Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1109/CHASE.2017.10acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Is it possible to disregard obsolete requirements?: an initial experiment on a potentially new bias in software effort estimation

Published: 20 May 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Effort estimation is a complex area in decision-making, and is influenced by a diversity of factors that could increase the estimation error. The effects on effort estimation accuracy of having obsolete requirements in specifications have not yet been studied. This study aims at filling that gap. A total of 150 students were asked to provide effort estimates for different amounts of requirements, and one group was explicitly told to disregard some of the given requirements. The results show that even the extra text instructing participants to exclude requirements in the estimation task, had the subjects give higher estimates. The effect of having obsolete requirements in requirements specifications and backlogs in software effort estimation is not taken into account enough today, and this study provides empirical evidence that it possibly should. We also suggest different psychological explanations to the found effect.

References

[1]
M. Jørgensen, "A review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 37--60, 2004.
[2]
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases," Science, vol. 185, no. 4157, pp. 1124--1131, 1974.
[3]
K. Wnuk, T. Gorschek, and S. Zahda, "Obsolete software requirements," Information and Software Technology, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 921--940, 2013.
[4]
D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, "Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness," in The Concept of Probability in Psychological Experiments. Springer, 1974, pp. 25--48.
[5]
J. Huber, J. W. Payne, and C. Puto, "Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis," Journal of consumer research, pp. 90--98, 1982.
[6]
A. Tversky and I. Simonson, "Context-dependent preferences," Management science, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1179--1189, 1993.
[7]
T. Zhang and D. Zhang, "Agent-based simulation of consumer purchase decision-making and the decoy effect," Journal of business research, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 912--922, 2007.
[8]
D. Ariely and T. S. Wallsten, "Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 223--232, 1995.
[9]
M. Jørgensen and D. i. Sjøberg, "Impact of effort estimates on software project work," Information and Software Technology, vol. 43, no. 15, pp. 939--948, 2001.
[10]
M. Jørgensen, "The impact of customer expectation on software development effort estimates," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 317--325, 2004.
[11]
M. Jørgensen and S. Grimstad, "The impact of irrelevant and misleading information on software development effort estimates: A randomized controlled field experiment," Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 695--707, Sept 2011.
[12]
J. Aranda and S. Easterbrook, "Anchoring and adjustment in software estimation," in Proceedings of the 10th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. ESEC/FSE-13. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2005, pp. 346--355.
[13]
R. Ettenson, "Expert judgment: is more information better?" Psychological reports, vol. 60, no. 1, p. 227238, 1987.
[14]
G. M. Marzocchi, D. Lucangeli, T. De Meo, F. Fini, and C. Cornoldi, "The disturbing effect of irrelevant information on arithmetic problem solving in inattentive children," Developmental Neuropsychology, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 7392, 2002.
[15]
M. Jørgensen and D. Sjøberg, "The importance of not learning from experience," in Proc. European Software Process Improvement Conf, 2000, p. 210.
[16]
D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1982.
[17]
D. Ariely, Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. London: HarperCollins, 2008.
[18]
E. Teppan and A. Felfernig, "Minimization of product utility estimation errors in recommender result set evaluations," in Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies, 2009. WI-IAT '09. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on, vol. 1, Sept 2009, pp. 20--27.
[19]
E. Teppan, G. Friedrich, and A. Felfernig, "Impacts of decoy effects on the decision making ability," in Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC), 2010 IEEE 12th Conference on, Nov 2010, pp. 112--119.
[20]
J. E. Slaughter, E. F. Sinar, and S. Highhouse, "Decoy effects and attribute-level inferences." Journal of applied psychology, vol. 84, no. 5, p. 823, 1999.
[21]
M. Bateson, S. D. Healy, and T. A. Hurly, "Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, vol. 270, no. 1521, pp. 1271--1276, 2003.
[22]
J. Cohen, "Quantitative methods in psychology - a power primer," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 155--159, 1992.
[23]
K. Schwaber, Agile project management with Scrum. Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Press, 2004.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CHASE '17: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering
May 2017
109 pages
ISBN:9781538640395

Sponsors

Publisher

IEEE Press

Publication History

Published: 20 May 2017

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ICSE '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 47 of 70 submissions, 67%

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 27 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media