skip to main content
10.1145/3350768.3350782acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Quality Requirements and the Requirements Quality: The indications from Requirements Smells in a Financial Institution Systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Systems quality requirements are defined by ISO/IEC 25000 series. In specifying these requirements, using Natural Language, it is possible that there are symptoms of low quality, Requirements Smells (RSs). The present work has the objective of confirming and analyzing the presence of Requirements Smells in specifications of quality requirements classified by ISO/IEC 25010. The specifications of 26 systems of a large public financial organization were analyzed. Content analysis and Nvivo software were used and 870 quality requirements were categorized and analyzed. As a result, it was verified that 44% of the analyzed requirements present Requirements Smells which signals the importance of the inspection of the requirements with this bias. It was also identified that the most representative RSs are related to Subjective Language (34.6%), Incomplete Reference (22%) and Non verifiable terms (16%). The RSs less found in the specifications are of the Superlative, Loopholes and Comparative categories.

References

  1. Chetan Arora, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, Lionel C. Briand, and Frank Zimmer. 2015. Automated Checking of Conformance to Requirements Templates Using Natural Language Processing. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 41, 10 (2015), 944--968.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jørgen Bøegh. 2008. A new standard for quality requirements. IEEE Software 2 (2008), 57--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Angélica Toffano Seidel Calazans, Eloisa Toffano Seidel Masson, Roberto Avila Paldês, Fernando de A. Guimarães, Kiane Mabel Rezende, and Ricardo Ajax Kosloski. 2018. Requisitos de Qualidade de Usabilidade: Análise da Utilização em Sistemas de uma Instituição Financeira. In WER.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lawrence Chung and Julio Cesar Sampaio do Prado Leite. 2009. On Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. In Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 5600. Springer, 363--379.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Beata Czarnacka-Chrobot. 2009. The ISO/IEC Standards for the Software Processes and Products Measurement.. In SoMeT. 187--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hugo Sica de Andrade, Eduardo Santana de Almeida, and Ivica Crnkovic. 2014. Architectural bad smells in software product lines: an exploratory study. In WICSA Companion. ACM, 12:1--12.6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Glauco de Figueiredo Carneiro, Marcos Silva, Leandra Mara, Eduardo Figueiredo, Cláudio Sant'Anna, Alessandro F. Garcia, and Manoel G. Mendonça. 2010. Identifying Code Smells with Multiple Concern Views. In SBES. IEEE Computer Society, 128--137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jonas Eckhardt, Andreas Vogelsang, and Daniel Méndez Fernández. 2016. Are "non-functional" requirements really non-functional?: an investigation of nonfunctional requirements in practice. In ICSE. ACM, 832--842.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Henning Femmer. 2013. Reviewing Natural Language Requirements with Requirements Smells-AResearch Proposal-. Research Gate (2013), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Henning Femmer, Daniel Méndez Fernández, Elmar Jürgens, Michael Klose, Ilona Zimmer, and Jörg Zimmer. 2014. Rapid requirements checks with requirements smells: two case studies. In RCoSE. ACM, 10--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO/IEC International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. 2011. ISO25010 System and Software Engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) -- System and software quality models.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO/IEC International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. 2014. ISO/IEC 25000: Software Engineering - Software product Quality Requirementes and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - Guide to SQuaRE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin Fowler. 1997. Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code. In 11th European Conference. Jyväskylä, Finland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Eduard C. Groen, Sylwia Kopczynska, Marc P. Hauer, Tobias D. Krafft, and Jörg Dörr. 2017. Users - The Hidden Software Product Quality Experts?: A Study on How App Users Report Quality Aspects in Online Reviews. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 80--89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Benedikt Hauptmann, Maximilian Junker, Sebastian Eder, Lars Heinemann, Rudolf Vaas, and Peter Braun. 2013. Hunting for smells in natural language tests. In ICSE. IEEE Computer Society, 1217--1220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. IEC ISO. 2011. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 Systems and software engineering - Life cycle processes - Requirements engineering. Technical Report. Technical report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcos Kalinowski, Gleison Santos, Rafael Prikladnicki, Ana Regina Rocha, Kival Chaves Weber, and José Antonio Antonioni. 2011. From Software Engineering Research to Brazilian Software Quality Improvement. In SBES. IEEE Computer Society, 120--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sylwia Kopczynska, Jerzy R. Nawrocki, and Miroslaw Ochodek. 2018. An empirical study on catalog of non-functional requirement templates: Usefulness and maintenance issues. Information &Software Technology 103 (2018), 75--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Per Kroll and Philippe Kruchten. 2003. The rational unified process made easy: a practitioner's guide to the RUP. Addison-Wesley Professional.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Zijad Kurtanovic and Walid Maalej. 2017. Automatically Classifying Functional and Non-functional Requirements Using Supervised Machine Learning. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 490--495.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Rafael Nascimento, Eduardo Aranha, Uirá Kulesza, and Márcia Lucena. 2018. Requirements Smells como indicadores de má qualidade na especificação de requisitos: Um Mapeamento Sistemático da Literatura. In WER.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Margaret Phillips and Jing Lu. 2018. A quick look at NVivo. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 30, 2 (2018), 104--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Roger S Pressman. 2005. Software engineering: a practitioner's approach. Palgrave Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Frank Salger. 2013. Requirements reviews revisited: Residual challenges and open research questions. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 250--255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Quality Requirements and the Requirements Quality: The indications from Requirements Smells in a Financial Institution Systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      SBES '19: Proceedings of the XXXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
      September 2019
      583 pages
      ISBN:9781450376518
      DOI:10.1145/3350768

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 September 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      SBES '19 Paper Acceptance Rate67of153submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate147of427submissions,34%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader