a specific example of a standard table of contents file. It is a figure showing the outline of a baseline. It is a flowchart showing the flow of a process of an evaluation assistance apparatus. It is a flowchart showing the flow of a process of an evaluation assistance apparatus. It is a figure showing the specific example of the table of contents item name of a target requirement definition document. It is a figure showing the specific example of a tied file. It is a figure showing the specific example of a baseline setting file. It is a figure showing the specific example of a score table file. It is a figure showing the specific example of a score table file (details). It is a figure showing the specific example of the display regarding the description item completeness of a check result input reception file. It is a figure showing the specific example of the display regarding the appropriateness of a check result input reception file. It is a figure showing the specific example of the display regarding the clarity of a check result input reception file. It is a figure showing the specific example of the display regarding the traceability of a check result input reception file. It is a figure showing the specific example of a score calculation result file. It is a figure showing the specific example of a part (graph and chart) of the report which an evaluation report preparation part produces. It is a figure showing the specific example of a part (improvement / indication list and improvement / indication details) of the report which an evaluation report preparation part produces. It is a figure showing the other specific example of the report which an evaluation report preparation part produces. It is a graph showing that the content of the evaluation performed using the evaluation support apparatus is appropriate. It is a table | surface which shows the scoring result with respect to the requirement definition document of 3 cases (case A-C) by four evaluators.

  The evaluation support apparatus 1 is an apparatus that assists an evaluator in evaluating a requirement definition document. FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram showing a functional configuration of the evaluation support apparatus 1. The evaluation support apparatus 1 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a memory, an auxiliary storage device, and the like connected by a bus, and by executing an evaluation support program, an input unit 101, a display unit 102, a requirement definition document storage unit 103, It functions as an apparatus including a storage unit 104, a table of contents extraction unit 105, a table of contents association unit 106, a baseline processing unit 107, a check unit 108, a score calculation unit 109, and an evaluation report creation unit 110. Note that all or part of each function of the evaluation support apparatus 1 may be realized using hardware such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device (PLD), or a field programmable gate array (FPGA). .

  The input unit 101 is configured using an existing input device such as a keyboard, a pointing device (such as a mouse or a tablet), a button, or a touch panel. The input unit 101 is operated by an evaluator when inputting characters, numerical values, and other instructions to the evaluation support apparatus 1. The input unit 101 stores information input by being operated by an evaluator as to a table of contents extraction unit 105, a table of contents association unit 106, a baseline processing unit 107, a check unit 108, a score calculation unit 109, and an evaluation report creation unit 110. Notify

  The display unit 102 is configured using an image display device such as a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) display, a liquid crystal display, or an organic EL (Electro Luminescence) display. The display unit 102 displays each screen in response to instructions from the table of contents extraction unit 105, table of contents association unit 106, baseline processing unit 107, check unit 108, score calculation unit 109, and evaluation report creation unit 110. Note that the input unit 101 and the display unit 102 may be integrally configured using a touch panel.

  The requirement definition document storage unit 103 is configured using a storage device such as a magnetic hard disk device or a semiconductor storage device. The requirement definition storage unit 103 accepts input of data of a requirement definition document (hereinafter referred to as “target requirement definition document”) to be evaluated by the evaluation support apparatus 1, and stores the input data. Data of the target requirement definition document stored in the requirement definition document storage unit 103 is input to the evaluation support apparatus 1 using an existing technology such as a network or a storage medium.

  The storage unit 104 is configured using a storage device such as a magnetic hard disk device or a semiconductor storage device. The storage unit 104 stores data of each file used in the evaluation support apparatus 1. Specifically, the storage unit 104 includes a standard table of contents file 1041, a table of contents item name file 1042, a linkage file 1043, a baseline setting file 1044, a check result input reception file 1045, a score table file 1046, and a score table file (details) 1047. The score calculation result file 1048, the evaluation report format file 1049, the evaluation report message file 10410, etc. are stored.

  The standard table of contents file 1041 describes all recommended item names, and is a file representing the contents of a standard table of contents. The table of contents item name file 1042 is a file in which the table of contents item name extracted from the target requirement definition document is recorded. The association file 1043 is a file that represents the correspondence between each recommended item name of the standard table of contents defined in advance in the standard table of contents file 1041 and each table of contents item name extracted from the target requirement definition document. The baseline setting file 1044 is a file that indicates whether or not the contents of each recommended item name in the standard table of contents are to be evaluated and the quality characteristics to be evaluated when the contents are to be evaluated. The check result input acceptance file 1045 is a file for recording the check result from the evaluator for each recommended item. The score table file 1046 is a file representing the highest score (quality characteristic score) assigned in advance for each combination of recommended items and detailed quality characteristics. A score table file (details) 1047 is a file representing check items and points regarding detailed quality characteristics. The score calculation result file 1048 is a file representing the score calculated by the score calculation unit 109. The evaluation report format file 1049 is an evaluation report format file. The evaluation report message file 10410 is a file representing the content of a message described in the evaluation report.

  The table of contents extraction unit 105 reads out the target requirement definition document stored in the requirement definition document storage unit 103, and all the names of table of contents items (hereinafter referred to as “table of contents item names”) defined in the target requirement definition document. Extract.

  The table of contents association unit 106 compares each table of contents item name extracted by the table of contents extraction unit 105 with each recommended item name previously defined in the association file 1043 and performs association. The recommended item name is an item name recommended for use in the requirement definition document. A list of all recommended item names is a standard table of contents (hereinafter referred to as “standard table of contents”), and is preset in the standard table of contents file 1041 by a designer or an administrator.

  FIG. 2 is a table showing a specific example of the standard table of contents file 1041. In the table of FIG. 2, the chapter name, section name, section name, and contents to be described in the chapter are listed in order from the left. Chapters, sections, and sections have a hierarchical structure, with chapters positioned at the top, sections positioned below chapters, and sections positioned below sections. For example, in the example of FIG. 2, five sections are located under the chapter “Chapter 1 About this requirement definition document”. In addition, three terms are located below the section “1.0 basic appearance element”. In the example of FIG. 2, only the two sections 1.0 and 2.1 have a subordinate term, and the other clauses are described as having no term. However, other clauses may be set to have respective terms. Also, a three-level structure of chapters, sections, and items is not an essential condition, and the standard table of contents may be composed of other structures and other recommended item names.

  Returning to FIG. 1, the description of the configuration of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. The baseline processing unit 107 performs baseline setting processing. FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an outline of the baseline. The highest score is the highest possible score that is one of the evaluation results of the requirement definition document, and is the score given to the ideal requirement definition document. The baseline is a reference point that is set individually according to the characteristics and circumstances of the target requirement definition document and the individual circumstances of the project. The baseline has a value equal to or less than the highest point. The performance score is a score calculated by the score calculation unit 109 based on the evaluation made by the evaluator. The achievement points have the same value as the baseline or less than the baseline. In addition, as one of the evaluations of the target requirement definition document, the ratio between the achievement points and the baseline is calculated. For example, as shown in FIG. 3, when the maximum score is 100 points, the baseline is 80 points, and the performance score is 60 points, a value of 60/80 = 75 is calculated as one of the evaluations. Although details will be described later, by calculating such values, it becomes possible to perform evaluation according to the characteristics and circumstances of the target requirement definition document, the individual circumstances of the project, and the like.

  Returning to FIG. 1, the description of the configuration of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. For each recommended item, the check unit 108 receives a check result regarding a predetermined check item from the evaluator, and records the received check result in the check result input reception file 1045. The check items are items set in advance based on the quality characteristics described in, for example, IEEE 830 (Non-Patent Document 1). In the following description, a case will be described in which check items are defined for four quality characteristics: purposefulness, description item completeness, clarity, and traceability.

  The check unit 108 describes in detail the contents of the table of contents item corresponding to the recommended item name “purpose of systemization” (hereinafter also referred to as “C1-1”) as the appropriate purpose, and the recommended item name. The contents of the table of contents items corresponding to “the purpose of systemization” and the contents of the table of contents items corresponding to “business outline and scope of systemization” are correctly related (hereinafter also referred to as “C1-2”). ) Encourage the evaluator to check In addition, the check unit 108 prompts the evaluator to check that the recommended items are enriched (hereinafter also referred to as “C2-1”) as the description item coverage. In addition, the check unit 108 uses, as clarity, description items that are satisfied (hereinafter, also referred to as “C3-1”), and a recommended notation that improves clarity (such as UML (Unified Modeling Language)). The evaluator is urged to check that it is in progress (hereinafter also referred to as “C3-2”) and that a glossary exists (hereinafter also referred to as “C3-3”). In addition, the check unit 108 is described as having traceability that all elements referred to by others are defined (hereinafter also referred to as “C4-1”), and the elements are described in a state where they can be easily searched from others. The evaluator is urged to check that it is easy to find a reference destination from the item (hereinafter also referred to as “C4-2”) (hereinafter also referred to as “C4-3”). In the following description, C1-1 to C4-3 are collectively referred to as “detailed quality characteristics”. Details of processing of the check unit 108 will be described later.

The score calculation unit 109 calculates a score (actual score) corresponding to the check result by the evaluator for each combination of the recommended item and the detailed quality characteristic.
The evaluation report creation unit 110 creates an evaluation report according to the score for each item, the total score, the check result for each item, and the like. The evaluation report creation unit 110 displays the created evaluation report on the display unit 102. Further, the evaluation report creation unit 110 may output the created table or report to another device or a storage medium.

  4 and 5 are flowcharts showing the flow of processing of the evaluation support apparatus 1. Hereinafter, the processing flow of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be described with reference to FIGS. 4 and 5. First, target requirement definition data is input to the evaluation support apparatus 1 (step S101). Specifically, the requirement definition document storage unit 103 receives input of the target requirement definition data and stores the input target requirement definition data.

  Next, the table of contents extraction unit 105 reads the data of the target requirement definition document, and extracts the table of contents item name (step S102). Specifically, the table of contents extraction unit 105 extracts the names of headings such as chapters, sections, and sections described on the table of contents page of the target requirement definition document as table of contents item names. For example, the table of contents extraction unit 105 may recognize a predetermined page as a table of contents page, and extract a character string of each heading from the page as a table of contents item name. The table of contents extraction unit 105 may recognize a page described in a predetermined format as a table of contents page, and extract a character string of each heading from the page as a table of contents item name. Further, the table of contents extracting unit 105 may recognize the first page on which the characters “table of contents” are described as the table of contents page, and extract the character string of each heading from the page as the table of contents item name. The table of contents extraction unit 105 refers to all pages of the target requirement definition document, and extracts each character string enclosed in a tag representing a heading (for example, a character string “<title>”) as a table of contents item name. Also good. The specific process by which the table of contents extraction unit 105 extracts the table of contents item name may be realized by other processes different from the above.

  FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of a table of contents item name in the target requirement definition document. In the case of FIG. 6, the table of contents of the target requirement definition document includes “1 requirement definition document”, “1.1 purpose of requirement definition document”, “1.2 assumed reader of requirement definition document”, “2 systems” “Development overview”, “2.1 Purpose of system development”, “2.1.1 Project system name”, “2.1.2 Background of system development”, “2.1.3 Business in system development” "Value", "2.1.4 Purpose of this system", "2.1.5 Approach to achieve the purpose of this system", "2.1.6 Key stakeholders for this system", "2.2 Each character string such as “systemized range” is extracted by the table of contents extraction unit 105. In FIG. 6, not all table of contents item names of the target requirement definition document can be illustrated for convenience of drawing, but the table of contents extraction unit 105 extracts all table of contents item names of the target requirement definition document. Then, the table of contents extraction unit 105 describes all the extracted table of contents item names in the table of contents item name file 1042 and records them in the storage unit 104.

  Returning to FIG. 4, the description of the processing of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. Following the processing in step S102, the table of contents association unit 106 reads the association file 1043 from the storage unit 104 (step S103). The table of contents association unit 106 then extracts each table of contents item name extracted from the target requirement definition document (ie, the table of contents item name recorded in the table of contents item name file) and each recommended item name defined in the association file 1043. (Namely, the recommended item name defined in advance in the standard table of contents file 1041) is compared with the table of contents item name and the recommended item name. Specifically, the table of contents association unit 106 performs a simple association process (step S104), a detailed association process (step S105), and an association verification process (step S106).

  In the simple association process, the table of contents association unit 106 compares each table item name extracted from the target requirement definition document with each recommended item name defined in the association file 1043, and the character strings of both match completely. Match things together. In the detailed association process, the table of contents association unit 106 compares each table of contents item name extracted from the target requirement definition document with each recommended item name defined in the association file 1043, and both character strings partially match. Associate things with similar meanings and meanings. Note that the process of determining the analogy of the meaning content of the character string is implemented using an existing character string processing technique.

  In the associating verification process, the table of contents association unit 106 combines each recommended item name and each table of contents item name that have already been associated by the simple associating process and the detailed associating process with each recommended item name that has not yet been associated. Each table of contents item name is displayed on the display unit 102. Then, the table of contents association unit 106 receives an instruction to modify the association and an instruction to designate a new association from the evaluator. In this process, the evaluator operates the input unit 101 in accordance with the content displayed on the display unit 102 to instruct correction of association or designation of new association. When the instruction from the evaluator is completed, the table of contents association unit 106 writes the association relationship reflecting the instruction from the evaluator to the association file 1043, and updates the association file 1043 (step S107).

  FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of the tied file 1043. The association file 1043 is a file that represents the correspondence between each recommended item name of the standard table of contents and each table of contents item name extracted from the target requirement definition document. Specifically, the association file 1043 includes an item number, a corresponding item, a standard table of contents (a recommended item name of the standard table of contents), a table of contents of the corresponding target document (a table of contents item name extracted from the target requirement definition document), remarks, It consists of each column. The value set in the item number column is an integer arranged in order from 1, and is an identifier assigned to each recommended item name in the standard table of contents. The value set in the corresponding item column is a value set for each recommended item name in the standard table of contents, and indicates whether or not a table of contents item name associated with each recommended item name exists. The values set in the standard table of contents are the recommended item names of the standard table of contents. The value set in the table of contents column of the corresponding target document is the table of contents item name associated with each recommended item name by the processing of the table of contents association unit 106. The value set in the remarks column is a value set in advance by the designer or evaluator of the evaluation support apparatus 1, and is a value that represents the content to be described in each recommended item, for example.

  For example, in item No. 3, since the table of contents item name “cover” associated with the recommended item name “1.0-1 cover” exists, “corresponding” is set in the corresponding item column. On the other hand, in item number 8, since there is no table of contents item name associated with the recommended item name “1.3 Structure of requirement definition document”, “no correspondence” is set in the corresponding item column. The corresponding item column value and the corresponding table of contents column value of the target document are set by the table of contents association unit 106, respectively.

  Returning to FIG. 4, the description of the processing of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. Following the processing in step S107, the baseline processing unit 107 reads the baseline setting file 1044 from the storage unit 104 (step S108). Then, the baseline processing unit 107 reflects the correspondence between the recommended item name and the table of contents item name associated by the processing of the table of contents association unit 106 to the baseline setting file 1044 (step S109). Next, the baseline processing unit 107 displays the contents of the baseline setting file 1044 after the correspondence is reflected on the display unit 103, and receives an instruction to change the contents of the baseline setting file 1044 by the evaluator. Then, the baseline processing unit 107 updates the contents of the baseline setting file 1044 based on the change instruction from the evaluator (step S110).

  FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of the baseline setting file 1044. The baseline setting file 1044 represents whether or not the contents of each recommended item name in the standard table of contents are to be evaluated, and the quality characteristics to be evaluated when the contents are to be evaluated. Specifically, the baseline setting file 1044 is configured with columns of a standard table of contents, a description presence / absence, a baseline, a quality characteristic to be checked this time, and a reason for excluding the scoring check.

The values set in the standard table of contents are the recommended item names of the standard table of contents.
The value set in the description presence / absence column is a value set for each recommended item name in the standard table of contents, and whether or not there is a table of contents item name associated with each recommended item name in the association file 1043. To express. The value set in the description presence / absence column is set in the process of step S109. For example, when “◯” is set, it indicates that there is a table of contents item name associated with the recommended item name. On the other hand, when “x” is set, it indicates that there is no table of contents item name associated with the recommended item name. For example, for the recommended items “configuration of requirement definition document” and “reference document”, since there is no corresponding table of contents item name, “×” is set in the description presence / absence column.

  The value set in the Baseline column is a value set for each recommended item name in the standard table of contents, and indicates whether each recommended item is to be evaluated. For example, a black square “■” indicates that the recommended item is an evaluation target. On the other hand, a white square “□” indicates that the recommended item is not subject to evaluation (not subject to evaluation). The value in the baseline column is configured using, for example, a check box, and is set to an arbitrary value when the evaluator operates the input unit 101. For example, for the recommended item “configuration of requirement definition document”, the evaluator has selected not to be evaluated, so the check box is a white square.

  The value set in the column of the quality characteristic to be checked this time is a value set for each combination of a predetermined recommended item name and quality characteristic, and whether to evaluate the quality characteristic when evaluating each recommended item Indicates whether or not. As examples of quality characteristics, there are four types as described above: purposefulness, completeness of description items, clarity, and traceability. The quality characteristics to be evaluated are determined in advance for each recommended item, and only the quality characteristics to be evaluated are set in advance in each column together with check boxes. The evaluator operates the input unit 101 to set whether or not to evaluate the quality characteristics of only items for which check boxes are prepared. A black square “■” indicates that the quality characteristic is evaluated. On the other hand, a white square “□” indicates that the quality characteristic is not evaluated. For example, for the quality characteristic “description item completeness” of the recommended item “reference document”, the evaluator has selected not to perform evaluation, so the check box is a white square.

  The value set in the reason column excluding the scoring check is a value set for each predetermined recommended item name, and represents the reason when each recommended item is excluded from the evaluation target. Examples of reasons for excluding evaluation include existing system (existing), project exempt (excluded), team scope out (excluded), separate document or process (separate document), and others (blank column). is there. A check box for each reason is set in advance for all recommended item names. The evaluator selects a corresponding reason by operating the input unit 101 for a recommended item having a value of “x” in the presence / absence column. A black square “■” indicates that the evaluation is excluded from the reason. On the other hand, a white square “□” indicates that the reason is not the reason for no evaluation. For example, for the recommended item “Structure of requirement definition document”, the evaluator has selected that the existing system is as the reason for excluding the evaluation, so the check box for “Existing” is a black square. .

  Returning to FIG. 4, the description of the processing of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. Following the processing of step S110, the baseline processing unit 107 sets a baseline value based on the content of the baseline setting file 1044 in which the change instruction by the evaluator is reflected, and sets each baseline that has been set. The value is stored in the score table file 1046 (step S111).

  FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of the scoring table file 1046. The scoring table file 1046 represents whether or not the evaluation is performed for each combination of the recommended item and the detailed quality characteristic (whether or not the evaluation is performed) and the set baseline value. In the initial state, the score table file 1046 stores the highest score (quality characteristic score) assigned in advance as the set baseline value. The contents of the score table file 1046 are set in advance by the designer or manager of the evaluation support apparatus 1 and stored in the storage unit 104. In the example of FIG. 9, the highest score assigned to the detailed quality characteristic “C2-1” to be evaluated in the recommended item “1.0-1 cover” is “0.47”.

  In the case of FIG. 9, the value of presence / absence of evaluation set for each combination of the recommended item and the detailed quality characteristic is expressed using “◯” and “×”. “◯” indicates that the evaluation is performed, and “×” indicates that the evaluation is not performed. The value indicating whether or not the evaluation is performed is set by the baseline processing unit 107 according to the value set in the “current check target quality characteristic” field of the baseline setting file 1044 in FIG. Specifically, the baseline processing unit 107 sets “◯” as the value indicating whether or not the evaluation is performed for the detailed quality characteristic included in the quality characteristic set when the evaluation is performed. On the other hand, the baseline processing unit 107 sets “x” as a value indicating whether or not the evaluation is performed for the detailed quality characteristics included in the quality characteristics that are set not to be evaluated.

  When a value indicating whether or not evaluation is performed is set in the score table file 1046, the baseline processing unit 107 sets a baseline value in accordance with the setting. Specifically, for the detailed quality characteristic for which “◯” is set, the baseline processing unit 107 uses the highest point set in advance in the score table file 1046 as the baseline value as it is. On the other hand, the baseline processing unit 107 changes the baseline value to 0 for the detailed quality characteristic for which “x” is set.

  Then, the baseline processing unit 107 calculates the baseline of each standard by summing the baseline values of each detailed quality characteristic according to a predetermined standard. For example, the baseline processing unit 107 calculates the total score of the baseline for each detailed quality characteristic. In addition, the baseline processing unit 107 calculates a total score of the baseline for each chapter or section of the recommended items, for example. The total score of the baseline for each recommended item and the total score of the baseline of each chapter and each section are set in each chapter item score column. Further, below the display of each detailed quality characteristic, a total point of the baseline for each detailed quality characteristic is set.

  FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of a score table file (details) 1047. In the score table file (details) 1047, for each detailed quality characteristic, an evaluation result and a score given when each evaluation result is obtained are recorded in association with each other. Note that score calculation using the score table file (details) 1047 will be described later.

  Returning to FIG. 4, the description of the processing of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. When the process of step S111 in FIG. 4 is completed, the check unit 108 performs a check process for each combination of the recommended item and the detailed quality characteristic. Hereinafter, the check process by the check unit 108 will be described.

  First, the check unit 108 reads the check result input acceptance file 1045 from the storage unit 104, and displays the contents of the check result input acceptance file 1045 on the display unit 102 (step S112 in FIG. 5). Then, the check unit 108 accepts input of the check result by the evaluator (step S113). At this time, the check unit 108 may accept input of check results in the order of description item completeness, purposefulness, clarity, and traceability, for example.

  FIGS. 11 to 14 are diagrams showing specific examples of display of the check result input acceptance file 1045. The check result input acceptance file 1045 has an input field for inputting a check result for each combination of the recommended item and the detailed quality characteristic check item. The detailed quality characteristic check item is a check item necessary for evaluating the detailed quality characteristic. An evaluation result for the detailed quality characteristic is obtained based on the check result for each check item. For example, (C2-1-a) and (C2-1-b) in FIG. 11 are detailed quality characteristic check items. And the score calculation part 109 acquires the evaluation result with respect to (C2-1) based on the value of the check result input with respect to (C2-1-a) and (C2-1-b). Scores are obtained based on the table file (details) 1047.

  For example, the check unit 108 refers to the “current check target quality characteristic” field of the baseline setting file 1044, highlights the input field corresponding to the recommended item and the quality characteristic that are set when the evaluation is performed, The input fields corresponding to the recommended items and quality characteristics that are set not to be evaluated are displayed in gray. The value of the check result is input to each highlighted input column by the process of the evaluator or the check unit 108.

  FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of display related to the description item completeness of the check result input acceptance file 1045. Reflecting the result of the table of contents linking process, the check unit 108 automatically sets the value of the check result for C2-1-a. The value of the check result for C2-1-b is input by the evaluator. Specifically, when the evaluator selects the input column of C2-1-b, the check unit 108 displays input value options preset in the input column. In the case of FIG. 11, there are three input value choices: “refer to other document”, “no description required”, and “no special description”. The evaluator selects a corresponding one from the displayed input value choices and inputs it in the input field. The check unit 108 updates the check result input acceptance file 1045 when an input is made to the input field.

  FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of display related to the suitability of the check result input acceptance file 1045. For suitability, input of two types of check results, C1-1 and C1-2, is accepted. Of the input fields for suitability, the input field that requires the input of the check result by the evaluator is set so that the check result can be input by the evaluator. In this case, the check of C1-1 is performed for “2.1-3. Purpose of business reform project” and “2.1-4. Contents of measure”. The check of C1-2 may be performed on “2.1-4. Contents of measure”.

  The viewpoint of the check is a viewpoint as in the score table file (details) 1047. For example, for the evaluator, (C1-1-a) the number of all sentences included in each term, (C1-1-b) a sentence in which two or more contents are mixed in one sentence And the check unit 108 updates the check result input acceptance file 1045.

  FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of display related to the clarity of the check result input acceptance file 1045. For clarity, the check unit 108 accepts input of three types of check results C3-1 to C3-3. Among the input fields for clarity, the input field that requires the input of the check result by the evaluator is set so that the check result can be input by the evaluator. Here, the check of C3-1 is performed for the item “2.1-5. Main stakeholder”. In the check of C3-1, the check unit 108 receives check results from the evaluator for the number of items not described in (C3-1-a) recommended description items, and updates the check result input reception file 1045. .

  FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of display regarding the traceability of the check result input acceptance file 1045. Regarding the traceability, the check unit 108 accepts input of three types of check results C4-1 to C4-3. Among the traceability input fields, the input field that requires the input of the check result by the evaluator is set so that the check result can be input by the evaluator. Here, the check of C4-1 is performed for the item “2.1. Purpose of systemization”. In the check of C-4-1, (C4-1-a) number of elements to be defined, (C4-1-b) number of elements not included in the target diagram, (C4-1-c) target For the number of elements whose details are not described, the check unit 108 receives an input of the check result by the evaluator, and updates the check result input reception file 1045.

  In C4-2, the check unit 108 accepts input of check results for the items “1.4. Reference document” and “2.1-3” to “2.1.5”. In C-4-2, the check unit 108 causes the evaluator to select an option, and updates the check result input reception file 1045 with the selected option as the value of the input field.

  Returning to FIG. 5, the description of the processing of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. When the process of step S113 in FIG. 5 is finished, the score calculation unit 109 scores based on the result of the check process and a score (check item score) predetermined for each detailed quality characteristic in the score table file (detail) 1047. The calculation process is performed.

  First, the score calculation unit 109 reads the check result input reception file 1045 updated by the check unit 108 from the storage unit 104 (step S114). Next, the score calculation unit 109 acquires an evaluation result based on the check result set in the input field for each combination of the recommended item name and the detailed quality characteristic. Next, the score calculation unit 109 reads a score corresponding to the obtained evaluation result from the score table file (details) 1047. Next, the score calculation unit 109 calculates a score (actual score) for each combination of the recommended item name and the detailed quality characteristic based on the read score (step S115). Then, the score calculation unit 109 adds up the calculated scores for each quality characteristic and for each chapter and registers them in the score calculation result file 1048 (step S116). Hereinafter, the score calculation method and the contents of the score calculation result file 1048 will be described in order.

  First, description item coverage will be described by taking C2-1 as an example. The score calculation unit 109 acquires an evaluation result based on the values input in the respective input fields of C2-1-a and C2-1-b. Then, the score calculation unit 109 reads the score table file (details) 1047 and calculates a score based on the score corresponding to the acquired evaluation result.

  Next, the suitability will be described taking C1-1 as an example. Based on the value input in the input field, the score calculation unit 109 describes which evaluation result of C1-1 of the score table file (details) 1047 (in each sentence, only one target element is described in one sentence). In all sentences, two or more target elements are not described./In some sentences (less than 1/4 of the total description amount), two or more target elements are described./Many parts (Less than 1/2 of the total description amount) describes two or more target elements./A majority of statements (1/2 or more of the total description amount) describes two or more target elements. (Or, the table of contents items to be checked are not described.) Automatically, and the score is calculated.

  Next, clarity will be described by taking C3-1 as an example. The score calculation unit 109 determines which evaluation result (all description items are described in C3-1 of the score table file (details) 1047 based on the value input in the input field. Less than 1/4 of the recommended description items) / Many description items (less than 1/2 of all recommended description items) are not described / More than half of the description items (all recommended description items) Is not described.) Is automatically determined and a score is calculated.

  Next, the traceability will be described by taking C4-1 as an example. The score calculation unit 109 automatically determines which evaluation result of C4-1 of the score table file (details) 1047 corresponds based on the value input in the input field, and calculates the score based on the corresponding score. To do. The score calculation process for C4-2 and C4-3 is the same as C4-1.

  Next, a specific example of processing in which the score calculation unit 109 calculates a score (actual score) based on the score will be described. A specific value (5 points in the following example) is set in advance as to how many points the full score represents. The “Deduction point 1” of the score represents a value obtained by deducting one point from the full score. When the full score is 5 points, the deduction point 1 represents 4 points. The “score 2” of the score represents a value obtained by subtracting 2 points from the full score. When the full score is 5 points, the deduction point 2 represents 3 points. The zero point of the score represents 0 point. The score calculation unit 109 divides the score corresponding to the acquired evaluation result by a value corresponding to a full score (in this case, 5 points). Then, the score calculation unit 109 reads the corresponding baseline value from the baselines set for each combination of the recommended item and the detailed quality characteristic in the baseline table, and calculates the result of the above division for the baseline value. Multiply by value. The score calculation unit 109 registers the value of the multiplication result in the score calculation result file 1048 as a score corresponding to the combination of the recommended item name and the detailed quality characteristic. For example, if the score is “Deduction 2” and the baseline is “5.00”, the score is 5.00 × (3/5) = 3 points. Note that the score calculation unit 109 may calculate the score based on the score by other methods.

  FIG. 15 is a diagram illustrating a specific example of the score calculation result file 1048. The score calculation result file 1048 includes a category for which the total score is calculated, the highest score calculated for each category, the total score of the baseline, the total score of the actual score, the actual score for the baseline (baseline The ratio of achievement points to the above), summary explanations and findings are recorded. The ratio of the performance points to the baseline represents the ratio of the total points of the performance points to the total points of the baseline.

  For example, regarding the completeness of description items, the maximum score is 30 points, while the baseline is set to 25 points. If the evaluation result is analyzed simply by looking at the actual score, the actual score is 25. Therefore, there is a possibility that it is analyzed that the evaluation score is 5 points lower than the highest score. However, since the baseline is 25 points, there are originally no performance points for 5 points due to the existence of detailed quality characteristics that are not actually evaluated. In such a case, the person who analyzes the evaluation result refers to the above ratio, and the completeness of the description item is 100% and is evaluated as the highest point in the present situation, that is, no problem at all. It can be easily analyzed that it is evaluated that there is no.

  Returning to FIG. 5, the description of the processing of the evaluation support apparatus 1 will be continued. When the process of step S116 in FIG. 5 is completed, the evaluation report creating unit 110 performs an evaluation report creating process. Specifically, the evaluation report creating unit 110 first reflects the check result performed by the evaluator, the calculated score, and the baseline on the preset format of the evaluation report (step S117). The preset evaluation report format is stored in advance in the storage unit 104 as an evaluation report format file 1049. Next, the evaluation report creation unit 110 displays the format of the reflected evaluation report on the display unit 102. And the evaluation report preparation part 110 displays the column which inputs an evaluator's finding in the evaluation report on the display part 102, and receives the input of the finding by an evaluator (step S118). Further, the evaluation report creating unit 110 selects and sets a comment for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic and each combination of the recommended item and the detailed quality characteristic (Step S119). Then, the evaluation report creation unit 110 displays the completed evaluation report on the display unit 102 (step S120).

  16-18 is a figure showing the specific example of the report which the evaluation report preparation part 110 produces. FIG. 16 shows a specific example of a part (graph and chart) of a report created by the evaluation report creation unit 110. The evaluation report creation unit 110 displays the total score for each category set in the score calculation result file 1048, the total score for each category, the ratio of the passing score of the actual score to the total score for the highest score, the baseline Various graphs and charts are created based on the ratio of the total points of the achievement points to the total points. What kind of graphs and charts are created based on what points are preset by a designer or an administrator.

  In the example of FIG. 16, the evaluation report creation unit 110 creates a stacked horizontal bar graph of the baselines and achievement points calculated for each quality characteristic and the baselines and achievement points calculated for each recommended item. Yes. In addition, the evaluation report creation unit 110 calculates the ratio of the total points of the achievement points to the total points of the baseline calculated for each quality characteristic, and the total points of the achievement points with respect to the total points of the baseline calculated for each recommended item. The ratio and the radar chart are created respectively.

  FIG. 17 shows a specific example of a part of the report created by the evaluation report creating unit 110 (improvement / indication list and improvement / indication details). The evaluation report creation unit 110 is provided with a No. 3 provided in the frame of the improvement / indication list. Describe the contents of each column of corresponding sentence name, item, corresponding item details, type, quality characteristic, importance, and comment. The contents described in each column will be described below. No. The value set in this column is an identification number given to the evaluation item. The value set in the corresponding text name column is the name of the document to be evaluated, and in the case of this embodiment, it is a requirement definition document. The value set in the item column represents the table of contents item number in the target requirement definition document. The value set in the corresponding item detail column represents the table of contents item name of the target requirement definition document. The value set in the type column represents whether or not it is an evaluation target, and is determined according to the value set in the baseline column of the baseline setting file 1044. The value set in the quality characteristic column is the name of the quality characteristic. The value set in the importance column represents the importance of the item, and is a value set in advance for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic. The value set in the comment column is the text of the general comment, which is a text for improving the item.

  In addition, the evaluation report creation unit 110 is provided with a No. , Corresponding text name, item, corresponding item details, type, quality characteristic, importance, comment, and details of each column of detailed comment description column 501 are described. No. The value described in each column of the corresponding sentence name, item, corresponding item detail, type, quality characteristic, importance, and comment is the same as the value set in the column of the same name in the improvement / indication list. A value set in the detailed comment description column 501 is a sentence or a figure of the detailed comment, and represents a problem at present, an improvement measure, a recommended description example, and the like for the item.

Hereinafter, among the columns of the evaluation report, processing related to the summary comment and the detailed comment will be described.
The outline comment is set in advance in the evaluation report message file 10410 in association with each check item for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic. The evaluation report creation unit 110 selects a general comment corresponding to the check item selected by the evaluator for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic. Then, the evaluation report creating unit 110 describes the selected general comments in the comment columns of the improvement / indication list and the improvement / indication details. For example, in the case of FIG. 17, the evaluation report creation unit 110 gives a deduction for the combination of the recommended item “background of system development” and the quality characteristic “completeness of description items” because there is no description. Select and include the general comment "I recommend it."

  The detailed comment is set in advance in the evaluation report message file 10410 in association with each check item for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic. The evaluation report creation unit 110 selects a detailed comment corresponding to the check item selected by the evaluator for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic. Then, the evaluation report creation unit 110 describes the selected detailed comment in the detailed comment description column 501 of the improvement / indication details. For example, in the case of FIG. 17, the evaluation report creation unit 110 is described in the detailed comment description column 501 for the combination of the recommended item “background of the system development” and the quality characteristic “description item completeness”. Select and enter detailed comments. Note that the evaluation report message file 10410 is stored in the storage unit 104 in advance.

  FIG. 18 shows another example of a report created by the evaluation report creation unit 110. As shown in FIG. 18, the evaluation report creation unit 110 may be configured to display quality characteristics that are not perfect for each recommended item as a detail of the improvement / pointing location by a check box or the like. By creating the evaluation report in this way, a person who refers to the evaluation report can easily analyze what quality characteristics were missing for each item of the target requirement definition document.

  In the evaluation support apparatus 1 configured as described above, the recommended table of contents for performing the evaluation is associated with the table of contents items of the target requirement definition document (the processes in steps S104 to S106). Then, for each table of contents item, an evaluation is performed based on the evaluation characteristics set in advance with the associated recommended table of contents (step S113). Therefore, each table of contents item in the target requirement definition document is evaluated based on the same evaluation characteristics, and the evaluation blur for each evaluator can be suppressed to a low level.

  In addition, unlike the design document when the development has progressed to some extent, there are many circumstances that differ from project to project at the stage of the requirement definition document, and the objects to be evaluated and the content vary greatly. Therefore, at the stage of the requirement definition document, it is difficult to describe in a predetermined format in order to create a high-quality definition document, and to evaluate the written document according to a certain standard. For example, even if a matter to be described in a certain item is specified, depending on the project, it may be a matter to be considered downstream, or it may already be discussed in the upstream stage and described in another document. On the other hand, in the conventional technology, uniform evaluation is performed for every project, and it is difficult to perform evaluation in accordance with the above-described actual situation.

  In response to such a problem, the evaluation support apparatus 1 sets a baseline separately from the highest score as a score. Specifically, a baseline is set as a point that excludes recommended items that are not subject to evaluation and points assigned to quality characteristics that are set not to be evaluated. Therefore, by comparing the performance points calculated based on the evaluation by the evaluator and the baseline, the evaluation in the form that reflects the circumstances at each site and the analysis of the evaluation result are performed. Is possible.

  FIG. 19 is a graph showing that the content of the evaluation performed using the evaluation support apparatus 1 is appropriate. The chart shown on the left side of FIG. 19 represents the result of evaluating the requirement definition document for the A project using the evaluation support apparatus 1. The chart shown on the right side of FIG. 19 represents the result of evaluating the requirement definition document for the B project using the evaluation support apparatus 1. As shown in FIG. 19, the total score (total score) calculated for the A project is 68 points, whereas the total score (total score) calculated for the B project is 54 points. It was. In other words, the requirement definition document for the B project was rated lower than the requirement definition document for the A project. The results of the actual progress of Project A and Project B according to each requirement definition document are as follows. In the A project, the planned QCD (Quality: Quality, Cost: Cost, Delivery: Delivery) was steadily achieved and proceeded as planned. On the other hand, project B has undergone a major revision of the plan. Thus, the result of the evaluation performed using the evaluation support apparatus 1 for each requirement definition document reflects the progress of the subsequent projects, and it is clear that the correct evaluation was made.

  In order to verify the reliability and validity of the score calculated by the evaluation support apparatus 1, a case study using a requirement definition document created in 10 system development projects in a certain company was conducted. First, in order to verify the reliability of the score calculated by the evaluation support apparatus 1, it was confirmed whether a third party outside the project can objectively evaluate the requirement definition document. The four evaluators scored the requirement definition documents for the three projects individually, and investigated how the scores calculated by the four people and the time required for the work varied. In addition, in order to verify the effectiveness of the evaluation support apparatus 1, the scoring results for each of the ten cases are presented to the project manager of each case, and qualitative whether it is useful for “preventing omission of description of requirement definition and ambiguous description” Collective evaluations (comments).

  The four evaluators who performed scoring (hereinafter referred to as “evaluator 1” to “evaluator 4”) all had basic knowledge of system development, but their business knowledge and experience differed greatly. It was. Evaluator 1 was a consultant with abundant operational knowledge and experience in requirement definition. The evaluators 2-4 were practitioners of embedded software development. Evaluators 1 and 2 both had more than 6 years of development experience. On the other hand, the evaluators 3 and 4 had poor development experience in less than the second year of joining the company.

  FIG. 20 is a table showing scoring results for the requirement definition documents of three cases (cases A to C) by four evaluators. In FIG. 20, the coefficient of variation is a value obtained by dividing the standard deviation by the average value, and represents the relative variation of the value with respect to the average value. The first row to the fourth row of the table show the score of each evaluator for each case and the time required for the work, and the fifth and subsequent rows show statistical values such as average values and standard deviations. For example, the evaluator 1 took 8.91 hours for the scoring work of the case C, and calculated a score of 83.87 points. The score range is [0.00, 100.00], and the larger the value, the higher the quality of the requirement definition document. The work time is the time from “confirmation of the contents of the requirement definition document” to “calculation of the score”. It does not include time for meeting, scheduling, and exchanging electronic files of requirement definition documents.

  Focusing on the coefficient of variation (the value obtained by dividing the standard deviation by the average value) and the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value, the variation in scores when the evaluators are different will be considered. The score variation was the largest in Project A, with a standard deviation of 7.09, a coefficient of variation of 26.00%, and the difference between the highest and lowest points was 16.03 points. From this, it can be seen that even when the variation was the largest, there was an individual difference of about ± 7.09 points (average value ± 26%) before and after the average value. Although the evaluator's knowledge and experience are different, the scores do not vary greatly. This indicates that the requirement definition document can be objectively evaluated by the evaluation support apparatus 1 and variation thereof can be suppressed.

  The embodiment of the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the drawings. However, the specific configuration is not limited to this embodiment, and includes designs and the like that do not depart from the gist of the present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Evaluation support apparatus, 101 ... Input part, 102 ... Display part, 103 ... Requirements definition document memory | storage part, 104 ... Memory | storage part (Recommended item memory | storage part, quality characteristic memory | storage part, quality characteristic score storage part), check item memory | storage part , 105 ... Table of contents extraction unit, 106 ... Table of contents association unit, 107 ... Baseline processing unit, 108 ... Check unit, 109 ... Score calculation unit, 110 ... Evaluation report creation unit

Claims (6)

A table of contents extractor that extracts table of contents items from the input requirement definition;
A recommended item storage unit that pre-stores recommended items recommended for use in the requirement definition document;
A table of contents association unit for associating each recommended item stored in the recommended item storage unit with the table of contents item extracted by the table of contents extraction unit;
A quality characteristic storage unit for preliminarily storing quality characteristics to be evaluated for each recommended item;
For each of the recommended items, a check unit that receives an input of an evaluation result for a quality characteristic to be evaluated stored in the quality characteristic storage unit;
An evaluation report creating unit for outputting the content of the evaluation result received by the check unit as an evaluation report;
An evaluation support apparatus comprising: A quality characteristic score storage unit that stores a quality characteristic score in association with each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic; and
A score calculation unit that calculates an evaluation score based on the quality characteristic scoring and the evaluation result received by the check unit;
The evaluation support apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: For each of the recommended items, accept a selection of quality characteristics that do not need to be evaluated, and use other quality characteristic points that exclude the quality characteristic points that correspond to the quality characteristics that do not need to be evaluated. A baseline processing unit for calculating the total score as a baseline,
The evaluation report creating unit further outputs the baseline calculated by the baseline processing as the evaluation report.
The evaluation support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: For each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic, a check item storage unit that stores an item to be checked and a check item allocation in association with each other when it is evaluated,
Further comprising
The check unit, for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic, accepts an input of a check for a corresponding item with respect to a check item stored in the check item storage unit,
The score calculation unit stores, for each combination of the recommended item and the quality characteristic, a check item score corresponding to the item to be checked, which is input as a check item corresponding to the check item, and is stored in association with the combination. 4. The evaluation support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the evaluation score is calculated based on a quality characteristic score. An evaluation support apparatus comprising a recommended item storage unit that preliminarily stores recommended items recommended for use in a requirement definition document, and a quality characteristic storage unit that stores in advance quality characteristics to be evaluated for each recommended item, A table of contents extraction step for extracting table of contents items from the input requirement definition;
A table of contents association step in which the evaluation support device associates each recommended item stored in the recommended item storage unit with the table of contents item extracted by the table of contents extraction step;
The evaluation support device, for each of the recommended items, a check step of receiving an input of an evaluation result for a quality characteristic to be evaluated stored in the quality characteristic storage unit;
An evaluation report creating step in which the evaluation support device outputs the content of the evaluation result received in the check step as an evaluation report;
An evaluation support method comprising: For a computer comprising a recommended item storage unit that pre-stores recommended items recommended for use in the requirement definition document, and a quality characteristic storage unit that pre-stores quality characteristics to be evaluated for each recommended item,
A table of contents extraction step for extracting table of contents items from the input requirement definition;
A table of contents association step for associating each recommended item stored in the recommended item storage unit with the table of contents item extracted by the table of contents extraction step;
For each recommended item, a check step for receiving an input of an evaluation result for the quality characteristic to be evaluated stored in the quality characteristic storage unit;
An evaluation report creating step of outputting the content of the evaluation result accepted by the check step as an evaluation report;
A computer program for running.

Images