@inproceedings {SE.5.Anda.2003,
	title = {Applying Use Cases to Design Versus Validate Class Diagrams - a Controlled Experiment Using a Professional Modelling Tool},
	journal = {ISESE{\textquoteright}2003 (Second International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering)},
	year = {2003},
	month = {September 30 - October 1},
	pages = {50-60},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	address = {Rome, Italy},
	abstract = {Several processes have been proposed for the transition from functional requirements to an object-oriented design, but these processes have been subject to little empirical validation. A use case driven development process is often recommended when applying UML. Nevertheless, it has been reported that this process leads to problems, such as the developers missing some requirements and mistaking requirements for design. This paper describes a controlled experiment, with 53 students as subjects, conducted to investigate two alternative processes for applying a use case model in an object-oriented design process. One process was use case driven, while the other was a responsibility-driven process in which the use case model was applied as a means of validating the resulting class diagram. Half of the subjects used the modelling tool Tau UML Suite from Telelogic; the other half used pen and paper. The results show that the validation process led to class diagrams implementing more of the requirements. The use case driven process did, however, result in class diagrams with a better structure. The results also show that those who used the modelling tool spent more time on constructing class diagrams than did those who used pen and paper. We experienced that it requires much more effort to organize an experiment with a professional modelling tool than with only pen and paper.},
	isbn = {not found},
	author = {Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup},
	editor = {found, not}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Sjoeberg.2002,
	title = {Conducting Realistic Experiments in Software Engineering},
	journal = {ISESE{\textquoteright}2002 (First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering)},
	year = {2002},
	month = {October 3-4},
	pages = {17-26},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {1},
	abstract = {An important goal of most empirical software engineering research is the transfer of research results to industrial applications. Two important obstacles for this transfer are the lack of control of variables of case studies, i.e., the lack of explanatory power, and the lack of realism of controlled experiments. While it may be difficult to increase the explanatory power of case studies, there is a large potential for increasing the realism of controlled software engineering experiments. To convince industry about the validity and applicability of the experimental results, the tasks, subjects and the environments of the experiments should be as realistic as practically possible. Such experiments are, however, more expensive than experiments involving students, small tasks and pen-and-paper environments. Consequently, a change towards more realistic experiments requires a change in the amount of resources spent on software engineering experiments. This paper argues that software engineering researchers should apply for resources enabling expensive and realistic software engineering experiments similar to how other researchers apply for resources for expensive software and hardware that are necessary for their research. The paper describes some of the experiences from recent experiments that varied in size from involving one software professional for 5 days to 130 software professionals, from 9 consultancy companies, for one day each.},
	isbn = {0-7695-1796-X},
	author = {Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Arisholm, Erik and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Karahasanovic, Amela and Koren, E. and Vok{\'a}c, Marek},
	editor = {found, not}
}
