International Conference on Software Quality

Software Quality. The Future of Systems- and Software Development pp 63-78 | Cite as

Preventing Incomplete/Hidden Requirements: Reflections on Survey Data from Austria and Brazil

  • Marcos Kalinowski
  • Michael Felderer
  • Tayana Conte
  • Rodrigo Spínola
  • Rafael Prikladnicki
  • Dietmar Winkler
  • Daniel Méndez Fernández
  • Stefan Wagner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 238)

Abstract

[Context] Many software projects fail due to problems in requirements engineering (RE). [Goal] The goal of this paper is analyzing a specific and relevant RE problem in detail: incomplete/hidden requirements. [Method] We replicated a global family of RE surveys with representatives of software organizations in Austria and Brazil. We used the data to (a) characterize the criticality of the selected RE problem, and to (b) analyze the reported main causes and mitigation actions. Based on the analysis, we discuss how to prevent the problem. [Results] The survey includes 14 different organizations in Austria and 74 in Brazil, including small, medium and large sized companies, conducting both, plan-driven and agile development processes. Respondents from both countries cited the incomplete/hidden requirements problem as one of the most critical RE problems. We identified and graphically represented the main causes and documented solution options to address these causes. Further, we compiled a list of reported mitigation actions. [Conclusions] From a practical point of view, this paper provides further insights into common causes of incomplete/hidden requirements and on how to prevent this problem.

Keywords

Survey Requirements engineering NaPiRE Incomplete requirements Hidden requirements Implicit requirements Causal analysis Defect prevention 

References

  1. 1.
    Broy, M.: Requirements engineering as a key to holistic software quality. In: Levi, A., Savaş, E., Yenigün, H., Balcısoy, S., Saygın, Y. (eds.) ISCIS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4263, pp. 24–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Baumann, A., de Carne, H.: Field study on requirements engineering: investigation of artefacts, project parameters, and execution strategies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 162–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hall, T., Beecham, S., Rainer, A.: Requirements problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. Empirical Softw. Eng. 8, 7–42 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khankaew, S., Riddle, S.: A review of practice and problems in requirements engineering in small and medium software enterprises in Thailand. In: International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE), pp.1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S.: Naming the pain in requirements engineering: a design for a global family of surveys and first results from Germany. Inf. Softw. Technol. 57, 616–643 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalinowski, M., Card, D.N., Travassos, G.H.: Evidence-based guidelines to defect causal analysis. IEEE Softw. 29(4), 16–18 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalinowski, M., Mendes, E., Travassos, G.H.: An industry ready defect causal analysis approach exploring bayesian networks. In: Winkler, D., Biffl, S., Bergsmann, J. (eds.) SWQD 2014. LNBIP, vol. 166, pp. 12–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kalinowski, M., Spínola, R.O., Conte, T., Prickladnicki, R., Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S.: Towards building knowledge on causes of critical requirements engineering problems. In: International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), p. 6 (2015, accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eveleens, J., Verhoef, T.: The rise and fall of the chaos report figures. IEEE Softw. 27, 30–36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solemon, B., Sahibuddin, S., Ghani, A.A.A.: Requirements engineering problems and practices in software companies: an industrial survey. In: Ślęzak, D., Kim, T.-h., Kiumi, A., Jiang, T., Verner, J., Abrahão, S. (eds.) ASEA 2009. CCIS, vol. 59, pp. 70–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, L., Li, T., Peng, F.: Why requirements engineering fails: a survey report from China. In: International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), pp. 317–322 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khankaew, S., Riddle, S.: A review of practice and problems in requirements engineering in small and medium software enterprises in Thailand. In: International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE), pp.1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S.: Naming the pain in requirements engineering: design of a global family of surveys and first results from Germany. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), pp. 183–194 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalinowski, M., Weber, K., Franco, N., Duarte, V., Santos, G., Travassos, G.: Results of 10 years of software process improvement in Brazil based on the MPS-SW Model. In: International Conference on the Quality in Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), pp.28–37 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Softex: Software e Serviços de TI: A Indústria Brasileira em Perspectiva. Observatório Softex (ISSN 1984-6797), vol. 2 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishikawa, K.: Guide to Quality Control. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo (1976)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalinowski, M., Travassos, G.H., Card, D.N.: Towards a defect prevention based process improvement approach. In: Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 199–206 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalinowski, M., Mendes, E., Travassos, G.H.: Automating and evaluating the use of probabilistic cause-effect diagrams to improve defect causal analysis. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds.) International Conference on Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement (PROFES). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6759, pp. 232–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcos Kalinowski
    • 1
  • Michael Felderer
    • 2
  • Tayana Conte
    • 3
  • Rodrigo Spínola
    • 4
  • Rafael Prikladnicki
    • 5
  • Dietmar Winkler
    • 6
  • Daniel Méndez Fernández
    • 7
  • Stefan Wagner
    • 8
  1. 1.Computing InstituteUniversidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.Computing InstituteUniversidade Federal do AmazonasManausBrazil
  4. 4.Systems and Computing Graduate ProgrammUniversidade SalvadorSalvadorBrazil
  5. 5.Computer Science Graduate ProgrammPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  6. 6.Institute of Software Technology and Interactive SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  7. 7.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany
  8. 8.Institut für SoftwaretechnologieUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations