Abstract
There are diverse stakeholders for requirements documents in many development environments, and yet these requirements documents should be presented in such a way that all stakeholders will be able to engage them successfully. In order to produce effective requirements documents, analysts need guidance when developing new documents. They also need a convenient and accurate way to evaluate the effectiveness of existing documents. We have been exploring whether our three-factor measurement of document “transparency” would be useful in these ways. Our experimental results, presented in this article, support the hypothesis that transparency can be usefully characterised by accessibility, understandability, and relevance.
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
Tu, Y., Tempero, E., Thomborson, C.: Evaluating transparency of requirements documents (March 2014) (unpublished manuscript)
Tu, Y.: Transparency in Software Engineering. PhD thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Thesis under examination (2013)
Bubenko, J.A.: Challenges in requirements engineering. In: Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (1995)
Al-Rawas, A., Easterbrook, S.: Communication problems in requirements engineering: A field study. In: Professional Awareness in Software Engineering (1996)
Saiedian, H., Dale, R.: Requirements engineering: Making the connection between the software developer and customer. Inform. Software Tech. 42(6) (2000)
Forward, A., Lethbridge, T.C.: The relevance of software documentation, tools and technologies: A survey. In: ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (2002)
Leffingwell, D., Widrig, D.: Managing Software Requirements: A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional (2000)
Abran, A., Bourque, P.: SWEBOK: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Computer Society (2004)
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 Engineering. LNBIP, vol. 14, pp. 11–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Hansen, S., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K.: Requirements in the 21st century: Current practice and emerging trends. In: Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., Robinson, B. (eds.) Design Requirements Engineering. LNBIP, vol. 14, pp. 44–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Davis, A., Overmyer, S., Jordan, K., Caruso, J., Dandashi, F., Dinh, A., Kincaid, G., Ledeboer, G., Reynolds, P., Sitaram, P., Ta, A., Theofanos, M.: Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In: IEEE First International Software Metrics Symposium (1993)
Oliver, R.: What is transparency?. McGraw-Hill (2004)
Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., Walker, G.: Transport planning and participation: The rhetoric and realities of public involvement. J. Transp. Geogr. 10(1) (2002)
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.: Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25(1) (2000)
Vaccaro, A., Madsen, P.: Transparency in business and society: Introduction to the special issue. Ethics and Information Technology 11(2), 101–103 (2009)
Clarke, R.: Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Communications of the ACM 42(2) (February 1999)
Awad, N., Krishnan, M.: The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly 30(1) (2006)
Santana, A., Wood, D.: Transparency and social responsibility issues for wikipedia. Ethics and Information Technology 11 (2009)
Fleischmann, K., Wallace, W.: A covenant with transparency: Opening the black box of models. Communications of the ACM 48(5) (May 2005)
Fleischmann, K., Wallace, W.: Ensuring transparency in computational modeling. Communications of the ACM 52(3) (March 2009)
Ingalls, P., Frever, T.: Growing an agile culture from value seeds. In: Agile Conference, AGILE 2009 (August 2009)
Bird, C.: Top 10 tips for better agile. Information Professional 2(6) (2005)
Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The scrum guide (July 2012), http://www.scrum.org/Portals/0/Documents/Scrum%20Guides/Scrum_Guide.pdf
Fowler, M.: UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Addison-Wesley Professional (2004)
Anda, B., Sjøberg, D., Jørgensen, M.: Quality and understandability of use case models. In: Lindskov Knudsen, J. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, pp. 402–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Norman, G.: Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15(5) (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Tu, YC., Tempero, E., Thomborson, C. (2014). Evaluating Presentation of Requirements Documents: Results of an Experiment. In: Zowghi, D., Jin, Z. (eds) Requirements Engineering. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 432. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43610-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43610-3_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-43609-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-43610-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)