Ahab's legs in scenario-based requirements validation: An experiment to study communication mistakes

The Ahab's leg (AL) is a known problem of conversion between media.The validation of requirements may be subject to the problem of AL.This work is an empirical study on participatory validation of requirements.The goal is to evaluate the impact of AL due to the translation into scenarios. The correct identification of requirements is a crucial step for the implementation of a satisfactory software system. In the validation of requirements with scenarios, a straightforward communication is central to obtain a good participation from stakeholders. Technical specifications are translated into scenarios to make them concrete and easy to understand for non-technical users, and contextual details are added to encourage user engagement.However, additional contextual details (Ahab's legs) could generate a negative impact on the requirements' validation by leading to proliferating comments that are not pertinent to session objective. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of Ahab's leg to scenario-based requirement validation sessions. We conducted a controlled experiment with human participants and measured the pertinence of the comments formulated by participants when discussing the requirements. The results of our experiment suggest that the potentially negative impact of Ahab's leg can be effectively controlled by the analyst.

[1]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe,et al.  Scenario-based requirements engineering , 2003, Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2003..

[2]  Suzanne Robertson,et al.  Developing use cases and scenarios in the requirements process , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

[3]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Extending Nocuous Ambiguity Analysis for Anaphora in Natural Language Requirements , 2010, 2010 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[4]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Personas: practice and theory , 2003, DUX '03.

[5]  Walter F. Tichy,et al.  Status of Empirical Research in Software Engineering , 2006, Empirical Software Engineering Issues.

[6]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-Oriented Software Engineering , 1991, TOOLS.

[7]  Amela Karahasanovic,et al.  A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[8]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Modeling Language User Guide , 1998, J. Database Manag..

[9]  D. S. Sivia,et al.  Data Analysis , 1996, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[10]  Patrik Berander,et al.  Using students as subjects in requirements prioritization , 2004, Proceedings. 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2004. ISESE '04..

[11]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Are Students Representatives of Professionals in Software Engineering Experiments? , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering.

[12]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Integrating creativity into requirements processes: experiences with an air traffic management system , 2005, 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05).

[13]  Tsvi Kuflik,et al.  An empirical study of requirements model understanding: Use Case vs. Tropos models , 2010, SAC '10.

[14]  Margaret A. Boden,et al.  Computer Models of Creativity , 2009, AI Mag..

[15]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[16]  Eric Blanco,et al.  Role of Personas and Scenarios in Creating Shared Understanding of Functional Requirements: An Empirical Study , 2014 .

[17]  J. Fleiss.  Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[18]  Massimo Zancanaro,et al.  Ahab's Leg: Exploring the Issues of Communicating Semi-formal Requirements to the Final Users , 2010, CAiSE.

[19]  Mikio Aoyama,et al.  Persona-Scenario-Goal Methodology for User-Centered Requirements Engineering , 2007, 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007).

[20]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-oriented software engineering - a use case driven approach , 1993, TOOLS.

[21]  Colin Potts,et al.  ScenIC: a strategy for inquiry-driven requirements determination , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188).

[22]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  Comparing Goal Modelling Languages: An Experiment , 2007, REFSQ.

[23]  Peter Sawyer,et al.  On the Effectiveness of Abstraction Identification in Requirements Engineering , 2010, 2010 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[24]  Shailey Minocha,et al.  Supporting Scenario-Based Requirements Engineering , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[25]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Conducting realistic experiments in software engineering , 2002, Proceedings International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering.

[26]  Nelly Condori-Fernández,et al.  Evaluating the Completeness and Granularity of Functional Requirements Specifications: A Controlled Experiment , 2009, 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[27]  Mariano Ceccato,et al.  Ahab's Leg dilemma: On the design of a controlled experiment , 2011, Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE 2011).

[28]  M. Jarke,et al.  A proposal for a scenario classification framework , 1998, Requirements Engineering.

[29]  Peter Salovey,et al.  A Social Comparison Account of Gossip , 2004 .

[30]  U. Eco,et al.  Kant and the platypus : essays on language and cognition , 2000 .

[31]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using students as subjects - an empirical evaluation , 2008, ESEM '08.