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.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Tripp, L.: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, ANSI/IEEE Standard 830-1993. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, New York (1993)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hull, E., Jackson, K., Dick, J.: Requirements Engineering. Springer, London (2010)
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)
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
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)
Robertson, S., Robertson, J.: Mastering the Requirements Process. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (2006)
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)
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)
Driessen, H.: Requirements Assistant (2012), http://www.requirementsassistant.nl/
Alexander, I.F., Stevens, R.: Writing Better Requirements. Pearson Education, Harlow (2002)
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)
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)
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)
Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, 1st edn. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2001)
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)