Ambiguity and tacit knowledge in requirements elicitation interviews

Interviews are the most common and effective means to perform requirements elicitation and support knowledge transfer between a customer and a requirements analyst. Ambiguity in communication is often perceived as a major obstacle for knowledge transfer, which could lead to unclear and incomplete requirements documents. In this paper, we analyze the role of ambiguity in requirements elicitation interviews, when requirements are still tacit ideas to be surfaced. To study the phenomenon, we performed a set of 34 customer–analyst interviews. This experience was used as a baseline to define a framework to categorize ambiguity. The framework presents the notion of ambiguity as a class of four main sub-phenomena, namely unclarity, multiple understanding, incorrect disambiguation and correct disambiguation. We present examples of ambiguities from our interviews to illustrate the different categories, and we highlight the pragmatic components that determine the occurrence of ambiguity. Along the study, we discovered a peculiar relation between ambiguity and tacit knowledge in interviews. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge that a customer has but does not pass to the analyst for any reason. From our experience, we have discovered that, rather than an obstacle, the occurrence of an ambiguity is often a resource for discovering tacit knowledge. Again, examples are presented from our interviews to support this vision.

[1]  Luisa Mich,et al.  Ambiguity Measures in Requirements Engineering , 2022 .

[2]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  An industrial case study of the impact of domain ignorance on the effectiveness of requirements idea generation during requirements elicitation , 2013, 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[3]  Ivy Hooks,et al.  What Is A Requirement , 1993 .

[4]  Erik Kamsties,et al.  Ambiguity in Requirements Specification , 2004 .

[5]  Wei-Tek Tsai,et al.  An experimental study of fault detection in user requirements documents , 1992, TSEM.

[6]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  Surfacing tacit knowledge in requirements negotiation: experiences using EasyWinWin , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[7]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Using default reasoning to discover inconsistencies in natural language requirements , 2001, Proceedings Eighth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[8]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Method fragments , 2000, Expert Syst. J. Knowl. Eng..

[9]  Kevin Ryan,et al.  The role of natural language in requirements engineering , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[10]  Alan M. Davis,et al.  A Unified Model of Requirements Elicitation , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  Ambiguity in Natural Language Requirements Documents , 2008, Monterey Workshop.

[12]  Martin Glinz,et al.  On shared understanding in software engineering: an essay , 2014, Computer Science - Research and Development.

[13]  Marco Roveri,et al.  Formalizing requirements with object models and temporal constraints , 2011, Software & Systems Modeling.

[14]  Leonid Kof,et al.  From Requirements Documents to System Models: A Tool for Interactive Semi-Automatic Translation , 2010, 2010 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[15]  Miles Osborne,et al.  Processing natural language software requirement specifications , 1996, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering.

[16]  John A. van der Poll,et al.  Towards a Methodology to Elicit Tacit Domain Knowledge from Users , 2007 .

[17]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  An automatic tool for the analysis of natural language requirements , 2005, Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng..

[18]  George Valença,et al.  Preliminary Results from an Empirical Study in Market-Driven Software Companies , 2007, WER.

[19]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource to disclose tacit knowledge , 2015, 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[20]  William Empson,et al.  朦胧的七种类型 = Seven types of ambiguity , 1930 .

[21]  Lin Ma,et al.  Unpacking Tacit Knowledge for Requirements Engineering , 2013, Managing Requirements Knowledge.

[22]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[23]  Felice Dell'Orletta,et al.  Measuring and Improving the Completeness of Natural Language Requirements , 2014, REFSQ.

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

[25]  J. Barnes,et al.  The Complete Works of Aristotle the Revised Oxford Translation , 1984 .

[26]  Francis Chantree,et al.  Identifying Nocuous Ambiguities in Natural Language Requirements , 2006, 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06).

[27]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of User Requirements Elicitation: Comparing the Effectiveness of Prompting Techniques , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering , 1997, Ann. Softw. Eng..

[29]  Luisa Mich,et al.  Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[30]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Preliminary results from an empirical study , 2010 .

[31]  Jing Ma,et al.  Detecting Missing Requirements in Conceptual Models , 2014, ICIST.

[32]  Joseph A. Horvath Working with Tacit Knowledge , 2000 .

[33]  Vincenzo Gervasi,et al.  On the Systematic Analysis of Natural Language Requirements with CIRCE , 2006, Automated Software Engineering.

[34]  Andreas Riege,et al.  Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider , 2005, J. Knowl. Manag..

[35]  Aristotle,et al.  On Sophistical Refutations. On Coming-to-be and Passing Away. On the Cosmos , 1955 .

