JP5933470B2 - Development support apparatus, development support method, and development support program - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a development support apparatus, a development support method, and a development support program.

  When developing various hardware and software, in the design process, a design document is created, and a system is developed based on the created design document. The quality of the design document determines the quality of the system being developed. For this reason, the quality of a design document is improved by a third person who is an expert who visually confirms the design document.

  In recent years, the scale of design has become enormous. In such an enormous design, visualization of the design quality is required in order to improve the design quality. For example, Patent Document 1 proposes a system that analyzes and generates design quality information from design information including any or all of design data, verification data, and verification results in order to improve design quality. Further, in the technique of Patent Document 1, since verification data and verification results cannot be acquired when design is started, for example, hardware drawing data and hardware description data are used as input values, and these input values are used. The verification process was performed by the simulator.

JP 2001-184386 A

  However, in Patent Document 1, there is a problem that it is difficult to comprehensively evaluate a design document due to a lack of description even if the design quality due to a description mistake in the design document can be evaluated.

  The present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and an object of the present invention is to provide a development support apparatus, a development support method, and a development support program that support improvement in design quality by evaluating a design document. It is said.

  In order to achieve the above object, the development support apparatus according to the present invention creates a decision table in which a combination of input element conditions included in a design document and an output element process corresponding to the combination of conditions are associated with each other. A decision table creation unit; and a score calculation unit that calculates a score indicating the quality of the design document based on the decision table created by the decision table creation unit.

  Further, in the development support apparatus according to the present invention, the score calculation unit, for the combination of the conditions included in the decision table created by the decision table creation unit, and processing according to the combination of the conditions, An error determination process for determining the presence or absence of an error may be performed based on a preset error condition, and the score may be calculated according to the determination result.

  Further, in the development support apparatus according to the present invention, the score calculation unit may calculate a score for the design document based on a reference point indicating importance according to the error.

  Further, in the development support apparatus according to the present invention, the score calculation unit is based on a ratio between all the determination numbers in the error determination process and the number of errors determined to have an error in the error determination process. Then, the score may be calculated.

  In the development support apparatus according to the present invention, a first reference point is set for the first importance, and the second importance that is lower than the first importance is the first importance. A second reference point having a value larger than one reference point may be set.

  Further, in the development support apparatus according to the present invention, the score calculation unit adds the first multiplication value obtained by multiplying the first reference point by the number of errors with respect to the first importance, and the second multiplication value. A score for the design document may be calculated by multiplying a second multiplication value obtained by multiplying the reference point by the number of errors corresponding to the second importance.

  In order to achieve the above object, a development support method in a development support apparatus according to the present invention is a development support method in a development support apparatus, and a combination of input element conditions included in a design document and a combination of the conditions A decision table creation procedure for creating a decision table in association with the processing of the output element, and a score indicating the quality of the design document based on the decision table created by the decision table creation procedure. And a score calculation procedure for calculating.

  In order to achieve the above object, the development support program according to the present invention supports a combination of input element conditions included in a design document and output element processing corresponding to the combination of conditions in a computer of the development support apparatus. A decision table creation procedure for creating a decision table and a score calculation procedure for calculating a score indicating the quality of the design document based on the decision table created by the decision table creation procedure. It is a feature.

  According to the present invention, since the development support apparatus calculates a score based on a decision table created from a design document, it can support improvement in design quality.

1 is a schematic configuration diagram of a development support apparatus according to a first embodiment. It is a figure explaining an example of the input data in a design document. It is a figure explaining an example of the search conditions in a design document, and an example which confirms the content performed as a result of the search. It is a figure explaining an example of the item output in a design document. It is a figure explaining an example of the error process in a design document. It is a figure explaining the example which made a part of design document of FIGS. 2-5 the decision table. It is an example of a decision table for explaining a score. FIG. 8 is an example of a determination result table in which the decision table of FIG. 7 is replaced for score calculation. It is a figure explaining completeness, accuracy, and easy understanding. FIG. 9 is an example of a decision table. It is a flowchart of the process procedure of the design quality evaluation with respect to the design document which concerns on 1st Embodiment. It is a schematic block diagram of the development assistance apparatus which concerns on 2nd Embodiment. It is a figure explaining the example of the importance which concerns on 2nd Embodiment. It is a figure explaining calculation of the score concerning a 2nd embodiment. It is a flowchart of the process sequence of the design quality evaluation with respect to the design document which concerns on 2nd Embodiment. It is a figure explaining the example of the relationship between the number and score for every importance which concern on 2nd Embodiment. It is a figure explaining an example of the score calculated by 1st Embodiment, and the score calculated by 2nd Embodiment. It is a figure explaining the example of a decision table when the input element which concerns on 2nd Embodiment is not covered.

  Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. In addition, this invention is not limited to the embodiment which concerns, A various change is possible within the range of the technical thought.

[First Embodiment]
FIG. 1 is a schematic configuration diagram of a development support apparatus 1 according to the present embodiment.
As shown in FIG. 1, the development support apparatus 1 includes an input unit 10, an input / output element extraction unit (decision table creation unit) 20, a process extraction unit (decision table creation unit) 30, a decision table creation unit 40, a database 50, A score calculation unit 60 and an output unit 70 are provided.

First, an example of a design document will be described with reference to FIGS.
Moreover, FIGS. 2-5 is a figure explaining an example of a design document. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of input data in a design document. FIG. 3 is a diagram for explaining an example of a search condition in the design document and an example of confirming the content to be performed as a result of the search. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of items (screen output items) output in the design document. FIG. 5 is a diagram for explaining an example of error processing in a design document. The examples shown in FIGS. 2 to 5 are examples of a design document for a system that performs processing related to a travel tour into Japan.

In the example shown in FIGS. 2 to 5, the design document is described in a text format and a table format. The design document may include data such as flowcharts and sequence diagrams.
As shown in FIG. 2, the item number, logical item name, and check content of the input data are described in association with each other. For example, the item number “1” describes the logical item name “departure date” and the check content “verifies whether the departure date exists. If not, 5.1 is executed” is described. In the input data, “departure date” includes a departure date (year), a departure date (month), and a departure date (day). In the check contents, “5.1” or the like represents an item number to be performed next according to the verified result. For example, “5.1” is item number 1 in FIG.

Next, as shown in FIG. 3, tour information search conditions 2.1 to 2.3 are described as an example of search conditions. In the search condition 2.3, as shown in FIG. 3, 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 are described.
Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, 3.1 and 3.2 are described as an example for confirming the contents to be performed as a result of the search. In FIG. 3, “4. Perform setting of screen output item” indicates that the setting shown in FIG. 4 is performed.

  Next, as shown in FIG. 4, as an example of an output item (screen output item), an item number, an item name, essential information, an item description, an output destination, and remarks are described in association with each other. For example, the item number “1” includes an item name “tour information list”, required “O”, item description “tour information search result”, output destination “tour search screen”, and remarks “(blank)”. It is associated and described. Here, indispensable, “◯” represents information that needs to be displayed on the screen, and “(blank)” represents information that may not be displayed on the screen. In the description of the item name, “tour information search result” represents that the result of the tour information search shown in FIG. 3 is displayed on the tour search screen on the screen. In addition, “(blank)” in the remarks indicates that no remarks are described for the item.

  Next, as shown in FIG. 5, in an example of error processing, an item number, an item name, essentiality, processing contents, an output destination, and remarks are described in association with each other. For example, the item number “1” is associated with the item name “message”, required “o”, processing content “display eleventh message”, output destination “search screen”, and remarks “(blank)”. It has been described. That is, the design document describes that the eleventh message is displayed on the search screen when there is no departure date in the input data of item number 1 shown in FIG.

Returning to FIG. 1, the description of the development support apparatus 1 will be continued.
The input unit 10 acquires design document data (hereinafter referred to as design document data) as shown in FIGS. 2 to 5, and outputs the acquired design document data to the input / output element extraction unit 20.
The input / output element extraction unit 20 extracts input elements and output elements (hereinafter referred to as input / output elements) from the design document data input from the input unit 10. The input / output element extraction unit 20 outputs the extracted input / output elements and design document data to the process extraction unit 30.

  The process extraction unit 30 extracts an action (processing) of an output element from the design document data based on the input / output element input from the input / output element extraction unit 20. The process extraction unit 30 outputs the processing of the extracted output element and the input / output element and design document data input from the input / output element extraction unit 20 to the decision table creation unit 40.

The decision table creation unit 40 extracts input elements from the input / output elements input from the process extraction unit 30, and determines the conditions of the extracted input elements based on the information stored in the database 50 and the design document data. decide. Here, the condition of the input element is a condition such as a value where the input element exists or a value where the input element does not exist. Next, the decision table creation unit 40 uses the information stored in the database 50 to generate a rule that is a combination of conditions for the input element, and represents the generated rule using N and Y to make a decision. Create a table.
The decision table creation unit 40 uses the information stored in the database 50 to describe the output elements input from the process extraction unit 30 and the processing of the output elements in the decision table. Here, the decision table is one of black box test techniques, and is a technique for creating test items by arranging logical relationships between inputs (conditions) and outputs (results, actions) into a table. Note that the decision table creation unit 40 may perform extraction of input elements, extraction of output elements, and extraction of processing of output elements.

  The database 50 stores in advance a language model for detecting input elements, output elements and the like from a design document, information necessary for dependency analysis, and the like.

  FIG. 6 is a diagram for explaining an example in which a part of the design document of FIGS. 2 to 5 is used as a decision table. As shown in FIG. 6, the input / output element extraction unit 20 extracts a departure date, a departure place, a destination, and the number of days as input elements from the design document. The input / output element extraction unit 20 extracts a tour information name and a message as output elements from the design document. The decision table creation unit 40 determines the condition of the input element from the information stored in the database 50 and the design document for each input element. For example, the decision table creation unit 40 determines four input element conditions for the input element “departure date”. As shown in FIG. 6, the conditions of the four input elements are nonexistent, existing, unreservable, and reservable. Further, the process extraction unit 30 extracts the process (action) of the output element from the design document for each element.

  For example, in FIG. 6, the input / output element extraction unit 20 extracts the departure date, the departure place, and the destination as input elements from the logical item names in FIG. Further, the decision table creation unit 40 extracts “exists” and “does not exist” described in the check contents for the departure date as a condition. The nonexistent date is a date that does not exist on the calendar, for example, February 30. The decision table creation unit 40 creates a decision table as shown in FIG. 6 based on the input / output elements, input element conditions, and output element processing extracted as described above.

  In FIG. 6, the rule is a logical combination of elements. For example, the rule “1” is a combination in which the condition “existing” of the input element “departure date” is “Y” and the condition “existing” of the input element “departure date” is “N”. Here, “Y” represents Yes, that is, true, and “N” represents No, that is, false. In the input element, “-” indicates that the logic may be “Y” or “N”. On the other hand, “-” in the output element indicates that no action is executed.

For example, in the case of the rule “1”, since the “first error message” of the “message” is output, the “X” mark is set in the action “first error message”. This means that in the case of the rule “1”, X is performed, that is, “first error message” is displayed.
As described above, in the example shown in FIG. 6, the “X” mark is set for the action performed for each of the rules “1” to “7”. The decision table creation unit 40 may create such a decision table for each design unit, for example. The design unit is a group in the design document. For example, as shown in FIG. 2 to FIG.

Returning to FIG. 1, the description of the development support apparatus 1 will be continued.
The score calculation unit 60 calculates a score based on the decision table created by the decision table creation unit 40, and outputs the calculated score to the output unit 70. Here, the score is a value representing the design quality of the design document. For example, the score is represented by a score between 0 and 100, and the smaller the value, the lower the design quality, and the higher the value, the higher the design quality. The score is calculated from the viewpoints of completeness, ease of understanding, accuracy and the like as will be described later. The score calculation will be described later.
The output unit 70 displays the score output by the score calculation unit 60. The output unit 70 is an image display device, for example. The output unit 70 may have a printing function.

Next, score calculation performed by the score calculation unit 60 will be described.
FIG. 7 is an example of a decision table for explaining the score.
As shown in FIG. 7, the input elements are first to third input elements, and the output elements are a message, a transition destination screen, and a next process. The conditions of the first input element to the third input element are “not present” and “present”, respectively. The action of the output element “message” is a display of “error message”, and the action of the output element “transition destination screen” is a display of “screen” of the transition destination. The action of the output element “next processing” is “processing”. The decision table creation unit 40 generates logical relationships of the rules “1” to “5” in accordance with the conditions of these input elements.

  First, the decision table creation unit 40 describes the input elements extracted from the design document by the input / output element extraction unit 20 in the decision table. Next, the decision table creation unit 40 creates rules “1” to “5”, which are combinations of conditions for the input elements, and creates the decision table by expressing the created rules using N and Y. Next, the decision table creation unit 40 describes the output elements extracted from the design document by the input / output element extraction unit 20 in the decision table. Next, the decision table creation unit 40 describes the process of the output element extracted by the process extraction unit 30 in the decision table. The decision table creation unit 40, for example, describes an “X” mark at a location corresponding to the output element process to be executed. In addition, the decision table creation unit 40 writes a “-” mark at a location corresponding to the processing of the output element that is not executed. Note that the items in the area surrounded by reference numeral 201 in FIG. 7 are blank. The blanks of the four items indicate that the screen expected as the transition destination screen cannot be determined by the decision table creation unit 40 from the design document. The above-described method for creating a decision table is an example, and the creation procedure and the creation method are not limited to this.

In the example illustrated in FIG. 7, it is described in the design document that an “error message” is displayed when any one of the first to third input elements does not exist. Further, it is described in the design document that “next processing” is performed when all of the first to third input elements are present.
“X” surrounded by reference numeral 202 indicates that in the rule “4”, “error message” is expected to be displayed as an action (processing), but the processing is not described in the design document. . For this reason, “X” surrounded by reference numeral 202 represents that consistency is not achieved.

  In FIG. 7, for example, in the case of the rule “1”, X is first performed, that is, an “error message” is displayed. Then, according to the design document, the “first screen” is displayed as the transition screen. However, since the transition screen cell for rule “1” is blank, it was not described in the design document, or it cannot be determined from the description of the design document whether the “first screen” is displayed. Represents.

  Next, the decision table creation unit 40 performs an error determination process based on a predetermined error condition for a combination of input element conditions and a process corresponding to the combination. The decision table creation unit 40 creates a determination result table as shown in FIG. 8 according to the determination result of the error determination process. For example, the decision table creation unit 40 describes “OK” when it is determined that the combination of the condition of the input element and the combination of the processing of the output element are covered, and “NG” when it is determined that the combination is not covered. And the determination result table is generated. The decision table creation unit 40, for example, covers the correspondence between input elements and output items extracted from the design document (exhaustability), or is there any error or inconsistency in the rules extracted from the design document (accuracy)? The determination result table as shown in FIG. 8 is generated by confirming whether the contents of the rules extracted from the design document are easy to understand (ease of understanding). FIG. 8 is an example of a determination result table in which the decision table of FIG. 7 is replaced for score calculation. As shown in FIG. 8, the number of errors (NG) for the processing of the output element is five. As shown in FIG. 8, the number of errors is 0 for the input element.

FIG. 9 is a diagram for explaining completeness, accuracy, and ease of understanding. FIG. 9 is an example of a decision table. In FIG. 9, the conditions “transition source” and “status” are input elements, and the operation “transition destination” is an output element. Screen A is a condition for the input element “transition destination”. Also, abnormal and normal are conditions for the input element “status”. The test items correspond to the rules shown in FIG. The decision table creation unit 40 has a status of “abnormal” and “normal” as a result of the check for ease of understanding. However, since it cannot be read from the design document as to how to determine, the item indicated by the reference numeral 221 is displayed. It is determined that the understandability is NG.
In addition, when the status is “abnormal” as a result of the comprehensiveness check, the decision table creation unit 40 has a description “transition to screen B” and a description “transition to screen C”. Since there is a mismatch, the item indicated by reference numeral 222 is determined to have NG coverage.
Further, as a result of the accuracy check, the decision table creation unit 40 can be read so that the process can be executed from a screen other than the screen A. However, since there is no description in that case, the item indicated by reference numeral 223 has the accuracy. It is determined as NG.
In the example shown in FIGS. 7 and 8, reference numerals 201 and 211 are completeness NG, and reference numerals 202 and 212 are accuracy NG. The decision table creation unit 40 outputs the result confirmed in this way to the score calculation unit 60.

  In the present embodiment, the score is defined as the following formula (1).

In Equation (1), the number of rules corresponds to the number of rule columns shown in FIG. In addition, the number of NG (error) is the total number of cells in which NG is described in FIG. The number of input / output elements corresponds to the number of rows of input elements and output elements shown in FIG. The product of the number of input / output elements and the number of rules is the number of determinations.
The score calculation unit 60 calculates the score for the table of FIG. 8 as 83.33 = ((1−NG number 5 / (number of input / output elements 6 × number of rules 5)) × 100) by the equation (1). To do. As shown in Formula (1), the score in this embodiment is a score between 0 and 100 points. 0 points represent the lowest evaluation, and 100 points represent the highest evaluation.
The score calculation unit 60 may store the calculated score and the number of NGs for each check item determined by the decision table creation unit 40 in association with each other in a storage unit (not shown).

FIG. 10 is a flowchart of a processing procedure of design quality evaluation for the design document according to the present embodiment.
(Step S <b> 1) The input unit 10 acquires design document data, and outputs the acquired design document data to the input / output element extraction unit 20.
(Step S <b> 2) The input / output element extraction unit 20 extracts input / output elements from the design document data input from the input unit 10, and outputs the extracted input / output elements and design document data to the process extraction unit 30.

(Step S <b> 3) The process extraction unit 30 extracts the process of the output element from the design document data based on the input / output element input from the input / output element extraction unit 20. The process extraction unit 30 outputs the extracted output element processing and the input / output element and design document data input from the input / output element extraction unit 20 to the decision table creation unit 40.
(Step S4) The decision table creation unit 40 determines the conditions of the input elements, and uses the information stored in the database 50 to determine the conditions of the determined input elements, the input / output elements input from the processing extraction unit 30, Create a decision table based on the output element processing.

(Step S5) The decision table creation unit 40 performs error determination processing using the created decision table to create a determination result table, and extracts an NG (error) number based on the created determination result table.
(Step S6) The score calculation unit 60 calculates a score using Expression (1) based on the number of errors extracted in Step S5. Next, the output unit 70 displays the calculated score on the display unit.
This completes the design quality evaluation process for the design document.

  As described above, the development support apparatus 1 according to the present embodiment creates a decision table that associates a combination of input element conditions included in a design document with an output element process corresponding to the combination of conditions. A table creation unit 40 and a score calculation unit 60 that calculates a score indicating the quality of the design document based on the decision table created by the decision table creation unit 40 are provided.

With this configuration, the development support apparatus 1 of the present embodiment can represent the design quality of the design document as a score. As a result, the creator or third party of the design document can grasp the design quality of the created design document based on the score.
In particular, a third party who is not an expert can easily understand the design quality of the design document by being presented as a score.

  In this embodiment, the example in which the calculated score is displayed on the output unit 70 has been described, but the present invention is not limited to this. The output unit 70 may also display the result confirmed by the decision table creation unit 40. For example, when the decision table shown in FIG. 7 is obtained, the output unit 70 displays a display such as “the number of completeness NG; four, the number of accuracy NG; one, the score; 83.33 points”. You may make it perform. Further, for example, the output unit 70 may display the table shown in FIG. 8 on the display unit as a result of the design quality evaluation, or print it on paper.

  Further, the database 50 may store the score when the design quality of the design document has been evaluated in the past, the number of NGs, the man-hours required for the design document modification or design change, and the like. In this case, the score calculation unit 60 may search the database for a result of evaluating past design quality equivalent to the calculated score, and output the searched result to the output unit 70 as reference data. Thereby, the creator or third party of the design document can grasp not only the displayed score but also how much man-hours are required for correction or the like. As a result, according to the present embodiment, further improvement in design quality can be supported.

  In the present embodiment, the example in which the decision table creation unit 40 analyzes the design document and extracts the input element and the output element has been described. However, the present invention is not limited to this. For example, you may make it describe in an input element and an output element in a design document.

[Second Embodiment]
In the first embodiment, an example has been described in which the development support apparatus 1 creates a decision table for a design document and calculates a score using the created decision table. In the present embodiment, an example will be described in which the score is calculated by performing weighting according to the NG element in calculating the score.

FIG. 11 is a schematic configuration diagram of a development support apparatus 1A according to the present embodiment.
As shown in FIG. 11, the development support apparatus 1A includes an input unit 10, an input / output element extraction unit (decision table creation unit) 20, a process extraction unit (decision table creation unit) 30, a decision table creation unit 40, a database 50A, A score calculation unit 60A and an output unit 70 are provided. In addition, about the function part which has the same function as the development assistance apparatus 1 in 1st Embodiment, description is abbreviate | omitted using the same code | symbol.

  The database 50A stores in advance a language model for detecting input elements, output elements and the like from a design document, information necessary for dependency analysis, and the like. In the database 50A, at least a reference point is associated with each importance and stored in advance. The reference point is a weighted score corresponding to the importance. For example, the reference point is a score between 0 and 1, and the smaller the value, the higher the importance, and the larger the value, the lower the importance. Further, the smaller the reference point value, the smaller the calculated score value. In other words, the higher the importance, the greater the number of points deducted from one point.

  FIG. 12 is a diagram for explaining an example of importance according to the present embodiment. The example shown in FIG. 12 is an example when there are three types of importance. As shown in FIG. 12, the three types of importance are importance S, A, and B. The importance A indicates that the influence on the subsequent process is certain, the correction time is immediate, and the reference point is 0.7. The importance B represents that the influence on the subsequent process is sufficiently concerned, the correction time is before mounting, and the reference point is 0.8. The importance C indicates that the influence on the post-process is somewhat concerned, the correction time is before the test, and the reference point is 0.95. The score calculation unit 60A determines, for example, the importance S as a part that is not covered when the process for the rule that is determined to be a normal processing system from the input element and the output element is not covered in the decision table. Here, the normal processing system is, for example, processing that is not error processing. Further, the score calculation unit 60A determines, for example, the importance A as a location where consistency is not obtained in the decision table.

  Thus, the higher the importance, that is, the more serious the error, the smaller the reference point is set. A reference point close to 1 is set for a minor error. Note that the reference points shown in FIG. 12 are examples, and other values may be used. For example, the reference point for importance S may be 0.8, the reference point for importance A may be 0.9, and the reference point for importance B may be 0.95. The reference point for each importance may be used for each evaluation of the design document based on, for example, a design document created in the past and based on the correction man-hour caused by the error item.

In this embodiment, the reference point is set in advance according to the importance as described above. The reference point is set in advance based on, for example, the influence on the post-process, the correction time, the man-hour expected to be corrected, and the like. Also, the importance classification is set in advance based on the influence on the post-process, the correction time, the man-hour expected to be corrected, and the like.
In addition, although the example with three types of importance was demonstrated in FIG. 12, the importance may be two or more types, may be three or more types, and may be different reference points according to the importance. .

Returning to FIG. 11, the description of the development support apparatus 1A will be continued.
The score calculation unit 60A determines the importance of NG based on the determination result table for the NG items in the determination result table created by the decision table creation unit 40, using the information on the weight condition stored in the database 50A. . Here, the weight condition is a condition for determining what kind of error is the importance S, A, B. Further, a reference point is set in advance for the weight condition.

  In the present embodiment, the score is defined as the following formula (2).

In Expression (2), n is an integer of 0 or more, and is the number of errors according to importance. Further, i is the importance S, A, B, etc. as shown in FIG. As shown in Expression (2), the score in the present embodiment is a score between 0 and 100, as in the first embodiment. 0 points represent the lowest evaluation, and 100 points represent the highest evaluation.
For example, in the case of the importance S to the importance B shown in FIG. 12, the score is the following expression (3).

  In addition, in Formula (2) and Formula (3), although the example which multiplies the reference point of each importance by the number of the importance was demonstrated, it is not restricted to this. The score calculation unit 60A calculates the score by weighting, for example, 1 when the error of the importance level S is not detected and 0.7 when the error of the importance level S is detected. May be.

For example, when there are five types of importance (S, A, B, C, D), ^{the number} of reference points (0.97) ^{C of} importance ^C and the importance D Reference point (0.99) The score is calculated by multiplying by ^{the number of D's} . The importance C has, for example, little influence on the subsequent process, the correction time is before delivery, and the reference point is 0.97. The importance D has, for example, almost no influence on the subsequent process, the correction time is arbitrary, and the reference point is 0.99.

  According to the calculation of the score shown in Expression (2), for example, if there is one error item of importance S, the score is always 70 points or less. Similarly, if there is one error item of importance A, the score is always 80 points or less. Further, when the design documents of a plurality of projects are evaluated according to the present embodiment, in the case of the number of error items with the same importance, the score is the same regardless of the size of the project. Thus, by using this embodiment, a third party can also evaluate a plurality of project design documents side by side.

FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating score calculation according to the present embodiment. The decision result table shown in FIG. 13 is created by the decision table creation unit 40 based on the decision result obtained by performing the error decision process on the decision table of FIG.
Since the processing for the normal processing system is not covered from the input element or the output element, the score calculation unit 60A determines the four NG locations 211 of FIG. 13 as the importance S, and sets the number of S Determined as one. Further, the score calculation unit 60A determines that the NG of the reference numeral 212 is the importance A because the consistency is not achieved, and determines the number of A as one. Next, as shown in FIG. 13, the score calculation unit 60A calculates the score as 56.00 points (= (0.7 ¹ × 0.8 ¹ × 0.95 ⁰ ) × 100) according to the equation (2). To do.

  Further, in the present embodiment, the score calculation unit 60A may determine the importance for each NG cell in the determination result table, or for a predetermined group of NG in the determination result table as shown in FIG. One importance may be determined. Whether the importance level is determined for each cell or cluster may be determined in advance based on, for example, the number of terms for correction of error items. That is, in this embodiment, a reference point that is weighted in advance is set according to the weighting condition. Here, the weight condition is a set of error items of the same type among the rules, the cells of the decision table or the determination result table, the input elements, and the output elements. These weighting conditions may be stored in advance in the database 50A. Further, the score calculation unit 60A may determine in advance based on design document data and error items evaluated in the past stored in the database 50A.

FIG. 14 is a flowchart of the processing procedure of design quality evaluation for the design document according to this embodiment. In addition, the same code | symbol is used about the same process as the flowchart shown in FIG. 10 of 1st Embodiment.
(Steps S1 to S5) Processing is performed in the same manner as steps S1 to S5 in FIG.
(Step S101) The score calculation unit 60A determines the importance of each of the error items extracted in Step S5 using information stored in the database 50A.
(Step S102) The score calculation unit 60A calculates a score using Expression (2) based on the importance of the error item determined in Step S101. Next, the output unit 70 displays the calculated score on the display unit.
This completes the design quality evaluation process for the design document.

  FIG. 15 is a diagram for explaining an example of the relationship between the number and score for each importance according to the present embodiment. The example shown in FIG. 15 is the case where there are five types of importance (SD), the reference point of importance S is 0.7, the reference point of importance A is 0.8, and importance B is The reference point is 0.95, the importance C reference point is 0.97, and the importance D reference point is 0.99. In FIG. 15, the horizontal axis represents the number of errors, and the vertical axis represents the score. Further, in FIG. 15, a curve 301 is a case where the error is only the importance S, a curve 302 is a case where the error is only the importance A, and a curve 303 is a case where the error is only the importance B. . A curve 304 is a case where the error is only the importance degree C, and a curve 305 is a case where the error is the importance degree D only.

  As shown in FIG. 15, when the type of NG (error) is importance S, the score is always 70 or less if there is even one NG (error). Similarly, when there is at least one NG (error) of importance A, the score is always 80 points or less. Then, as shown in FIG. 15, the way in which the score decreases differs depending on the number of errors. For example, even if there are two errors, if there are two errors of importance S, the score is 50 points or less, whereas if there are two errors of importance C, the score is about 90 points. It is.

As described above, in the present embodiment, even if the design document is the same, a lower score is calculated because there is NG with respect to the importance S as compared with the score of the first embodiment. For this reason, the calculated score is displayed by the output unit 70, so that the creator of the design document or a third party can determine the design quality of the created design document from the score.
Furthermore, the designer or third party of the design document obtains the man-hours required for the past correction of the same score based on the score expressed in this way, so that it can appropriately determine how much man-hours are required for the correction. Can be determined.

  FIG. 16 is a diagram illustrating an example of the score calculated according to the first embodiment and the score calculated according to the second embodiment. In FIG. 16, the horizontal axis is the name of the process, the left vertical axis is the number of errors, and the right vertical axis is the score. The process is one group in the design document, for example, the process shown in FIGS. Further, the example shown in FIG. 16 is an example using five types of importance and reference points, as in FIG. In FIG. 16, a line 311 is a score calculated by the expression (1) of the first embodiment, and a line 312 is a score calculated by the expression (2) of the second embodiment.

  As shown in FIG. 16, for example, for process 1, there are 6 errors of importance C, the score calculated by the first embodiment is about 98 points, and the score calculated by the second embodiment is about 88 points. It represents something. For process 2, there is one error of importance S, one error of importance C, the score calculated by the first embodiment is about 95 points, and the score calculated by the second embodiment is about This represents 68 points. As described above, in a process having an error of importance S, such as a region surrounded by a square 313, the score according to the second embodiment is lower than the score according to the first embodiment.

  Then, as shown in FIG. 16, by expressing the plurality of processes in a graph or the like, it is further determined to the creator of the design document or a third party which process has higher design quality and which process has higher design quality. On the other hand, it can be presented in a form that is easy to grasp. For this reason, the score calculation unit 60A may output the scores calculated for each of the plurality of processes to the output unit 70 in the form of a graph as shown in FIG. Then, the output unit 70 may display the input graph image on the display unit.

In the example illustrated in FIG. 16, the processes 1 to 10 may be processes in one product or may be processes in different products. For example, the process 1 may be a first product process design document, the process 2 may be a second product process design document,..., And the process 10 may be a tenth product process design document. In this way, by illustrating the scores for the design documents of different products as shown in FIG. 16, a third party can easily grasp the design quality of the design documents for each project in the company, for example.
For example, when FIG. 16 shows each design document related to process 1 to process 10 in one product, based on the evaluation result, the third party can create a design document for process 2, process 4, process 5, and process 8. Know that the error needs to be corrected first. In this way, by using the evaluation result of the present embodiment, the third party can know which process should be started, and to what extent the design document is modified to what extent the product to be developed is desired. You can also see if you can make it quality.

Further, the database 50A may store the score when the design quality of the design document is evaluated in the past, the number of NGs, and the man-hours required for the design document modification or design change, in association with each other. . In this case, the score calculation unit 60A may search the database for a result of evaluating past design quality equivalent to the calculated score, and output the searched result to the output unit 70 as reference data. Further, a threshold value may be set in advance for the score, and the output unit 70 may display the rank for the evaluated design document based on the calculated score. For example, the score is 90 to 100 points for the first rank, 80 to 89 points for the second rank, 70 to 79 points for the third rank, and the like. Such a rank may be set based on, for example, a score for a past design document and a man-hour required for correction or the like.
Thereby, the creator or third party of the design document can grasp not only the displayed score but also how much man-hours are required for correction or the like. As a result, according to the present embodiment, further improvement in design quality can be supported.

  In the present embodiment, the example in which the calculated score is displayed on the output unit 70 has been described. However, the present invention is not limited to this. The output unit 70 may also display the result confirmed by the score calculation unit 60A. For example, the output unit 70 may display “number of NG of importance S; 1; number of NG of importance A; 1; number of NG of importance B; 0, score; 56.00 points”, etc. Display may be performed.

In the present embodiment, an example in which the processing of the output element is NG has been described. However, even when the input element is NG, the score may be calculated similarly.
FIG. 17 is a diagram illustrating an example of a decision table when input elements according to the present embodiment are not covered. Each item in the decision table of FIG. 17 is the same as that of the decision table of FIG. In the example shown in FIG. 17, the area input element surrounded by the dotted square 401 of the rule “1” cannot be extracted from the design document, but the message and transition destination screen that are output elements can be extracted from the design document. Represents. It is presumed that the input items in the area enclosed by the dotted square 401 are elements that must be described in the design document. In such a case, for example, in the table shown in FIG. 13, the decision table creation unit 40 determines “NG” for the first to third input elements of the rule “1”.

  Alternatively, the decision table creation unit 40 extracts all output elements from the design document, and determines whether or not input elements corresponding to the extracted output elements are covered. When the decision table creation unit 40 determines that there is a rule that cannot be extracted from the design document for the input element rule for the output element, the rule for the output element is not described in the design document. NG "may be determined.

Alternatively, a decision table created based on a design document with no error created in the past may be stored in the database 50A in advance.
In this case, the decision table creation unit 40 may detect that the input elements are not covered by comparing with the decision table stored in the database 50A. In this way, by comparing with the decision table stored in the database 50A, it is possible to detect an error even when neither an input element nor an output element is described in the design document.
Then, the score calculation unit 60A calculates a score based on the result created and determined by the decision table creation unit 40.
Note that such confirmation for input elements may also be performed in the first embodiment.

  As described above, according to the present embodiment, the third party can know the design quality of the design document by the score. Since the score according to the present embodiment is weighted according to an error as compared with the first embodiment, when the third party looks at the score, the design quality of the design document can be more easily grasped. Further, according to the present embodiment, since the importance is determined for the item determined to be an error, by presenting the determined importance together with the detected error item, a third party can It becomes easy to grasp which error item is a problem. Further, according to the present embodiment, for example, as shown in FIG. 16, by presenting the score of other projects and past design documents and the type and number of importance of error items together, the third The person can evaluate the design quality of the design document side by side.

  In the present embodiment, the score calculation unit 60A may calculate the average score of the scores stored in the database 50A, and output the calculated average score to the output unit 70 together. Thereby, in this embodiment, it becomes easier for the third party to grasp the design quality of the design document by comparing the presented score with the average score. Further, the output unit 70 may display the score of another project stored in the database 50A or a predetermined target point on the display unit. Thereby, the third party can also know the target point for the score, and can know whether or not the target point has been cleared.

  In the present embodiment, the score calculation unit 60A may calculate a score for each error of completeness, accuracy, and understandability. In this case, the target value may be set separately as follows. For example, for completeness, it is essential that there is no omission in the behavior, and correction is necessary if there is omission regardless of the importance. For this reason, the target value for the error of completeness may be set to 100 points. As for accuracy and ease of understanding, it is desirable that there are no errors with respect to the importance S and the importance A, and there are few errors with the importance B. For this reason, the target value for errors in accuracy and ease of understanding may be set to 80 points.

  In the first and second embodiments, the example in which the design quality is evaluated and the score is calculated for the design document has been described. However, the present invention is not limited to this. The development support apparatus 1 (or 1A) may similarly create a decision table for other design documents such as a process design document, and calculate a score using the created decision table.

  In the first and second embodiments, the 100-point method example in which the score is indicated by a score between 0 points and 100 points has been described. However, the present invention is not limited to this. The score may be, for example, a 10-point method indicated by a score between 0 and 10 points, or a 20-point method indicated by a score between 0 and 20 points. For example, when the 10-point method is used, the score calculation unit 60 may calculate by using 10 instead of the value 100 multiplied by the equation (1). Similarly, the score calculation unit 60A may calculate by using 10 instead of the value 100 multiplied by the expression (2).

In addition, you may make it implement | achieve a part of development assistance apparatuses 1 and 1A of FIG. 1 and FIG. 11 in embodiment mentioned above with a computer. In that case, the program for realizing the control function may be recorded on a computer-readable recording medium, and the program recorded on the recording medium may be read by a computer system and executed. The “computer system” here is a computer system built in the development support apparatuses 1 and 1A and includes hardware such as an OS and peripheral devices. The “computer-readable recording medium” refers to a storage device such as a flexible medium, a magneto-optical disk, a portable medium such as a ROM and a CD-ROM, and a hard disk incorporated in a computer system. Furthermore, the “computer-readable recording medium” is a medium that dynamically holds a program for a short time, such as a communication line when transmitting a program via a network such as the Internet or a communication line such as a telephone line, In such a case, a volatile memory inside a computer system serving as a server or a client may be included and a program that holds a program for a certain period of time. The program may be a program for realizing a part of the functions described above, and may be a program capable of realizing the functions described above in combination with a program already recorded in a computer system.
Further, a part or all of the development support apparatuses 1 and 1A in the above-described embodiment may be realized as an integrated circuit such as an LSI (Large Scale Integration). Each functional block of the development support apparatuses 1 and 1A may be individually made into a processor, or a part or all of them may be integrated into a processor. Further, the method of circuit integration is not limited to LSI, and may be realized by a dedicated circuit or a general-purpose processor. Further, in the case where an integrated circuit technology that replaces LSI appears due to progress in semiconductor technology, an integrated circuit based on the technology may be used.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1, 1A ... Development support apparatus, 10 ... Input part, 20 ... Input / output element extraction part, 30 ... Process extraction part, 40 ... Decision table creation part, 50, 50A ... Database, 60, 60A ... Score calculation part, 70 ... Output section

Claims (8)

A decision table creation unit that creates a decision table that associates a combination of input element conditions included in the design document with an output element process corresponding to the combination of the conditions;
Based on the decision table created by the decision table creation unit, a score calculation unit that calculates a score indicating the quality of the design document;
A development support apparatus comprising: The score calculation unit
An error determination process for determining the presence or absence of an error based on a preset error condition for the combination of the conditions included in the decision table created by the decision table creation unit and the process according to the combination of the conditions. The development support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the score is calculated in accordance with the determination result. The score calculation unit
The development support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a score for the design document is calculated based on a reference point indicating importance according to the error. The score calculation unit
The development according to claim 2, wherein the score is calculated based on a ratio between all the determination numbers in the error determination process and the number of errors determined to have an error in the error determination process. Support device. A first reference point is set for the first importance level, and a second importance level lower than the first importance level is set to a second importance level greater than the first reference point. The development support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a reference point is set. The score calculation unit
A first multiplication value obtained by multiplying the first reference point by the number of errors corresponding to the first importance degree is multiplied by a second multiplication value obtained by multiplying the second reference point by the number of errors corresponding to the second importance degree. The development support apparatus according to claim 5, wherein a score for the design document is calculated by multiplying a multiplication value. A development support method in a development support device,
A decision table creation procedure for creating a decision table that associates a combination of input element conditions included in the design document with an output element process corresponding to the combination of the conditions;
A score calculation unit that calculates a score indicating the quality of the design document based on the decision table created by the decision table creation procedure;
A development support method characterized by including: In the computer of the development support device,
A decision table creation procedure for creating a decision table that associates a combination of input element conditions included in the design document with an output element process corresponding to the combination of the conditions;
A score calculation procedure for calculating a score indicating the quality of the design document based on the decision table created by the decision table creation procedure;
Development support program that runs

Images