A practitioner survey on Requirements Technical Debt Quantification

Abstract

Requirements Technical Debt (RTD) is a phenomenon borrowed from the Technical Debt literature that captures the consequences of sub-optimal decisions made concerning software requirements. We report on a survey conducted to understand industry practices and perceptions about RTD quantification.

The survey instrument was designed based on prior work, the RTD Quantification Model (RTDQM), which captures RTD quantification conceptually and serves as a reference point. Our survey employs the Critical Incident Technique (CIT), inquiring practitioners about what RTD instances they encountered. Follow-up questions focused on understanding whether practitioners fixed such RTD instances and whether they quantified model concepts such as the Cost of fixing, the Benefit of fixing, and the Consequences of not fixing. We also sought their opinions on whether quantification supports decision-making.

Our findings suggest that the Benefit of fixing RTD is the concept agreed by most practitioners that it supports decision-making, and is quantified in practice. Practitioners’ preferences regarding the concepts to quantify seem to differ based on the different RTD instances. Survey findings also suggest that the company and individual perspectives regarding the quantification of the concepts differ. Our findings reveal future research avenues that warrant deeper conversations with the industry.