[36]  Devesh C. Jinwala,et al.  Resolving Ambiguities in Natural Language Software Requirements: A Comprehensive Survey , 2015, SOEN.

[37]  Erik Kamsties,et al.  From Contract Drafting to Software Specification: Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity , 2003 .

[38]  Erik Kamsties,et al.  Understanding Ambiguity in Requirements Engineering , 2005 .

[39]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Analysing anaphoric ambiguity in natural language requirements , 2011, Requirements Engineering.

[40]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Requirements Elicitation: A Survey of Techniques, Approaches, and Tools , 2005 .

[41]  Luisa Mich,et al.  NL-OOPS: from natural language to object oriented requirements using the natural language processing system LOLITA , 1996, Natural Language Engineering.

[42]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  The Design of SREE - A Prototype Potential Ambiguity Finder for Requirements Specifications and Lessons Learned , 2013, REFSQ.

[43]  Linda H. Rosenberg,et al.  Automated Analysis of Requirement Specifications , 1997, Proceedings of the (19th) International Conference on Software Engineering.

[44]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Knowledge Acquisition Using Structured Interviewing: An Empirical Investigation , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[45]  Hossein Saiedian,et al.  Requirements engineering: making the connection between the software developer and customer , 2000, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[46]  Alistair Sutcliffe,et al.  Requirements elicitation: Towards the unknown unknowns , 2013, 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[47]  Nancy Ide,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Word Sense Disambiguation: The State of the Art , 1998, Comput. Linguistics.

[48]  Gerald M. Weinberg,et al.  Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design , 1989 .

[49]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation Techniques: Empirical Results Derived from a Systematic Review , 2006, 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06).

[50]  Annie I. Antón,et al.  Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements , 2014, 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[51]  M. Polanyi Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[52]  Harri Haapasalo,et al.  The Engagement between Knowledge Transfer and Requirements Engineering , 2012 .

[53]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  Using collective intelligence to detect pragmatic ambiguities , 2012, 2012 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[54]  Mehrdad Sabetzadeh,et al.  Automated Checking of Conformance to Requirements Templates Using Natural Language Processing , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[55]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  Stopping Behavior of Systems Analysts During Information Requirements Elicitation , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[56]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The knowledge-creating company , 2008 .

[57]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications , 2009 .

[58]  Nenad Medvidovic,et al.  Reducing Ambiguities in Requirements Specifications Via Automatically Created Object-Oriented Models , 2008, Monterey Workshop.

[59]  Irit Hadar,et al.  The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: an exploratory study , 2012, Requirements Engineering.

[60]  Luisa Mich,et al.  Requirements for tools for ambiguity identification and measurement in natural language requirements specifications , 2008, Requirements Engineering.

[61]  Giuseppe Lipari,et al.  Pragmatic ambiguity detection in natural language requirements , 2014, 2014 IEEE 1st International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Requirements Engineering (AIRE).

[62]  Erik Kamsties,et al.  The Syntactically Dangerous All and Plural in Specifications , 2005, IEEE Softw..

[63]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  The impact of domain knowledge on the effectiveness of requirements idea generation during requirements elicitation , 2012, 2012 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[64]  James Robertson,et al.  Mastering the Requirements Process: Getting Requirements Right , 2012 .

[65]  Peter Sawyer,et al.  BEST PAPERS OF RE’10: REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING IN A MULTI-FACETED WORLD Relevance-based abstraction identification: technique and evaluation , 2022 .

[66]  Christoph Rosenkranz,et al.  The emergence of shared understanding: applying functional pragmatics to study the requirements development process , 2013, Inf. Syst. J..

[67]  K. Grant Tacit Knowledge Revisited – We Can Still Learn from Polanyi , 2007 .

[68]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements , 2005, TSEM.

[69]  Peter Sawyer,et al.  The Case for Dumb Requirements Engineering Tools , 2012, REFSQ.

[70]  Robert D. Macredie,et al.  Effective Communication in Requirements Elicitation: A Comparison of Methodologies , 2002, Requirements Engineering.

[71]  Peter Mühlhäusler,et al.  Pidgin and Creole Linguistics , 2002 .

[72]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  ACRE: selecting methods for requirements acquisition , 1996, Softw. Eng. J..

[73]  Benedikt Gleich,et al.  Ambiguity Detection: Towards a Tool Explaining Ambiguity Sources , 2010, REFSQ.

[74]  Lin Ma,et al.  Making Tacit Requirements Explicit , 2009, 2009 Second International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge.