Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A framework to measure and improve the quality of textual requirements

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improving the quality of software demands quality controls since the very beginning of the development process, i.e., requirements capture and writing. Automating quality metrics may entail considerable savings, as opposed to tedious, manually performed evaluations. We present some indicators for measuring quality in textual requirements, as well as a tool that computes quality measures in a fully automated way. We want to emphasize that the final goal must be measure to improve. Reducing quality management to the acquisition of a numerical evaluation would crash against the strong opposition of requirements engineers themselves, who would not see in the measurement process the aid of a counselor, but a policeman mechanism of penalties. To avoid this, quality indicators must first of all point out concrete defects and provide suggestions for improvement. The final result will not only be an improvement in the quality of requirements, but also an improvement in the writing skills of requirements engineers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander I, Stevens R (2002) Writing better requirements. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arthur LJ (1997) Quantum improvements in software system quality. Commun ACM 40(6):46–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berry DM, Bucchiarone A, Gnesi S, Lami G, Trentanni G (2006) A new quality model for natural language requirements specifications. In: Proceedings of the 12th international working conference on requirements engineering: foundation of software quality (REFSQ-06). Luxembourg, 5–6 June 2006. Held in conjunction with CAiSE’06

  4. Braude E (2001) Software engineering. An object oriented perspective. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boehm B (1981) Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Bertolino A, Fantechi A, Gnesi S, Lami G, Maccari A (2002) Use case description of requirements for product lines. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on requirements engineering for product lines 2002—REPL’02. Held in conjunction with RE’02. Essen, Germany, 9 Sept 2002

  7. Brooks FP (1987) No silver bullet. Essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Comput 20(4):10–19, April 1987. Reprinted in: Brooks FP The mytical man-month, essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley, 1995 (20th anniversary edition)

  8. Bucchiarone A, Gnesi S, Pierini P (2005) Quality analysis of NL requirements: an industrial case study. In: 13th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 390–394. Paris, France, 29 Aug–2 Sept 2005

  9. Cameron WB (1963) Informal sociology: a casual introduction to sociological thinking. Random House, New York

  10. Christel M, Kang K (1992) Issues in requirements elicitation. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute. Technical report CMU/SEI-92-TR-012

  11. Cortim. Lexior. http://www.cortim.com/lexior/

  12. Deming WE (1986) Out of the crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fabbrini F, Fusani M, Gnesi S, Lami G (2001) The linguistic approach to the natural language requirements quality: benefit of the use of an automatic tool. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual NASA Goddard software engineering workshop, pp 97–105

  14. Fanmuy G, Roussel J-C, Szczepaniak R, Salinesi C, Dauron A, Picci L, Hammami O (2010) Requirements analysis and modeling process (RAMP) for the development of complex systems. In: 7th European systems engineering conference (EuSEC 2010). Stockholm, Sweden, 23–26 May 2010

  15. Fanmuy G (2011) Requirements verification in industry. In: 17th international working conference on requirements engineering: foundations for software quality (REFSQ-2011), industry track. Essen, Germany, 28–30 March 2011

  16. Fantechi A, Gnesi S, Lami G, Maccari A (2003) Applications of linguistic techniques for use case analysis. Requir Eng 8(3):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fernández Huerta J (1959) Medidas sencillas de lecturabilidad. Consigna 214:29–32

    Google Scholar 

  18. Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32:221–233. Reprinted in: Rudolf Flesch. The art of readable writing. New York, 1949 (25th anniversary edition, revised and enlarged, Harper & Row, 1974)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Frank U (2006) Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research. ICB-Research report no. 7, 2006. Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems, University Duisburg-Essen. Retrieved 19 May 2011 from http://www.icb.uni-due.de/fileadmin/ICB/research/research_reports/ICBReport07.pdf

  20. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  21. HOOD. DESIRe. http://www.hood-group.com/en/products/tools/requirements-engineering/desirer/

  22. Ibáñez M, Rempp H (1996) European user survey analysis. European Software Institute, ESPITI project, technical report TR95104

  23. IBM. Rational DOORS. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/doors/

  24. IEEE Std 830-1998. IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications. http://www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/5841/15571/00720574.pdf

  25. IEEE Std 982.2-1988. IEEE guide for the use of IEEE standard dictionary of measures to produce reliable software. http://www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel1/2596/983/00026479.pdf

  26. James L (1999) Providing pragmatic advice on how good your requirements are—the precept ‘requirements councillor’ utility. In: Proceedings of the 9th INCOSE international symposium, Brighton, England, 1999

  27. Kasser JE (2004) The first requirements elucidator demonstration (FRED) tool. Syst Eng 7(3):243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kasser JE, Scott W, Tran XL, Nesterov S (2006) A proposed research programme for determining a metric for a good requirement. The conference on systems engineering research, Los Angeles, California, USA

  29. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, Fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Research branch report 8-75, Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

  30. Kiyavitskaya N, Zeni N, Mich L, Berry DM (2008) Requirements for tools for ambiguity identification and measurement in natural language requirements specifications. Requir Eng 13(3):207–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Knowledge Reuse Research Group. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. http://www.kr.inf.uc3m.es

  32. Latimer-Livingston NS (2004) Market share: requirements management, worldwide, 2003 (executive summary). Gartner research, 1 July 2004. http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?ref=g_search&id=452522

  33. Loucopoulos P, Karakostas V (1995) Systems requirements engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marrero M, Sánchez-Cuadrado S, Fraga A, Llorens J (2008) Applying ontologies and intelligent text processing in requirements reuse. First workshop on knowledge reuse (KREUSE’08), pp 25–29. Held in conjuction with 10th international conference on software reuse (ICSR’08). Beijing, China, 2008

  35. Marsick VJ, Volpe M (eds) (1999) Informal learning on the job. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mich L, Franch M, Inverardi PLN (2004) Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools. Requir Eng 9(1):40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. ARM automated requirement measurement tool. http://www.sw-assurance.gsfc.nasa.gov/disciplines/quality/index.php#tools

  38. Popescu D, Rugaber S, Medvidovic N, Berry DM (2007) Reducing ambiguities in requirements specifications via automatically created object-oriented models. In: Proceedings of the 14th monterey workshop on requirements analysis. Monterey, CA, USA, 10–13 Sept 2007. Springer LNCS 5320, pp 103–124

  39. Pressman RS (2005) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill Pub Co., New York

  40. Redish JC, Seizer J (1985) The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Techn Commun 32(4):46–52

    Google Scholar 

  41. Redish JC (2000) Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM J Comput Documentation 24(3):132–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rosenberg LH (2001) Generating high quality requirements. In: Proceedings of the AIAA space 2001 conference and exposition, AIAA paper 2001-4524. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Albuquerque, NM, 28–30 Aug 2001

  43. Sadraei E, Aurum A, Beydoun G, Paech B (2007) A field study of the requirements engineering practice in Australian software industry. Requir Eng 12(3):145–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sommerville I (2004) Software engineering, 7th edn. Pearson-Addison Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sunny Hills. Requirements assistant. http://www.requirementsassistant.nl/

  46. SWEBOK (2004) Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Computer Society, 2004. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/swebok

  47. The Standish Group (2003) Chaos report, 2003. http://www.standishgroup.com/

  48. The Reuse Company. RQA requirements quality analyzer. http://www.reusecompany.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=171&Itemid=75&lang=en

  49. University of Pisa. QuARS quality analyzer for requirement specifications. http://www.quars.isti.cnr.it/

  50. University of South Australia. TigerPro. http://www.therightrequirement.com/TigerPro/TigerPro.html

  51. Vaishnavi VK, Kuechler W (2008) Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology. Auerbach Publications, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wilson WM, Rosenberg LH, Hyatt LE (1997) Automated Analysis of Requirement Specifications. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on software engineering-ICSE’97, 17–23 May 1997, Boston, MA, USA, pp 161–171

  53. Winter R (2008) Design science research in Europe. Eur J Inf Syst 17:470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zeist R, Hendriks P (1996) Specifying software quality with the extended ISO model. Softw Qual J 5(4):273–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported through the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Project TIN2007-67153, “SEMSE: SEmantic Metadata SEarch” (“Desarrollo de un sistema de recuperación conceptual mediante niveles semánticos en la representación de esquemas de metadatos”).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Knowledge Reuse Group, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avda. Universidad 30, 28911, Leganés, Madrid, Spain

    Gonzalo Génova, Juan Llorens, Omar Hurtado & Valentín Moreno

  2. The Reuse Company, C. Margarita Salas, 16 (Parque Tecnológico Legatec), 28919, Leganés, Madrid, Spain

    José M. Fuentes

Authors
  1. Gonzalo Génova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José M. Fuentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Llorens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Omar Hurtado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valentín Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gonzalo Génova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Génova, G., Fuentes, J.M., Llorens, J. et al. A framework to measure and improve the quality of textual requirements. Requirements Eng 18, 25–41 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0134-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0134-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation