%0 Book Section %1 Unterkalmsteiner2017 %A Unterkalmsteiner, Michael %A Gorschek, Tony %B Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 23rd International Working Conference, REFSQ 2017, Essen, Germany, February 27 -- March 2, 2017, Proceedings %C Cham %D 2017 %E Grünbacher, Paul %E Perini, Anna %I Springer International Publishing %K product.planning product.requirements.engineering %P 77-84 %R 10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_6 %T Requirements Quality Assurance in Industry: Why, What and How? %U https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_6 %X Context and Motivation: Natural language is the most common form to specify requirements in industry. The quality of the specification depends on the capability of the writer to formulate requirements aimed at different stakeholders: they are an expression of the customer's needs that are used by analysts, designers and testers. Given this central role of requirements as a mean to communicate intention, assuring their quality is essential to reduce misunderstandings that lead to potential waste. Problem: Quality assurance of requirement specifications is largely a manual effort that requires expertise and domain knowledge. However, this demanding cognitive process is also congested by trivial quality issues that should not occur in the first place. Principal ideas: We propose a taxonomy of requirements quality assurance complexity that characterizes cognitive load of verifying a quality aspect from the human perspective, and automation complexity and accuracy from the machine perspective. Contribution: Once this taxonomy is realized and validated, it can serve as the basis for a decision framework of automated requirements quality assurance support. %@ 978-3-319-54045-0

@inbook{Unterkalmsteiner2017, abstract = {Context and Motivation: Natural language is the most common form to specify requirements in industry. The quality of the specification depends on the capability of the writer to formulate requirements aimed at different stakeholders: they are an expression of the customer's needs that are used by analysts, designers and testers. Given this central role of requirements as a mean to communicate intention, assuring their quality is essential to reduce misunderstandings that lead to potential waste. Problem: Quality assurance of requirement specifications is largely a manual effort that requires expertise and domain knowledge. However, this demanding cognitive process is also congested by trivial quality issues that should not occur in the first place. Principal ideas: We propose a taxonomy of requirements quality assurance complexity that characterizes cognitive load of verifying a quality aspect from the human perspective, and automation complexity and accuracy from the machine perspective. Contribution: Once this taxonomy is realized and validated, it can serve as the basis for a decision framework of automated requirements quality assurance support.}, added-at = {2017-09-26T14:07:35.000+0200}, address = {Cham}, author = {Unterkalmsteiner, Michael and Gorschek, Tony}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/25138d8960687759ba6615083d29a4b19/ispma}, booktitle = {Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 23rd International Working Conference, REFSQ 2017, Essen, Germany, February 27 -- March 2, 2017, Proceedings}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_6}, editor = {Grünbacher, Paul and Perini, Anna}, interhash = {67bd376a51b1c8b6376bee2a4a1a5b66}, intrahash = {5138d8960687759ba6615083d29a4b19}, isbn = {978-3-319-54045-0}, keywords = {product.planning product.requirements.engineering}, pages = {77-84}, publisher = {Springer International Publishing}, timestamp = {2017-09-26T14:33:50.000+0200}, title = {Requirements Quality Assurance in Industry: Why, What and How?}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_6}, year = 2017 }