Which Requirements Artifact Quality Defects are Automatically Detectable? A Case Study
Henning Femmer, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Tony Gorschek

TL;DR
This study analyzes 166 industry rules for requirements artifacts to estimate that about half can be automatically checked, highlighting the potential and limitations of automation in requirements quality control.
Contribution
It provides the first comprehensive overview of which requirements artifact quality rules are automatable and discusses the main reasons why some rules resist automation.
Findings
53% of rules can be automatically checked with good heuristics
Most automatable rules require only simple techniques
Imprecise rule definitions hinder automation potential
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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
