Interview Review: an empirical study on detecting ambiguities in - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Interview Review: an empirical study on detecting ambiguities in requirements elicitation interviews Paola Spoletini Kennesaw State University, USA Alessio Ferrari ISTI-CNR, Italy Muneera Bano SUT Melbourne, Australia Didar Zowghi UTS Sydney, Australia Stefania Gnesi ISTI-CNR, Italy 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review: an empirical study on detecting ambiguities in requirements elicitation interviews Paola Spoletini Kennesaw State University, USA Alessio Ferrari ISTI-CNR, Italy Muneera Bano SUT Melbourne, Australia Didar Zowghi UTS Sydney, Australia Stefania Gnesi ISTI-CNR, Italy 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Requirements Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities An ambiguity occurs when a customer articulates a unit of information, and the meaning assigned by the SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT requirements analyst to such articulation differs k from the meaning intended by the customer Domain CONCEPT k Goals Requirements Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Requirements Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities Interp rpretation tation Unc Unclar arity ity SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Requirements Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Requirements Specification Acceptan ptance Unc Unclarit arity ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Requirements Specification Multiple iple Un Understandin ding ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities Interp rpretation tation Unc Unclar arity ity SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Requirements Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities Interp rpretation tation Unc Unclar arity ity SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Detected d Incorrect Goals disamb di mbigu iguatio ation Requirements Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Ambiguities SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Und Undetected d Incorrect t Requirements disamb di mbigu iguatio ation Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Misunderstanding, Ambiguities conflicting situations … SPEECH INTERPRETATION FRAGMENT k Domain CONCEPT k Goals Und Undetected d Incorrect t Requirements di disamb mbigu iguatio ation Specification ACCEPTANCE k k 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review: an empirical study on detecting ambiguities in requirements elicitation interviews Paola Spoletini Kennesaw State University, USA Alessio Ferrari ISTI-CNR, Italy Muneera Bano SUT Melbourne, Australia Didar Zowghi UTS Sydney, Australia Stefania Gnesi ISTI-CNR, Italy 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Reviews 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Reviews 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

How are reviews effective? 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

How are reviews effective? ■ Often effective in identification of defects in requirements specifications ■ Widely used in the industry 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

How are reviews effective? ■ Often effective in identification of defects in requirements specifications ■ Widely used in the industry “Software requirements are based on flawed ‘upstream’ requirements and reviews on requirements specifications are thus in vain” F.Salger,“Requirementsreviewsrevisited:Residualchallengesandopen research questions,” in RE’13 . IEEE, 2013, pp. 250 – 255 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review “Software requirements are based on flawed ‘upstream’ requirements and reviews on requirements specifications are thus in vain” F.Salger,“Requirementsreviewsrevisited:Residualchallengesandopen research questions,” in RE’13 . IEEE, 2013, pp. 250 – 255 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review “Software requirements are based on flawed ‘upstream’ requirements and reviews on requirements specifications are thus in vain” F.Salger,“Requirementsreviewsrevisited:Residualchallengesandopen research questions,” in RE’13 . IEEE, 2013, pp. 250 – 255 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review “Software requirements are based on flawed ‘upstream’ requirements and reviews on requirements specifications are thus in vain” F.Salger,“Requirementsreviewsrevisited:Residualchallengesandopen research questions,” in RE’13 . IEEE, 2013, pp. 250 – 255 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review “Software requirements are based on flawed ‘upstream’ requirements and reviews on requirements specifications are thus in vain” F.Salger,“Requirementsreviewsrevisited:Residualchallengesandopen research questions,” in RE’13 . IEEE, 2013, pp. 250 – 255 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review “Software requirements are based on flawed ‘upstream’ requirements and reviews on requirements specifications are thus in vain” F.Salger,“Requirementsreviewsrevisited:Residualchallengesandopen research questions,” in RE’13 . IEEE, 2013, pp. 250 – 255 Intuition: tuition: Review of requirements elicitation interviews allows identifying ambiguities that can be leveraged to ask useful follow- up questions in future interviews. 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Research questions? 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Research questions? RQ1: Is there a difference between ambiguities explicitly revealed by an analyst during an interview, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Research questions? RQ1: Is there a difference between ambiguities explicitly revealed by an analyst during an interview, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? RQ2: Is there a difference between ambiguities identified by the analyst when s/he listens to the interview recording, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Research questions? RQ1: Is there a difference between ambiguities explicitly revealed by an analyst during an interview, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? RQ2: Is there a difference between ambiguities identified by the analyst when s/he listens to the interview recording, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? RQ3: Can the ambiguities identified during interview review be used to ask useful questions in future interviews? 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Exploratory study ■ 38 students from KSU, 19 interviews – Software intensive system – 20 minutes per interview – 2 hour lecture on elicitation ■ 2 reviewers, 10 interviews – Researcher in requirements elicitation – Professional analyst 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Interview Review: an empirical study on detecting ambiguities in requirements elicitation interviews Paola Spoletini Kennesaw State University, USA Alessio Ferrari ISTI-CNR, Italy Muneera Bano SUT Melbourne, Australia Didar Zowghi UTS Sydney, Australia Stefania Gnesi ISTI-CNR, Italy 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Research questions? RQ1: Is there a difference between ambiguities explicitly revealed by an analyst during an interview, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? RQ2: Is there a difference between ambiguities identified by the analyst when s/he listens to the interview recording, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? RQ3: Can the ambiguities identified during interview review be used to ask useful questions in future interviews? 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Research questions? RQ1: Is there a difference between ambiguities explicitly revealed by an analyst during an interview, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? RQ2: Is there a difference between ambiguities identified by the analyst when s/he listens to the interview recording, and ambiguities identified by a reviewer who listens to the interview recording? 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Variables 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Variables ■ Independent variable: Perspec pecti tive e – Role – Moment 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Variables AI ■ Independent variable: Perspec pecti tive e – Role – Moment 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Variables AI ■ Independent variable: Perspec pecti tive e – Role AR – Moment 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18

Variables AI ■ Independent variable: Perspec pecti tive e – Role RR AR – Moment 3/22/18 Interview Reviews - REFSQ'18