On the Impact of the Model-based Representation of Inconsistencies to Manual Reviews: Results from a Controlled Experiment - Extended Version

TL;DR

This paper investigates how different model-based representations of inconsistent requirements affect manual review efficiency, finding that integrated diagrams significantly improve review speed without reducing accuracy.

Contribution

It introduces and empirically evaluates two model-based formats for representing inconsistent requirements, demonstrating the benefits of integrated diagrams in manual reviews.

Findings

Integrated diagrams increase review efficiency

No loss in review effectiveness with integrated diagrams

Model-based representations aid in resolving requirement inconsistencies

Abstract

To ensure fulfilling stakeholder wishes, it is crucial to validate the documented requirements. This is often complicated by the fact that the wishes and intentions of different stakeholders are somewhat contradictory, which manifests itself in inconsistent requirements. To aid requirements engineers in identifying and resolving inconsistent requirements, we investigated the usefulness for manual reviews of two different model-based representation formats for inconsistent requirements; one that represent the inconsistent requirements in separate diagrams and one that represents them integrated into one diagram using annotations. The results from a controlled experiment show that the use of such integrated review diagrams can significantly increase efficiency of manual reviews, without sacrificing effectiveness.