Argumentation Schemes for Collaborative Debate of Requirement Risks in Software Projects

Managing risks in real-world software projects is of paramount importance. A significant class of such risks is related to the engineering of requirements, commonly involving the presentation and analysis of risk management arguments from both software engineers and clients involved in collaborative debates. In this work, drawing inspiration from argumentation theory in Artificial Intelligence, we introduce a number of "argumentation schemes" and associated "critical questions" to support such discussions. In doing so, we propose schemes related to risks due to excessive numbers of requirements; inadequate client representatives and poor understanding of client needs; incorrect, incomplete and conflicting requirements; complex and non-traceable requirements; non-stable requirements; and low quality requirements. We also discuss a case study and two experiments where the developed schemes supported the discussion of requirement risks in software projects. The overall results of these experiments indicate that our schemes are useful in the identification, proposition and analysis of requirement risks, adequately supporting debates on requirement risks.