Does Quality of Requirements Specifications Matter? Combined Results of Two Empirical Studies

[Background] Requirements Engineering is crucial for project success, and to this end, many measures for quality assurance of the software requirements specification (SRS) have been proposed. [Goal] However, we still need an empirical understanding on the extent to which SRS are created and used in practice, as well as the degree to which the quality of an SRS matters to subsequent development activities. [Method] We studied the relevance of SRS by relying on survey research and explored the impact of quality defects in SRS by relying on a controlled experiment. [Results] Our results suggest that the relevance of SRS quality depends both on particular project characteristics and what is considered as a quality defect; for instance, the domain of safety critical systems seems to motivate for an intense usage of SRS as a means for communication whereas defects hampering the pragmatic quality do not seem to be relevant as initially thought. [Conclusion] Efficient and effective quality assurance measures must be specific for carefully characterized contexts and carefully select defect classes.

[1]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[2]  Marco Kuhrmann,et al.  Criteria for software process tailoring: a systematic review , 2013, ICSSP 2013.

[3]  Barbara Paech,et al.  State of Practice of User-Developer Communication in Large-Scale IT Projects - Results of an Expert Interview Series , 2014, REFSQ.

[4]  Karl Wiegers Writing quality requirements , 1999 .

[5]  Daniel Ott Defects in natural language requirement specifications at Mercedes-Benz: An investigation using a combination of legacy data and expert opinion , 2012, 2012 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[6]  Antonio Bucchiarone,et al.  A New Quality Model for Natural Language Requirements Specifications , 2006 .

[7]  Elmar Jürgens,et al.  Rapid requirements checks with requirements smells: two case studies , 2014, RCoSE 2014.

[8]  Daniel Méndez Fernández,et al.  It's the Activities, Stupid! A New Perspective on RE Quality , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Testing.

[9]  Marjo Kauppinen,et al.  The role of user involvement in requirements quality and project success , 2005, 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05).

[10]  Birgit Penzenstadler,et al.  Artefact-based requirements engineering: the AMDiRE approach , 2014, Requirements Engineering.

[11]  Björn Regnell,et al.  Requirements are slipping through the gaps — A case study on causes & effects of communication gaps in large-scale software development , 2011, 2011 IEEE 19th International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[12]  Stefan Wagner,et al.  Naming the pain in requirements engineering: design of a global family of surveys and first results from Germany , 2013, EASE '13.

[13]  Franz Lehner,et al.  Requirements Engineering as a Success Factor in Software Projects , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[14]  Tony Gorschek,et al.  Requirements engineering: In search of the dependent variables , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[15]  John Krogstie,et al.  Towards a Deeper Understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering , 2013, Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering.

[16]  Henning Femmer,et al.  On the impact of passive voice requirements on domain modelling , 2014, ESEM '14.

[17]  Klaus Pohl,et al.  The three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications , 1994, Inf. Syst..

[18]  Olga Liskin,et al.  How Artifacts Support and Impede Requirements Communication , 2015, REFSQ.

[19]  Tetsuo Tamai,et al.  How Does Requirements Quality Relate to Project Success or Failure? , 2007, 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007).

[20]  Marcela Genero,et al.  Empirical Evaluation and Review of a Metrics-Based Approach for Use Case Verification , 2004, J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol..

[21]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[22]  Janice Singer,et al.  How software engineers use documentation: the state of the practice , 2003, IEEE Software.

[23]  Michael A. Jackson,et al.  Problem Frames - Analysing and Structuring Software Development Problems , 2000 .