[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content

Requirement Ambiguity Not as Important as Expected — Results of an Empirical Evaluation

  • Conference paper
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2013)

Abstract

[Context and motivation] Requirement ambiguity is seen as an important factor for project success. However, empirical data about this relation are limited. [Question/problem] We analyze how ambiguous requirements relate to the success of software projects. [Principal ideas/results] Three methods are used to study the relation between requirement ambiguity and project success. First, data about requirements and project outcome were collected for 40 industrial projects. We find that, based on a correlation analysis, that the level of ambiguity in the requirements for a project does not correlate with the project’s success. Second, using a root-cause analysis, we observe that ambiguity does not cause more defects during the test phase. Third, expert interviews were conducted to validate these results. This resulted in a framework that outlines factors influencing requirement-ambiguity risk. [Contribution] Empirical data are presented about the relationship between requirement ambiguity and project success. A framework is created to describe nine factors that increase or mitigate requirement-ambiguity risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 35.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 44.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tripp, L.: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, ANSI/IEEE Standard 830-1993. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berry, D.M.: Ambiguity in natural language requirements documents. In: Martell, C. (ed.) Monterey Workshop 2007. LNCS, vol. 5320, pp. 1–7. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Han, W.M., Huang, S.J.: An empirical analysis of risk components and performance on software projects. Journal of Systems and Software 80(1), 42–50 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Keil, M., Cule, P.E., Lyytinen, K., Schmidt, R.C.: A framework for identifying software project risks. Communications of the ACM 41(11), 76–83 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fabbrini, F., Fusani, M., Gervasi, V., Gnesi, S., Ruggieri, S.: Achieving quality in natural language requirements. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Software Quality Week (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hull, E., Jackson, K., Dick, J.: Requirements Engineering. Springer, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng, B.H.C., Atlee, J.M.: Current and future research directions in requirements engineering. In: Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., Robinson, B. (eds.) Design Requirements Workshop. LNBIP, vol. 14, pp. 11–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Berry, D.M., Kamsties, E., Krieger, M.M.: From contract drafting to software specification: Linguistic sources of ambiguity. Technical report, University of Waterloo (2003), http://se.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/handbook/ambiguityHandbook.pdf

  9. Gervasi, V., Zowghi, D.: On the role of ambiguity in RE. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 248–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Robertson, S., Robertson, J.: Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. de Bruijn, F., Dekkers, H.L.: Ambiguity in natural language software requirements: A case study. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Bucchiarone, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Trentanni, G., Fantechi, A.: Quars express — a tool demonstration. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 473–474 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Driessen, H.: Requirements Assistant (2012), http://www.requirementsassistant.nl/

  14. Alexander, I.F., Stevens, R.: Writing Better Requirements. Pearson Education, Harlow (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A.: The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2), 273 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Levesque, L.L., Wilson, J.M., Wholey, D.R.: Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22, 135–144 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Herbsleb, J.D., Mockus, A., Finholt, T.A., Grinter, R.E.: An empirical study of global software development: Distance and speed. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 81–90 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, 1st edn. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jones, V., Murray, J.: Evaluation of current requirements analysis tools capabilities for IV&V in the requirements analysis phase (2007), http://www.slideserve.com/shlomo/evaluation-of-current-requirements-analysis-tools-capabilities-for-ivv-in-the-requirements-analysis-phase

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Philippo, E.J., Heijstek, W., Kruiswijk, B., Chaudron, M.R.V., Berry, D.M. (2013). Requirement Ambiguity Not as Important as Expected — Results of an Empirical Evaluation. In: Doerr, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7830. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37421-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37422-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics