Interview Review: An Empirical Study on Detecting Ambiguities in Requirements Elicitation Interviews | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Interview Review: An Empirical Study on Detecting Ambiguities in Requirements Elicitation Interviews

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10753))

Abstract

[Context and Motivation] Ambiguities identified during requirements elicitation interviews can be used by the requirements analyst as triggers for additional questions and, consequently, for disclosing further – possibly tacit – knowledge. Therefore, every unidentified ambiguity may be a missed opportunity to collect additional information. [Question/problem] Ambiguities are not always easy to recognize, especially during highly interactive activities such as requirements elicitation interviews. Moreover, since different persons can perceive ambiguous situations differently, the unique perspective of the analyst in the interview might not be enough to identify all ambiguities. [Principal idea/results] To maximize the number of ambiguities recognized in interviews, this paper proposes a protocol to conduct reviews of requirements elicitation interviews. In the proposed protocol, the interviews are audio recorded and the recordings are inspected by both the analyst who performed the interview and another reviewer. The idea is to use the identified cases of ambiguity to create questions for the follow-up interviews. Our empirical evaluation of this protocol involves 42 students from Kennesaw State University and University of Technology Sydney. The study shows that, during the review, the analyst and the other reviewer identify 68% of the total number of ambiguities discovered, while 32% were identified during the interviews. Furthermore, the ambiguities identified by analysts and other reviewers during the review significantly differ from each other. [Contribution] Our results indicate that interview reviews allow the identification of a considerable number of undetected ambiguities, and can potentially be highly beneficial to discover unexpressed information in future interviews.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 5719
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 7149
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    A full description of the degree can found at http://www.handbook.uts.edu.au/courses/c04295.html.

References

  1. Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: RE 2006, pp. 179–188. IEEE (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hadar, I., Soffer, P., Kenzi, K.: The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: an exploratory study. REJ 19(2), 143–159 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Coughlan, J., Macredie, R.D.: Effective communication in requirements elicitation: a comparison of methodologies. Requir. Eng. 7(2), 47–60 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zowghi, D., Coulin, C.: Requirements elicitation: a survey of techniques, approaches, and tools. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 19–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Gervasi, V., Gacitua, R., Rouncefield, M., Sawyer, P., Kof, L., Ma, L., Piwek, P., De Roeck, A., Willis, A., Yang, H., et al.: Unpacking tacit knowledge for requirements engineering. In: Maalej, W., Thurimella, A. (eds.) Managing Requirements Knowledge, pp. 23–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34419-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Sutcliffe, A., Sawyer, P.: Requirements elicitation: towards the unknown unknowns. In: RE 2013, pp. 92–104. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Gnesi, S.: Ambiguity cues in requirements elicitation interviews. In: RE 2016, pp. 56–65. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rugg, G., McGeorge, P., Maiden, N.: Method fragments. Expert Syst. 17(5), 248–257 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedrich, W.R., Van Der Poll, J.A.: Towards a methodology to elicit tacit domain knowledge from users. IJIKM 2(1), 179–193 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Gnesi, S.: Ambiguity as a resource to disclose tacit knowledge. In: RE 2015, pp. 26–35. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Salger, F.: Requirements reviews revisited: residual challenges and open research questions. In: RE 2013, pp. 250–255. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. IEEE Std 1028–2008: IEEE Standard for Software Reviews and Audits (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Laitenberger, O., DeBaud, J.M.: An encompassing life cycle centric survey of software inspection. JSS 50(1), 5–31 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shull, F., Rus, I., Basili, V.: How perspective-based reading can improve requirements inspections. Computer 33(7), 73–79 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bacchelli, A., Bird, C.: Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In: ICSE 2013, pp. 712–721. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rigby, P.C., Bird, C.: Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In: FSE 2013, pp. 202–212. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fagan, M.E.: Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Syst. J. 15(3), 182–211 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Are the perspectives really different? Further experimentation on scenario-based reading of requirements. In: Experimentation in Software Engineering, pp. 175–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2_13

  19. Femmer, H., Hauptmann, B., Eder, S., Moser, D.: Quality assurance of requirements artifacts in practice: a case study and a process proposal. In: Abrahamsson, P., Jedlitschka, A., Nguyen Duc, A., Felderer, M., Amasaki, S., Mikkonen, T. (eds.) PROFES 2016. LNCS, vol. 10027, pp. 506–516. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49094-6_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosadini, B., Ferrari, A., Gori, G., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Trotta, I., Bacherini, S.: Using NLP to detect requirements defects: an industrial experience in the railway domain. In: Grünbacher, P., Perini, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2017. LNCS, vol. 10153, pp. 344–360. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Massey, A.K., Rutledge, R.L., Anton, A.I., Swire, P.P.: Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements. In: RE 2014, pp. 83–92. IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Donati, B., Zowghi, D., Gnesi, S.: Interview review: detecting latent ambiguities to improve the requirements elicitation process. In: RE 2017, pp. 400–405. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kof, L.: From requirements documents to system models: a tool for interactive semi-automatic translation. In: RE 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ambriola, V., Gervasi, V.: On the systematic analysis of natural language requirements with CIRCE. ASE 13(1), 107–167 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mich, L.: NL-OOPS: from natural language to object oriented requirements using the natural language processing system LOLITA. NLE 2(2), 161–187 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mavin, A., Wilkinson, P., Harwood, A., Novak, M.: Easy approach to requirements syntax (ears). In: RE 2009, pp. 317–322. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pohl, K., Rupp, C.: Requirements Engineering Fundamentals. Rocky Nook Inc., Santa Barbara (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L., Zimmer, F.: Automated checking of conformance to requirements templates using natural language processing. TSE 41(10), 944–968 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Berry, D.M., Kamsties, E., Krieger, M.M.: From contract drafting to software specification: linguistic sources of ambiguity (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Trentanni, G.: An automatic tool for the analysis of natural language requirements. IJCSSE 20(1), 53–62 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tjong, S.F., Berry, D.M.: The design of SREE — a prototype potential ambiguity finder for requirements specifications and lessons learned. In: Doerr, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) REFSQ 2013. LNCS, vol. 7830, pp. 80–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Gleich, B., Creighton, O., Kof, L.: Ambiguity detection: towards a tool explaining ambiguity sources. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14192-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Femmer, H., Fernández, D.M., Wagner, S., Eder, S.: Rapid quality assurance with requirements smells. JSS 123, 190–213 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chantree, F., Nuseibeh, B., de Roeck, A.N., Willis, A.: Identifying nocuous ambiguities in natural language requirements. In: RE 2006, pp. 56–65 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Yang, H., de Roeck, A.N., Gervasi, V., Willis, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Analysing anaphoric ambiguity in natural language requirements. Requir. Eng. 16(3), 163–189 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Katasonov, A., Sakkinen, M.: Requirements quality control: a unifying framework. REJ 11(1), 42–57 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Aurum, A., Petersson, H., Wohlin, C.: State-of-the-art: software inspections after 25 years. Softw. Testing Verification Reliab. 12(3), 133–154 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Karras, O., Kiesling, S., Schneider, K.: Supporting requirements elicitation by tool-supported video analysis. In: RE 2016, pp. 146–155. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction, 4th edn. Wiley, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Höst, M., Regnell, B., Wohlin, C.: Using students as subjects, a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. ESE 5(3), 201–214 (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

    Paola Spoletini

  2. CNR-ISTI, Pisa, Italy

    Alessio Ferrari & Stefania Gnesi

  3. Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

    Muneera Bano

  4. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia

    Muneera Bano & Didar Zowghi

Authors
  1. Paola Spoletini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessio Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muneera Bano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Didar Zowghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefania Gnesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Paola Spoletini or Alessio Ferrari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Dortmund, Germany

    Erik Kamsties

  2. Chalmers and University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jennifer Horkoff

  3. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Fabiano Dalpiaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Spoletini, P., Ferrari, A., Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Gnesi, S. (2018). Interview Review: An Empirical Study on Detecting Ambiguities in Requirements Elicitation Interviews. In: Kamsties, E., Horkoff, J., Dalpiaz, F. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10753. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77243-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77243-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77242-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77243-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics