Usability Evaluation of Requirement Collaboration Features in

Requirements Management Tools

Oana Rotaru

1, 2 a

, Silviu Vert

1 b

and Radu Vasiu

1 c

Communications Department, Politehnica University of Timis¸ oara, Timis¸oara, Romania

Continental Autonomous Mobility, Timis¸oara, Romania

Keywords:

Requirements Management Tool (RM Tool), Requirements Engineering, DOORS NG (DOORS next

Generation), Usability, Evaluation, User Testing, Focus Group, SUS.

Abstract:

In the automotive industry, system requirements, derived from environmental contexts and project goals,

evolve from abstract concepts to detailed speciﬁcations and of course, increase in complexity. This complex-

ity continues into the project’s design, implementation, and integration stages, highlighting the importance

of robust, tool-supported Requirements Management (RM). The Requirements Management tools(RMT) are

characterized by speciﬁc features meant to facilitate the processes, which also lead to complex user interfaces

used by requirements engineers and managers, developers, testers. This paper presents the usability evaluation

results of the collaboration features of a Requirements Management Tool, DOORS Next Generation (DNG),

recently introduced in an automotive company department.

1 INTRODUCTION

The automotive industry is at the forefront of tech-

nological advancement and innovation in its pursuit

of autonomous vehicles (Botezatu et al., 2024). This

evolution exponentially increases the complexity of

systems and technologies, necessitating exact stan-

dards for safety, performance, and quality. In the

dynamic environment of Advanced Driver Assistance

Systems (ADAS), precisely writing, managing, and

modifying requirements is a crucial process, though

it can sometimes become quite challenging (

Agren

et al., 2019; Nidamanuri et al., 2021).

Throughout all stages of the ADAS process, from

inception to integration, requirements management

(RM) plays a vital role in navigating task complex-

ity. In this context, RM tools are indispensable for

supporting these processes, see Figure 1. As a sum-

marization, the features required for a RM tool must

support requirements activities like: elicitation, anal-

ysis of requirements, speciﬁcation, modelling, veriﬁ-

cation and validation, traceability, collaboration and

global software development (Carrillo et al., 2015;

Heyn et al., 2021).

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0550-6871

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2394-4859

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1185-1997

Figure 1: RM process cycle (Holder et al., 2017).

In terms of Requirements Management Tools

(RMT) used in the industry, one of the most common

is DOORS Next Generation (DNG), which runs on

the IBM Rational Jazz platform. The tool includes a

server application and a web client, together enabling

the deﬁnition, management, and reporting of require-

ments (IBM Documentation, 2022).

Usability also plays a crucial role when it comes

to RMT and the multitude of complex activities spec-

iﬁed and performed using them. The main users are

requirement engineers and managers, but also devel-

opers, project managers and validation engineers. In

this case, a user friendly interface not only enhances

the efﬁciency, but also ensures a more accurate use

of the tools in the automotive industry (K

orber et al.,

2013; Rotaru et al., 2024).

Rotaru, O., Vert, S. and Vasiu, R.

Usability Evaluation of Requirement Collaboration Features in Requirements Management Tools.

DOI: 10.5220/0013281800003929

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterpr ise Information Systems (ICEIS 2025) - Volume 2, pages 201-208

ISBN: 978-989-758-749-8; ISSN: 2184-4992

201

In the ﬁeld of RM, signiﬁcant efforts have been

made to establish a systematic and adaptable frame-

work. (Hoffmann et al., 2004) provides a compre-

hensive catalog of requirements for RMTs, categoriz-

ing key features relevant to the automotive, aerospace,

and defense industries. The purpose of the study is

to assist users in comparing and selecting the appro-

priate RMT based on their needs and to guide tool

providers in future development. The collaboration

features highlighted in this paper are also discussed

in the following chapter of the current paper.

A notable and related study in the area of trace-

ability tool usability focuses on the Capra tool (Swart,

2016), which enables the creation of trace links be-

tween multiple artifacts. (Skytt and Nersing, 2017)

evaluates the usability of the traceability management

tool through remote user testing. One of the study’s

goals was to categorize the usability issues identiﬁed

to suggest improvements for the tool’s development.

