Next Article in Journal
Experimental and Computational Study of Rotational Lift Production of Insect Flapping Wing
Previous Article in Journal
Establishment of Vasculature in Hyper-Crosslinked Carbohydrate Polymer as Scaffolding for Tissue Engineering and Regeneration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cyber–Physical Systems in Healthcare Based on Medical and Social Research Reflected in AI-Based Digital Twins of Patients
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Hybrid Usability Evaluation of an Automotive REM Tool: Human and LLM-Based Heuristic Assessment of IBM Doors Next

1
Department of Communications, Politehnica University of Timișoara, 300006 Timișoara, Romania
2
AUMOVIO Timisoara, 300704 Timișoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2026, 16(2), 723; https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020723 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 2 December 2025 / Revised: 4 January 2026 / Accepted: 7 January 2026 / Published: 9 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Enhancing User Experience in Automation and Control Systems)

Abstract

Requirements Engineering and Management (REM) tools play a significant role in ensuring project compliance and efficiency. Automotive engineering must comply with regulatory standards, requiring detailed documentation, rigorous testing, and solid traceability. Despite their importance, REM tools are underexplored from the usability and user experience perspective (UX), even though poor usability can hinder development workflows across stakeholder teams. This study presents a case study of heuristic usability evaluation of IBM DOORS Next Generation, conducted with expert evaluators, using Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics as an evaluation framework. The identified issues were analyzed in terms of impacted heuristics and severity ratings. Additionally, we underwent a Large Language Model (LLM)-based heuristic evaluation, using ChatGPT-5, prompted with the same heuristic set and static screenshots. The LLM detected several issues overlapping with human findings (32%), as well as new ones (23%); therefore, 55% of its outputs are considered valid and 45% are unconfirmed. This highlights both the potential and limitations of AI-driven usability assessment. Overall, the findings underscore the usability challenges of REM tools and suggest that LLMs may serve as complementary evaluators, accelerating early-stage heuristic inspections in safety-critical engineering environments.
Keywords: automotive engineering; DOORS Next Generation; heuristic evaluation; large language model; requirements engineering; requirements management; usability; user experience; human–computer interaction; automotive software engineering automotive engineering; DOORS Next Generation; heuristic evaluation; large language model; requirements engineering; requirements management; usability; user experience; human–computer interaction; automotive software engineering

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rotaru, O.; Orhei, C.; Vasiu, R. Hybrid Usability Evaluation of an Automotive REM Tool: Human and LLM-Based Heuristic Assessment of IBM Doors Next. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 723. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020723

AMA Style

Rotaru O, Orhei C, Vasiu R. Hybrid Usability Evaluation of an Automotive REM Tool: Human and LLM-Based Heuristic Assessment of IBM Doors Next. Applied Sciences. 2026; 16(2):723. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020723

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rotaru, Oana, Ciprian Orhei, and Radu Vasiu. 2026. "Hybrid Usability Evaluation of an Automotive REM Tool: Human and LLM-Based Heuristic Assessment of IBM Doors Next" Applied Sciences 16, no. 2: 723. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020723

APA Style

Rotaru, O., Orhei, C., & Vasiu, R. (2026). Hybrid Usability Evaluation of an Automotive REM Tool: Human and LLM-Based Heuristic Assessment of IBM Doors Next. Applied Sciences, 16(2), 723. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020723

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop