Which Requirements Artifact Quality Defects are Automatically Detectable? A Case Study

August 29, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Henning Femmer, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Tony Gorschek arXiv ID 2308.15057 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 10 Venue 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW) Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
[Context] The quality of requirements engineering artifacts, e.g. requirements specifications, is acknowledged to be an important success factor for projects. Therefore, many companies spend significant amounts of money to control the quality of their RE artifacts. To reduce spending and improve the RE artifact quality, methods were proposed that combine manual quality control, i.e. reviews, with automated approaches. [Problem] So far, we have seen various approaches to automatically detect certain aspects in RE artifacts. However, we still lack an overview what can and cannot be automatically detected. [Approach] Starting from an industry guideline for RE artifacts, we classify 166 existing rules for RE artifacts along various categories to discuss the share and the characteristics of those rules that can be automated. For those rules, that cannot be automated, we discuss the main reasons. [Contribution] We estimate that 53% of the 166 rules can be checked automatically either perfectly or with a good heuristic. Most rules need only simple techniques for checking. The main reason why some rules resist automation is due to imprecise definition. [Impact] By giving first estimates and analyses of automatically detectable and not automatically detectable rule violations, we aim to provide an overview of the potential of automated methods in requirements quality control.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted