Research has repeatedly shown that high-quality requirements are essential for the success of development projects. While the term “quality” is pervasive in the field of requirements engineering and while the body of research on requirements quality is large, there is no meta-study of the field that overviews and compares the concrete quality attributes addressed by the community. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic mapping study of the scientific literature. We retrieved 6905 articles from six academic databases, which we filtered down to 105 relevant primary studies. The primary studies use empirical research to explicitly define, improve, or evaluate requirements quality. We found that empirical research on requirements quality focuses on improvement techniques, with very few primary studies addressing evidence-based definitions and evaluations of quality attributes. Among the 12 quality attributes identified, the most prominent in the field are ambiguity, completeness, consistency, and correctness. We identified 111 sub-types of quality attributes such as “template conformance” for consistency or “passive voice” for ambiguity. Ambiguity has the largest share of these sub-types. The artefacts being studied are mostly referred to in the broadest sense as “requirements”, while little research targets quality attributes in specific types of requirements such as use cases or user stories. Our findings highlight the need to conduct more empirically grounded research defining requirements quality, using more varied research methods, and addressing a more diverse set of requirements types.

High-quality requirements minimize the risk of propagating defects to later stages of the software development life cycle. Achieving a sufficient level of quality is a major goal of requirements engineering. This requires a clear definition and understanding of requirements quality. Though recent publications make an effort at disentangling the complex concept of quality, the requirements quality research community lacks identity and clear structure which guides advances and puts new findings into an holistic perspective. In this research commentary we contribute (1) a harmonized requirements quality theory organizing its core concepts, (2) an evaluation of the current state of requirements quality research, and (3) a research roadmap to guide advancements in the field.

No abstract

Understanding and keeping the customer happy is a central tenet of requirements engineering. Strategies to gather, analyze, and negotiate requirements are complemented by efforts to manage customer input after products have been deployed. For the latter, support tickets are key in allowing customers to submit their issues, bug reports, and feature requests. Whenever insufficient attention is given to support issues, however, their escalation to management is time-consuming and expensive, especially for large organizations managing hundreds of customers and thousands of support tickets. Our work provides a step towards simplifying the job of support analysts and managers, particularly in predicting the risk of escalating support tickets. In a field study at our large industrial partner, IBM, we used a design science methodology to characterize the support process and data available to IBM analysts in managing escalations. Through iterative cycles of design and evaluation, we translated our understanding of support analysts' expert knowledge of their customers into features of a support ticket model to be implemented into a Machine Learning model to predict support ticket escalations. We trained and evaluated our Machine Learning model on over 2.5 million support tickets and 10,000 escalations, obtaining a recall of 79.9% and an 80.8% reduction in the workload for support analysts looking to identify support tickets at risk of escalation. Further on-site evaluations, through a prototype tool we developed to implement our Machine Learning techniques in practice, showed more efficient weekly support-ticket-management meetings. The features we developed in the Support Ticket Model are designed to serve as a starting place for organizations interested in implementing our model to predict support ticket escalations, and for future researchers to build on to advance research in escalation prediction.Index Terms-Customer relationship management, machine learning, escalation prediction, customer support ticket.

Successful open source communities are constantly looking for new members and helping them become active developers. A common approach for developer onboarding in open source projects is to let newcomers focus on relevant yet easy-to-solve issues to familiarize themselves with the code and the community. The goal of this research is twofold. First, we aim at automatically identifying issues that newcomers can resolve by analyzing the history of resolved issues by simply using the title and description of issues. Second, we aim at automatically identifying issues, that can be resolved by newcomers who later become active developers. We mined the issue trackers of three large open source projects and extracted natural language features from the title and description of resolved issues. In a series of experiments, we optimized and compared the accuracy of four supervised classifiers to address our research goals. Random Forest, achieved up to 91% precision (F1-score 72%) towards the first goal while for the second goal, Decision Tree achieved a precision of 92% (F1-score 91%). A qualitative evaluation gave insights on what information in the issue description is helpful for newcomers. Our approach can be used to automatically identify, label, and recommend issues for newcomers in open source software projects based only on the text of the issues.