The authors identiﬁed 16 usability issues, with only

50% of participants successfully completing the tasks

during the user testing session.

This study aims to present an evaluation of the us-

ability of DNG with the objective of identifying po-

tential usability issues. The evaluation emphasizes the

tool’s collaboration features, with participants drawn

from employees of an automotive company.

One contribution our study aims to provide is the

optimized use of DNG. By evaluating the tool’s col-

laboration features, the study can guide businesses

and requirements teams in maximizing the tool’s ef-

fectiveness, potentially uncovering hidden features or

best practices that enhance efﬁciency.

Additionally, our study seeks to support the devel-

opment of targeted training materials or onboarding

processes within companies, ensuring that new users

can quickly learn and leverage the tool’s full capabil-

ities.

2 THEORETICAL CONCEPTS

2.1 Collaboration Features of RM Tools

Requirements Engineering and Management is not

only the process of identifying and describing require-

ments, but also a process of supporting an efﬁcient

communication of the requirements among different

stakeholders (Chazette et al., 2022).

When the complexity of a project grows and the

requirements become more sophisticated, the RM ac-

tivities must be accompanied by a systematic tool

capable to support them (Hoffmann et al., 2004).

Some of the basic tasks performed by the users of

a RMT include creating and editing artifacts, import-

ing/exporting artifacts, maintaining of traceability, re-

view of requirements and generating reports (Hoff-

mann et al., 2004).

According to (De Gea et al., 2012) to streamline

the entire requirements process, the RMT are ﬁtted

with various features that can be classiﬁed in the fol-

lowing categories:

• Requirements Traceability feature – creation and

management of traceability links;

• Reporting and Visualization – capability to cus-

tomize reporting templates, creating of dash-

boards, visual representations of requirement re-

lationship and dependencies;

• Customization and Conﬁguration – customization

and conﬁgurations options, personal dashboards

of views;

• Integration with External tools – integration capa-

bilities with other development or testing tools;

• User Interface Design – intuitiveness of naviga-

tion, clarity of presented information;

• Mobile and Remote access – use of the tool re-

motely or on mobile devices and of course;

• Collaboration and Communication feature – real-

time collaboration, commenting and feedback

mechanisms, version control, notiﬁcation systems

Examples of collaboration features refer to: real-

time editing (multiple users editing the same artifacts

simultaneously), commenting/discussion forums, no-

tiﬁcation systems, user mentions and tagging, task as-

signment and tracking, version control /comparison,

workﬂows and approval process collaboration during

reviews, history of artifacts (Lang and Duggan, 2001).

Particularly on DNG, the tool offers: real-time

editing, commenting, tagging and mentioning other

users, task assignment and tracking, version control,

and history tracking for artifacts. It also integrates a

notiﬁcation system (IBM Documentation, 2023).

2.2 Usability

Usability measures how easily one product is used, in

a speciﬁc context by a speciﬁc user belonging from a

target user group. The aim of a usability evaluation is

to observe how easily a product is used based on these

conditions, in order to accomplish a speciﬁc goal in an

efﬁcient way (The Interaction Design Foundation, ).

The evaluation methods are various and, for our

study, the methods employed were User Testing with

Think-Aloud Protocol, Focus Group and the System

Usability Scale Questionnaire (SUS) questionnaire

(Brooke et al., 1996).

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

202

According to (Bastien, 2010), one of the most

used methods is the User Testing, which involves

real users testing the product, with tasks performed

in multiple scenarios and recorded for a later analy-

sis. During the evaluation, metrics like task comple-

tion time, completion rate and error types are docu-

mented. The evaluation usually takes place in a spe-

cialized laboratory, equipped with recording devices

and the session involves observers, a facilitator, and a

moderator.

Another technique used in the usability evaluation

is the Think-Aloud Protocol, which encourages par-

ticipants to verbalize their thoughts while performing

the given tasks, during the user testing session. Also

during this time, the researchers document the verbal-

ized thoughts for afterwards analysis (Bastien, 2010).

Focus group is an additional method used for

usability evaluation, which was also applied in our

study. It has been demonstrated as an effective strat-

egy for gathering individuals with the same back-

grounds or experiences to discuss a speciﬁc topic.

The moderator leads the group of participants, in-

troducing subjects for conversation and encouraging

lively discussions among the group members (Mishra,

2016).

The System Usability Scale Questionnaire, knows

as SUS, is also an instrument used for usability eval-

uation and it is the most frequently used for usability

measurements. The survey consists of 10 statements

and the participants are asked to rate their perception

of agreement/disagreement on each one. Though SUS

is a standardized questionnaire, it offers ease of cus-

tomization to suit speciﬁc products under test like in

(Rotaru et al., 2020; Vert et al., 2021; Szekely et al.,

2023).

3 EVALUATION/RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

As mentioned before, the tool evaluated was DNG

7.0.2 (current version used by the company), a RMT

commonly used in automotive sector. Due to internal

conﬁdentiality reasons, a playground area was created

by the authors for the user testing session.

3.1 Participants

For the study, 10 participants were engaged. All the

participants were at the ﬁrst encounter with the DNG

tool, 5 of them having prior experience with a similar

tool used in the company.

The demographic proﬁle of the usability evalua-

tion participants is illustrated in Figure 2. The proﬁle

Figure 2: Participant Demographics and Experience.

is diverse and well-balanced across several criteria:

• Gender – the participants are equally divided be-

tween 5 females (F) and 5 males (M), forming a

gender balanced group.

• Age – The age distribution was spread across

three groups with 5 participants in the 18-26

range, two participants in the 26-35 range and

three participants in the 35-50 range. This mix

of ages represents a large spectrum of viewpoints

and potentially different levels of technological

familiarity or expectations.

• Profession/position in the company – The back-

ground of the participants varies, including ﬁve

interns, three requirements engineers (RE) or re-

quirements managers (RM) and two quality en-

gineers (QA). This diversity in roles ensures that

the evaluation includes perspectives from differ-

ent roles within the company.

• Prior experience in similar tools – Half of the

participants had experience with IBM Rational

DOORS (DOORS), a tool similar to the one being

evaluated. This experience may have an inﬂuence

on their expectations and their ability to navigate

the new tool.

• New in evaluated tool – All 10 participants were

at their ﬁrst encounter with DNG. This provides

a clean slate for assessing the usability of the tool

with no other prior biases.

We can conclude that the demographic proﬁle of-

fers a balanced and varied perspective that covers dif-

ferent genders, age groups, professional roles, and ex-

perience levels. This diversity is important in obtain-

Usability Evaluation of Requirement Collaboration Features in Requirements Management Tools

203

ing comprehensive results of the usability of the eval-

uated tool, DNG.

3.2 Procedure

The main usability evaluation method used in our

study was the User Testing (Rubin and Chisnell,

2011). It was organized remotely, via Microsoft

Teams, through separate sessions with every partici-

pant.

Figure 3: Participant during user testing session.

Figure 3 illustrates a typical user testing session,

with one of the participants performing tasks in DNG.

At the beginning, the participants ﬁlled out a sur-

vey with questions on details of their professional

experience with requirements management tools and

their interest of this kind of platforms. The partici-

pants with previous experience in similar tools were

asked about their favorite features and their expecta-

tions upon the interaction with DNG.

The participants were handed 4 tasks to perform

in DNG and the tasks were focused on the interaction

with the collaboration features. During the user test-

ing, the participants were encouraged to think aloud

while performing the tasks (McDonald et al., 2012).

The task were as following:

• Task 1: Finding comments column and adding a

comment;

• Task 2: Informing a speciﬁc user about changes

from a comment;

• Task 3: Finding and comparing the last two base-

lines;

• Task 4: Viewing the history of a speciﬁc artifact;

The tasks which were handed to the participants

involved basic routine activities concerning collabo-

ration within RMT, like ﬁnding the comments column

and how to add a comment for an artifact, inform-

ing a certain user about the changes speciﬁed in one

comment, ﬁnding and comparing two baselines, and

tracking the history for one artifact.

While creating these tasks, the authors incorpo-

rated several key collaboration features essential for

an RMT. These included: the ability to comment; no-

tiﬁcation systems and user tagging capabilities; ver-

sion control; maintaining a history and audit trail.

Once the tasks were completed, we applied the fo-

cus group method with the participants. The objec-

tive was to obtain their feedback regarding their in-

teraction with the new tool’s collaborative features,

and to understand the anticipations formed prior to

the user testing session, particularly from participants

who had prior experience with DOORS.

In conclusion, after engaging the participants with

the focus group method during the usability evalua-

tion, they were requested to ﬁll out the SUS question-

naire, reﬂecting on their experience.

4 EVALUATION RESULTS

As previously mentioned, the authors gathered results

from the usability evaluation of DNG involving 10

participants, interacting for the ﬁrst time with the plat-

form, only half of them having prior experience with

another similar tool.

4.1 User Testing Results

One of the main usability issues found by the partici-

pants during the user testing sessions refers to the ac-

tion of ﬁnding where the baselines of the document

can be found and compare the last two baselines –

this was the third task given. The participants were

asked to compare the last two baselines, but the task

was completed only by 30% of participants. When

it comes to RMT, baseline refers to the process of

deﬁning stable points in the life-cycle of a project and

practically a baseline can be considered a snapshot of

the project requirements at a particular point in time

(Jama Software, 2022). It is an important collabora-

tion feature of a RMT, for providing clear deliverable

tracking and, also, for progress measurements.

While performing this task, the participants ex-

pected to ﬁnd this functionality next to the table view

of the requirements and not as part of the general con-

ﬁguration tab.

Figure 4 illustrates the table view of the partici-

pants visible during the user testing session, with the

general conﬁguration tab in the upper right corner of

the screen.

Another possible usability issue found pertains

to the action of locating the comments column and

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

204

Figure 4: Starting view of participant during the evaluation.

adding a comment. Two participants expressed dis-

satisfaction with the low visibility of the icon, as they

were expecting to see the attribute name of the com-

ments, instead. We consider this a minor usability

issue of our study, as only a very small number of

participants voiced displeasure to it. In Figure 5 il-

lustrates the comments column through the icon men-

tioned before.

Figure 5: Comments column as part of the participants

view.

A possible minor usability challenge observed

during the user testing sessions is also regarding the

capability of informing speciﬁc users while creating

comments on artifacts – 30% participants didn’t com-

plete this task. However, the remaining 70% partic-

ipants voiced satisfaction with this feature, ﬁnding it

valuable during requirements reviews. In Figure 6,

there can be seen the section of comments creating

with the enabled button for selecting the needed users.

Another minor usability issue discovered during

the user testing session of DNG involves the action of

ﬁnding the history track for one artifact. Most users

successfully completed the task, only 30% of them

encountering difﬁculties. The remaining participants

expressed their satisfaction for completing this action

fast, only by right-clicking on the speciﬁc artifact and

opening the artifact.

During the user testing sessions, we identiﬁed sev-

eral appreciated aspects of the RMT. Notably, the par-

ticipants valued the ﬂexibility in performing certain

actions, such as three different ways to add comments

and multiple approaches to track the history of spe-

ciﬁc artifacts.

Figure 6: Comment creating section from DNG.

Another feature that gained approval by 70% par-

ticipants was the extensive range of actions accessible

through right-clicking on the artifacts. While some of

these actions were not speciﬁcally requested during

the evaluation, participants still observed and appre-

ciated them. These include capabilities like editing

attributes, creating different types of links, inserting

new artifacts, copying/removing artifacts and, obvi-

ously as they were requested in the tasks, adding com-

ments and tracking the history of an individual arti-

fact.

Table 1 provides a concentrated overview of the

average time spent on each task along with the corre-

sponding average completion rates. As it can be ob-

served, the results from the usability evaluation reveal

varying levels of efﬁciency and effectiveness on the

given tasks.

Table 1: Success overview per Task (N = 10).

Avg. Time

(min)

Avg.

Completion

Rate (%)

Task 1 0.7 90

Task 2 0.8 60

Task 3 1.8 47.5

Task 4 0.8 85

The ﬁrst task implying ﬁnding the comments col-

umn and adding one comment has a high completion

rate of 90% and the lowest average time taken, 0.7

minutes, indicating a good interaction and usability.

The second task related to informing a user about

the changes speciﬁed in the comment, however, has a

lower completion rate of 60% with an average time of

0.8 minutes, suggesting possible challenges for this

kind of action in DNG.

The third task – ﬁnding and comparing the last

two baselines – was the most time consuming, at 1.8

Usability Evaluation of Requirement Collaboration Features in Requirements Management Tools

205

minutes, with a completion rate of only 47.5%, high-

lighting signiﬁcant usability issues.

The last task – ﬁnding the history for a certain arti-

fact – showed a better performance with an 85% com-

pletion rate and an average time of 0.8 minutes.

4.2 Focus Group Results

After the user testing session, the group of partici-

pants was gathered and we applied the focus group

method.

The participants with prior experience in the sim-

ilar tool voiced their concerns about the stream-

ing/global conﬁguration features of the new tool used.

Speciﬁcally, the tasks of ﬁnding and comparing base-

lines involved accessing the conﬁguration tab, which

was totally unfamiliar to them. Unlike DNG, the pre-

viously used tool IBM Rational DOORS didn’t offer

the possibility to create baselines on any stream; the

baselines were created only on the requirements mod-

ules.

This part was also challenging for the participants

with no prior experience, who expected this action to

be more highly visible near the table view of the re-

quirements.

As also previously mentioned before, the partic-

ipants expressed their satisfaction on the multiple

ways to add comments or tracking the history of spe-

ciﬁc artifacts, even though these actions also gener-

ated confusion for two and three participants.

The ability to inform speciﬁc users about changes

made to requirements through the RMT was highly

appreciated by the participants. However, this action

proved to be more challenging for new users lack-

ing prior experience with similar tools. Those who

had experience with IBM Rational DOORS found this

function valuable and had no difﬁculty executing the

requested task, considering it highly visible and rec-

ognizing it as a useful collaboration feature for their

work activities.

To sum up, the participants generally regarded the

collaboration features of this RMT as user-friendly,

memorable for future interactions with the platform,

quite consistent and ﬂexible due to multiple ways of

performing some actions. These aspects of one RMT

enhance the requirements process and facilitates the

collaboration among the requirements project engi-

neers and managers.

4.3 SUS Score

After the user testing session, based on their ﬁrsthand

interaction on DNG, participants were asked to ﬁll out

a post-session questionnaire, the SUS questionnaire.

The survey consists of 10 statements and the partic-

ipants are required to rate their perception of agree-

ment or disagreement on each one. Half of the state-

ments are framed positively, half of them negatively

(Will, 2017).

The collaboration features of DNG obtained a

SUS score of 69.25 in this user testing session. In-

terpreting this score judging on SUS ratings (Will,

2017), it corresponds to a “B” grade and is catego-

rized as a “Good” evaluation.

In the context of usability evaluation for an RMT,

the focus was on testing collaboration features. This

resulted in a SUS score that indicates several aspects:

• User satisfaction.

• Effective collaboration features.

• User-friendly interface: the tool proved to be in-

tuitive for the users.

• Room for improvement: while “Good” reﬂects

positivity, there is still room for enhancement.

• Potential for long-term use: the tool is likely to be

used in future endeavors, from the collaboration

perspective.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In our study, the primary objective was to spotlight

the major usability problems arising from the use of

DNG, a RMT, recently introduced in an automotive

company department. The study was conducted with

10 participants, with diverse experience and expertise,

who actively took part in the user testing session, fol-

lowed by the focus group method and the completion

of a SUS questionnaire.

Our ﬁndings reveal the following usability issues:

• Version control and comparison: The most signif-

icant challenge encountered by the users was to

ﬁnd and compare the last two baselines of a re-

quirements module. This task, integral to the ver-

sion control and comparison collaboration feature

proved itself as the most time consuming and the

most daunting.

• Commenting and Visibility: A secondary mi-

nor usability challenge pertained to the comments

section’s visibility. However, the evaluation of the

commenting mechanism indicated effective us-

ability, as suggested by its high completion rate.

• Notiﬁcation & tagging, history: Both these two

are considered crucial collaboration features for

RMTs, as they can facilitate efﬁcient communi-

cation and streamline progress measurements of

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

206

requirements work. In this study, the actions of

user notiﬁcation and ﬁnding the history of an arti-

fact were executed quickly, but the history track-

ing proved to be more user-friendly, reﬂecting a

higher completion rate compared to the users in-

forming action.

Contrary to the identiﬁed usability issues, there

are many points from the usability evaluation which

indicate positive outcomes for the collaboration fea-

tures of DNG RMT. These can be summed up as:

• Multi-modal commenting abilities.

• Comprehensive artifact history.

• Efﬁcient user notiﬁcation and tagging mecha-

nisms.

• A user-centric interface design, which facilitates

ease of recall and navigation.

Among these, the SUS score of 69.25 indicates

a “Good” adjective rating, which can mean the over-

all satisfaction of the users during the interaction, but

also room for improvements.

Potential constraints of the study may arise from

the limited number of tasks assigned during the user

testing session. With only 4 tasks provided to the par-

ticipants, a more comprehensive understanding of us-

ability issues might have been achieved with an ex-

tended set of scenarios.

Another possible limitation of our study can be

caused by the assessment of only one RMT, DNG

- our ﬁndings might not be universally applicable to

other RMTs.

For future research in this ﬁeld, we aim to expand

this study to the remaining collaboration features like

real-time collaboration (when multiple users can view

and edit requirement simultaneously), ﬁle attachment

and sharing or approval workﬂows for the require-

ments reviews capabilities.

By evaluating the requirements collaboration fea-

tures of DNG, one purpose of the authors is to opti-

mize the use of the tool. Also, our study could guide

the software development teams/requirements teams

on how to best utilize the tool, potentially bringing to

the surface hidden features or best practices that can

improve efﬁciency of work. The study also might be

a starting point of evaluation criteria establishment in

the context of these platforms.

As we continue to explore the ﬁeld in future re-

search, we plan to extend the usability evaluation to

cover other speciﬁc features of Requirements Man-

agement Tools, features like Requirements Traceabil-

ity, Reporting and Visualization, Requirements Prior-

itization and Planning features, as well as evaluating

these features on other similar RMTs. This extended

study can lead to a deeper understanding of usability

challenges niched on RM speciﬁc features and will

provide valuable insights for the requirements man-

agement tools ﬁeld.Additionally, we aim to extend the

research to a larger participant pool, in order to obtain

more robust and comprehensive analysis in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks are addressed to all the participants

in the study, employees of Continental Autonomous

Mobility Timisoara, Romania, who contributed with

important insights during the study, through the user

testing and focus group sessions.

REFERENCES

Agren, S. M., Knauss, E., Heldal, R., Pelliccione, P.,

Malmqvist, G., and Bod

en, J. (2019). The impact

of requirements on systems development speed: a

multiple-case study in automotive. Requirements En-

gineering, 24:315–340.

Bastien, J. C. (2010). Usability testing: a review of

some methodological and technical aspects of the

method. International journal of medical informatics,

79(4):e18–e23.

Botezatu, A.-P., Burlacu, A., and Orhei, C. (2024). A review

of deep learning advancements in road analysis for au-

tonomous driving. Applied Sciences, 14(11):4705.

Brooke, J. et al. (1996). Sus-a quick and dirty usability

scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194):4–7.

Carrillo, d. G. J. M., Nicol

as, J., Fern

andez, A. J. L., Toval,

A., Ebert, C., and Vizca

ıno, A. (2015). Commonali-

ties and differences between requirements engineering

tools: A quantitative approach. Computer Science and

Information Systems, 12(1):257–288.

Chazette, L., Brunotte, W., and Speith, T. (2022). Ex-

plainable software systems: from requirements anal-

ysis to system evaluation. Requirements Engineering,

27(4):457–487.

De Gea, J. M. C., Nicol

as, J., Alem

an, J. L. F., Toval, A.,

Ebert, C., and Vizca

ıno, A. (2012). Requirements en-

gineering tools: Capabilities, survey and assessment.

Information and Software Technology, 54(10):1142–

1157.

Heyn, H.-M., Knauss, E., Muhammad, A. P., Eriksson, O.,

Linder, J., Subbiah, P., Pradhan, S. K., and Tungal,

S. (2021). Requirement engineering challenges for

ai-intense systems development. In 2021 IEEE/ACM

1st Workshop on AI Engineering-Software Engineer-

ing for AI (WAIN), pages 89–96. IEEE.

Hoffmann, M., Kuhn, N., Weber, M., and Bittner, M.

(2004). Requirements for requirements manage-

ment tools. In Proceedings. 12th IEEE International

Requirements Engineering Conference, 2004., pages

301–308. IEEE.

Usability Evaluation of Requirement Collaboration Features in Requirements Management Tools

207

Holder, K., Zech, A., Ramsaier, M., Stetter, R., Nieder-

meier, H.-P., Rudolph, S., and Till, M. (2017). Model-

based requirements management in gear systems de-

sign based on graph-based design languages. Applied

Sciences, 7(11):1112.

IBM Documentation (2022). Ibm documentation.

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/engineering-

lifecycle-management-suite/lifecycle-

management/7.0.0?topic=next-comparison-doors-

doors. (accessed Jun. 21, 2023).

IBM Documentation (2023). Ibm documentation.

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/engineering-lifecycle-

management-suite/doors/9.7.2?topic=access-

viewing-adding-comments-discussions. (accessed

Jun. 21, 2023).

Jama Software (2022). Deﬁning and implement-

ing a requirements baseline. https://www.

jamasoftware.com/requirements-management-guide/

requirements-gathering-and-management-processes/

deﬁning-and-implementing-requirements-baselines.

(accessed Aug. 03, 2023).

orber, M., Eichinger, A., Bengler, K., and Olaverri-

Monreal, C. (2013). User experience evaluation in an

automotive context. In 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles

Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops), pages 13–18.

IEEE.

Lang, M. and Duggan, J. (2001). A tool to support collab-

orative software requirements management. Require-

ments Engineering, 6:161–172.

McDonald, S., Edwards, H. M., and Zhao, T. (2012). Ex-

ploring think-alouds in usability testing: An inter-

national survey. IEEE Transactions on Professional

Communication, 55(1):2–19.

Mishra, L. (2016). Focus group discussion in qualitative

research. TechnoLearn: An International Journal of

Educational Technology, 6(1):1–5.

Nidamanuri, J., Nibhanupudi, C., Assfalg, R., and

Venkataraman, H. (2021). A progressive review:

Emerging technologies for adas driven solutions.

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 7(2):326–

341.

Rotaru, O., Vert, S., and Vasiu, R. (2024). Switching

from doors to doors next generation. identifying the

main usability issues. a case study. In International

Congress on Information and Communication Tech-

nology, pages 261–276. Springer.

Rotaru, O. A., Vert, S., Vasiu, R., and Andone, D. (2020).

Standardised questionnaires in usability evaluation.

applying standardised usability questionnaires in dig-

ital products evaluation. In International Conference

on Information and Software Technologies, pages 39–

48. Springer.

Rubin, J. and Chisnell, D. (2011). Handbook of usability

testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective

tests. John Wiley & Sons.

Skytt, P. and Nersing, T. (2017). Usability study of a trace-

ability management tool. Master’s thesis, University

of Gothenburg.

Swart, S. (2016). Eclipse capra. https://projects.eclipse.

org/projects/modeling.capra. projects.eclipse.org (ac-

cessed Sep. 01, 2023).

Szekely, D., Vert, S., Rotaru, O., and Andone, D. (2023).

Usability evaluation with eye tracking: The case of

a mobile augmented reality application with histor-

ical images for urban cultural heritage. Heritage,

6(3):3256–3270.

The Interaction Design Foundation. What

is usability? https://www.interaction-

design.org/literature/topics/usability. (accessed

Jun. 26, 2023).

Vert, S., Andone, D., Ternauciuc, A., Mihaescu, V., Ro-

taru, O., Mocofan, M., Orhei, C., and Vasiu, R.

(2021). User evaluation of a multi-platform digital

storytelling concept for cultural heritage. Mathemat-

ics, 9(21):2678.

Will, T. (2017). Measuring and interpreting sys-

tem usability scale (sus). https://uiuxtrend.com/

measuring-system-usability-scale-sus/. UIUX Trend

(accessed Jul. 07, 2023).

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

208