Abstract
Effective communication is important to successful software development, but it is difficult to achieve. We believe transparency — the visibility of information to stakeholders — is an important factor in the effectiveness of communication in software projects. We theorise that more effective communication results from more transparent requirements documents. To test our theory, we conducted an experiment. We developed an operational definition of transparency with three attributes: accessibility, understandability, and relevance. We had students and software practitioners use requirements documents of differing levels of transparency based on these attributes to answer questions. We found that participants with the more transparent document spent less time, answered more questions correctly, and were more confident about their answers, than participants with the less transparent document. The results of our experiment provide evidence that our view of transparency may help evaluate the effectiveness of documents as a form of communication. Further work is needed to reproduce our results, and to determine whether they are generalizable to other types of stakeholders and forms of communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is available from http://goo.gl/sWgW2Q with the experimental materials.
These are available from http://goo.gl/sWgW2Q
References
Al-Rawas A, Easterbrook S (1996) Communication problems in requirements engineering: A field study. In: Proceedings of Conference on Professional on Awareness in Software Engineering, pp 47–60
Allaby M (ed) (2008) A Dictionary of Earth Sciences. Oxford University Press
Anda B, Sjøberg D, Jørgensen M (2001) ECOOP 2001 Object-Oriented Programming, vol 2072. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 402–428
Awad N, Krishnan M (2006) The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Q 30(1):13–28
Bevan N, Azuma M (1997) Quality in use: Incorporating human factors into the software engineering lifecycle. In: Software Engineering Standards Symposium and Forum, 1997. Emerging International Standards. ISESS 97. 3rd IEEE International, pp 169–179
Bickerstaff K, Tolley R, Walker G (2002) Transport planning and participation: The rhetoric and realities of public involvement. J Trans Geogr 10(1):61–73
Bird C (2005) Top 10 tips for better agile. Inf Prof 2(6):33–36
Cerri S (2000) Effective communication skills for engineers. In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Engineering Management Society, pp 625–629
Clarke R (1999) Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Commun ACM 42(2):60–67
Coughlan J, Macredie R (2002) Effective communication in requirements elicitation: A comparison of methodologies. Requir Eng 7(2):47–60
Curtis B, Krasner H, Iscoe N (1988) A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun ACM 31(11):1268–1287
Fleischmann K, Wallace W (2005) A covenant with transparency: Opening the black box of models. Commun ACM 48(5):93–97
Fleischmann K, Wallace W (2009) Ensuring transparency in computational modeling. Commun ACM 52(3):131–134
Forward A, Lethbridge TC (2002) The relevance of software documentation, tools and technologies: A survey. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Document engineering. ACM, pp 26–33
Fowler M (2004) UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Addison-Wesley Professional
Hartwick J, Barki H (2001) Communication as a dimension of user participation. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 44(1):21–36
Heijstek W, Kuhne T, Chaudron MR (2011) Experimental analysis of textual and graphical representations for software architecture design. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE, pp 167–176
Herlea Damian D, Eberlein A, Shaw M, Gaines B (2000) Using different communication media in requirements negotiation. IEEE Softw 17(3):28–36
Hertzum M, Pejtersen A (2000) The information-seeking practices of engineers: Searching for documents as well as for people. Inf Process Manag 36(5):761–778
Ingalls P, Frever T (2009) Growing an agile culture from value seeds. In: Agile Conference, 2009. AGILE ’09, pp 119–124
Jedlitschka A, Ciolkowski M, Pfahl D (2008) Reporting experiments in software engineering. In: Shull F, Singer J, Sjøberg D (eds) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer, London, pp 201–228
Leffingwell D, Widrig D (2000) Managing Software Requirements: A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional
Lyytinen K, Hirschheim R (1987) Information systems failures: A survey and classification of the empirical literature. Oxford University Press, Inc, pp 257–309
Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ 15(5):625–632
Oliver R (2004) What is transparency?. McGraw-Hill
Poole W (2003) The softer side of custom software development: Working with the other players. In: Proceedings. 16th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 2003. (CSEE T 2003), pp 14–21
Rowe G, Frewer L (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Sci, Technol, Hum Values 25(1):3–29
Saiedian H, Dale R (2000) Requirements engineering: Making the connection between the software developer and customer. Inf Softw Technol 42(6):419–428
Santana A, Wood D (2009) Transparency and social responsibility issues for wikipedia. Ethics Inf Technol 11:133–144
Schwaber K, Sutherland J (2012) The scrum guide. http://www.scrum.org/Portals/0/Documents/Scrum%20Guides/Scrum_Guide.pdf.
Tan B, Smith H, Keil M, Montealegre R (2003) Reporting bad news about software projects: Impact of organizational climate and information asymmetry in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 50(1):64–77
Trochim WM (2001) Research methods knowledge base. Atomic Dog Pub., Cincinnati, OH.
Tu Y (2014) Transparency in Software Engineering. PhD thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Tu Y, Tempero E, Thomborson C (2014) Evaluating presentation of requirements documents: Results of an experiment. In: Zowghi D, Jin Z (eds) Requirements Engineering, vol 432. Communications and Information Science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 120–134
Verner J, Overmyer S, McCain K (1999) In the 25 years since the mythical man-month what have we learned about project management? Inf Softw Technol 41(14):1021–1026
Walz D, Elam J, Curtis B (1993) Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration. Commun ACM 36(10):63–77
Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson M, Regnell B (2000) Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, MA, USA
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by: Daniela Damian
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tu, YC., Tempero, E. & Thomborson, C. An experiment on the impact of transparency on the effectiveness of requirements documents. Empir Software Eng 21, 1035–1066 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-015-9374-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-015-9374-8