Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
98 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
8 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Measuring the Fitness-for-Purpose of Requirements: An initial Model of Activities and Attributes (2405.09895v2)

Published 16 May 2024 in cs.SE

Abstract: Requirements engineering aims to fulfill a purpose, i.e., inform subsequent software development activities about stakeholders' needs and constraints that must be met by the system under development. The quality of requirements artifacts and processes is determined by how fit for this purpose they are, i.e., how they impact activities affected by them. However, research on requirements quality lacks a comprehensive overview of these activities and how to measure them. In this paper, we specify the research endeavor addressing this gap and propose an initial model of requirements-affected activities and their attributes. We construct a model from three distinct data sources, including both literature and empirical data. The results yield an initial model containing 24 activities and 16 attributes quantifying these activities. Our long-term goal is to develop evidence-based decision support on how to optimize the fitness for purpose of the RE phase to best support the subsequent, affected software development process. We do so by measuring the effect that requirements artifacts and processes have on the attributes of these activities. With the contribution at hand, we invite the research community to critically discuss our research roadmap and support the further evolution of the model.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. H. Femmer and A. Vogelsang, “Requirements quality is quality in use,” IEEE Software, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 83–91, 2018.
  2. J. Frattini, L. Montgomery, J. Fischbach, D. Mendez, D. Fucci, and M. Unterkalmsteiner, “Requirements quality research: a harmonized theory, evaluation, and roadmap,” Requirements Engineering, pp. 1–14, 2023.
  3. H. Femmer, J. Mund, and D. M. Fernández, “It’s the activities, stupid! a new perspective on re quality,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Testing.   IEEE, 2015, pp. 13–19.
  4. J. Frattini, L. Montgomery, J. Fischbach, M. Unterkalmsteiner, D. Mendez, and D. Fucci, “A live extensible ontology of quality factors for textual requirements,” in 2022 IEEE 30th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 274–280.
  5. J. Frattini, “Identifying relevant factors of requirements quality: an industrial case study,” in Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 30th International Working Conference, REFSQ 2024, Winterthur, Switzerland, April 8–11, 2024, Proceedings 30.   Springer, 2024.
  6. S. Wagner, D. M. Fernández, M. Felderer, A. Vetrò, M. Kalinowski, R. Wieringa, D. Pfahl, T. Conte, M.-T. Christiansson, D. Greer et al., “Status quo in requirements engineering: A theory and a global family of surveys,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1–48, 2019.
  7. D. M. Fernández, S. Wagner, M. Kalinowski, M. Felderer, P. Mafra, A. Vetrò, T. Conte, M.-T. Christiansson, D. Greer, C. Lassenius et al., “Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice,” Empirical software engineering, vol. 22, pp. 2298–2338, 2017.
  8. B. W. Boehm, “Software engineering economics,” IEEE transactions on Software Engineering, no. 1, pp. 4–21, 1984.
  9. L. Montgomery, D. Fucci, A. Bouraffa, L. Scholz, and W. Maalej, “Empirical research on requirements quality: a systematic mapping study,” Requirements Engineering, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 183–209, 2022.
  10. L. Kof, “Treatment of passive voice and conjunctions in use case documents,” in Natural Language Processing and Information Systems: 12th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, NLDB 2007, Paris, France, June 27-29, 2007. Proceedings 12.   Springer, 2007, pp. 181–192.
  11. G. Génova, J. M. Fuentes, J. Llorens, O. Hurtado, and V. Moreno, “A framework to measure and improve the quality of textual requirements,” Requirements engineering, vol. 18, pp. 25–41, 2013.
  12. J. Krisch and F. Houdek, “The myth of bad passive voice and weak words an empirical investigation in the automotive industry,” in 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).   IEEE, 2015, pp. 344–351.
  13. J. Frattini, D. Fucci, R. Torkar, and D. Mendez, “A second look at the impact of passive voice requirements on domain modeling: Bayesian reanalysis of an experiment,” in 1st International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering (WSESE2024).   ACM, 2024.
  14. H. Femmer, J. Kučera, and A. Vetrò, “On the impact of passive voice requirements on domain modelling,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, 2014, pp. 1–4.
  15. H. Femmer, “Requirements quality defect detection with the qualicen requirements scout.” in REFSQ Workshops, 2018.
  16. X. Franch, D. Mendez, A. Vogelsang, R. Heldal, E. Knauss, M. Oriol, G. Travassos, J. C. Carver, and T. Zimmermann, “How do practitioners perceive the relevance of requirements engineering research?” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2020.
  17. F. Ricca, G. Scanniello, M. Torchiano, G. Reggio, and E. Astesiano, “On the effectiveness of screen mockups in requirements engineering: results from an internal replication,” in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, 2010, pp. 1–10.
  18. M. I. Kamata and T. Tamai, “How does requirements quality relate to project success or failure?” in 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007).   IEEE, 2007, pp. 69–78.
  19. D. Zowghi and N. Nurmuliani, “A study of the impact of requirements volatility on software project performance,” in Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, 2002.   IEEE, 2002, pp. 3–11.
  20. E. Knauss, C. El Boustani, and T. Flohr, “Investigating the impact of software requirements specification quality on project success,” in Product-Focused Software Process Improvement: 10th International Conference, PROFES 2009, Oulu, Finland, June 15-17, 2009. Proceedings 10.   Springer, 2009, pp. 28–42.
  21. K. Chari and M. Agrawal, “Impact of incorrect and new requirements on waterfall software project outcomes,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 23, pp. 165–185, 2018.
  22. D. Damian and J. Chisan, “An empirical study of the complex relationships between requirements engineering processes and other processes that lead to payoffs in productivity, quality, and risk management,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 433–453, 2006.
  23. M. Borg, P. Runeson, and A. Ardö, “Recovering from a decade: a systematic mapping of information retrieval approaches to software traceability,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 19, pp. 1565–1616, 2014.
  24. S. Charalampidou, A. Ampatzoglou, E. Karountzos, and P. Avgeriou, “Empirical studies on software traceability: A mapping study,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 33, no. 2, p. e2294, 2021.
  25. D. S. Cruzes and T. Dyba, “Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering,” in 2011 international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement.   IEEE, 2011, pp. 275–284.
  26. D. I. Sjøberg, J. E. Hannay, O. Hansen, V. B. Kampenes, A. Karahasanovic, N.-K. Liborg, and A. C. Rekdal, “A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering,” IEEE transactions on software engineering, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 733–753, 2005.
  27. E. M. Bennett, R. Alpert, and A. Goldstein, “Communications through limited-response questioning,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 303–308, 1954.
  28. G. C. Feng, “Mistakes and how to avoid mistakes in using intercoder reliability indices.” Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 13, 2015.
  29. K. Moløkken and M. Jørgensen, “Expert estimation of web-development projects: are software professionals in technical roles more optimistic than those in non-technical roles?” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 7–30, 2005.
  30. J. Cohen, “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,” Educational and psychological measurement, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1960.
  31. I. Sommerville, “Software process models,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 269–271, 1996.
  32. W. W. Royce, “Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques,” in Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering, 1987, pp. 328–338.
  33. B. W. Boehm, “A spiral model of software development and enhancement,” Computer, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 61–72, 1988.
  34. B. Boehm and J. A. Lane, “Guide for using the incremental commitment model (icm) for systems engineering of dod projects,” usc-csse-2009-500, 2008.
  35. I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh, “The unified software development process,” 1999.
  36. H. D. Mills, M. Dyer, and R. C. Linger, “Cleanroom software engineering,” 1987.
  37. P. Bourque and R. Fairley, “Swebok,” Nd: IEEE Computer society, 2004.
  38. Y. Murakami, M. Tsunoda, and H. Uwano, “Wap: Does reviewer age affect code review performance?” in 2017 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 164–169.
  39. J. Natt och Dag, T. Thelin, and B. Regnell, “An experiment on linguistic tool support for consolidation of requirements from multiple sources in market-driven product development,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 303–329, 2006.
  40. K. Wnuk, M. Höst, and B. Regnell, “Replication of an experiment on linguistic tool support for consolidation of requirements from multiple sources,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 17, pp. 305–344, 2012.
  41. K. Großer, M. Rukavitsyna, and J. Jürjens, “A comparative evaluation of requirement template systems,” in 2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).   IEEE, 2023, pp. 41–52.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now