RECONNAISSANCE OF THE INTERDEPENDENCY AMONG REQUIREMENT CLARITY, SPRINT EFFICIENCY, AND SOFTWARE QUALITY: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15282/Keywords:
Requirement Clarity , Agile Software Development, Sprint Efficiency, Software Quality Assurance (SQA)Abstract
This study has developed a theoretical model capable of evaluating the relationships among requirement clarity, sprint efficiency, and software quality in Agile software development. Although Agile adopts a highly flexible and continuous delivery approach, requirement ambiguity remains one of the major issues that negatively impacts both sprint performance and product quality. Grounded in information processing theory, cognitive load theory, and systems theory, this research reveals how unclear or insufficient requirements lead to increased defect rates, reduced sprint velocity, and diminished planning efficiency. Furthermore, the model establishes a set of metrics to support outcome measurement, including the Requirement Volatility Index (RVI), Sprint Velocity (SV), Defect Density (DD), and Quality Index (QI). From a practical perspective, this study affirms that requirement validation processes, stakeholder alignment, and continuous feedback are essential to Agile success. Overall, this research develops a theoretically and empirically grounded model that assists Agile practitioners, project managers, and quality engineers in anticipating and managing requirements-based risks, while also serving as a tool for real-time quality assurance during sprints.
Downloads
References
[1] M. R. Ara, “Improving clarity and completeness in user stories: Insights from a multi-domain analysis with developer feedback,” vol. 2, no. ICEIS, pp. 272–279, 2025, doi:10.5220/0013363500003929.
[2] A. Mohammad and J. M. Kollamana, “Causes and mitigation practices of requirement volatility in agile software development,” Informatics, vol. 11, no. 1, 2024, doi:10.3390/informatics11010012.
[3] I. Ilays et al., “Towards improving the quality of requirement and testing process in agile software development: An empirical study,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 3761–3784, 2024, doi:10.32604/cmc.2024.053830.
[4] J. Meckenstock, “Shedding light on the dark side: A systematic literature review of the issues in agile software development methodology use,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 211, p. 111966, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.111966.
[5] Z. Hoy and M. Xu, “Agile software requirements engineering challenges-solutions: A conceptual framework from systematic literature review,” Information, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1–19, 2023, doi:10.3390/info14060322.
[6] E. Bjarnason, M. Unterkalmsteiner, M. Borg, and E. Engström, “A multi-case study of agile requirements engineering and the use of test cases as requirements,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 77, pp. 61–79, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.03.008.
[7] M. Asif, Z. U. Din, M. I. Khan, and S. Ullah, “Optimization of software quality framework in agile software development,” International Journal of Computational Intelligence in Control, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 494–515, Jun. 2022.
[8] H. S. Dar and A. Rahman, “A conceptual framework for reducing requirement engineering challenges in industrial-scale software projects,” IJIST Journal, Jun. 2024.
[9] S. S. Almalki, “AI-driven decision support systems in agile software project management: Enhancing risk mitigation and resource allocation,” Systems, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1–23, 2025, doi:10.3390/systems13030208.
[10] L. S. Geetha et al., “Challenges and solutions in agile software development: A managerial perspective on implementation practices,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 748–758, 2025, doi:10.14569/IJACSA.2025.0160374.
[11] E. Dosumu, O. O. George, and C. O. Makata, “Advancing product launch efficiency: A conceptual model integrating agile project management and scrum methodologies,” vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1233–1238, 2025.
[12] A. Anand, J. Kaur, O. Singh, and O. H. Alhazmi, “Optimal sprint length determination for agile-based software development,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 3693–3712, 2021, doi:10.32604/cmc.2021.017461.
[13] V. S. Lapshin, Y. I. Rogozov, and S. A. Kucherov, “Method for building an information model specification based on a sensemaking approach to user involvement in the development process,” Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 4644–4658, 2022, doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.04.016.
[14] D. Helgesson, “Exploring cognitive waste and cognitive load in software development: A grounded theory,” pp. 60–73, 2023.
[15] G. Sriraman and S. Raghunathan, “A systems thinking approach to improve sustainability in software engineering: A grounded capability maturity framework,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 11, 2023, doi:10.3390/su15118766.
[16] D. Helgesson, D. Appelquist, and P. Runeson, A grounded theory of cognitive load drivers in novice agile software development teams. Association for Computing Machinery, 2021.
[17] P. Belém, R. De Mello, A. S. Vivacqua, and A. Neves De Souza, “Investigating the cognitive load drivers of software evolution activities,” ACM International Conference Proceedings Series, pp. 342–347, 2023, doi:10.1145/3613372.3613377.
[18] W. Ajayi, O. W. Olakayode, F. Temilade, and M. Gbadegesin, “Implementing quality assurance in an agile software development process,” International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 1951–1958, 2022.
[19] I. Atoum et al., “Challenges of software requirements quality assurance and validation: A systematic literature review,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 137613–137634, 2021, doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3117989.
[20] L. S. Ferreira and F. S. Nobre, “Agile project management under the perspective of dynamic capabilities,” Gestão & Produção, vol. 29, pp. 1–24, 2022, doi:10.1590/1806-9649-2022V29E3122.
[21] G. L. Dugarte-Peña et al., “Using system dynamics to teach about dependencies, correlation and systemic thinking on software process workflows,” IET Software, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 351–364, 2021, doi:10.1049/sfw2.12031.
[22] D. I. Silva and L. K. B. Siriwardana, “Comparative analysis of software quality assurance approaches in development models,” 2023.
[23] K. Kharchenko et al., “Forecasting software development costs in scrum iterations using ordinary least squares method,” Technology Audit and Production Reserves, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 30–33, 2024, doi:10.15587/2706-5448.2024.310411.
[24] M. Poženel et al., “Agile effort estimation: Comparing the accuracy and efficiency of planning poker, bucket system, and affinity estimation methods,” International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 33, no. 11–12, pp. 1923–1950, 2023, doi:10.1142/S021819402350064X.
[25] R. U. Koralage, “Novel approach to estimate velocity for agile scrum sprint planning,” 2023, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17595.18721.
[26] S. Sharma, D. Kumar, and M. E. Fayad, “On the sprint length estimation technique in agile software development using planning poker,” International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 205–225, 2023, doi:10.1504/IJASM.2023.130837.
[27] P. A. Whigham, C. A. Owen, and S. G. MacDonell, “A baseline model for software effort estimation,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 24, no. 3, 2015, doi:10.1145/2738037.
[28] V. Tawosi, R. Moussa, and F. Sarro, “Agile effort estimation: Have we solved the problem yet? Insights from a replication study,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 2677–2697, 2023, doi:10.1109/TSE.2022.3228739.
[29] Y. J. Pérez Castillo et al., “Sprint management in agile approach: Progress and velocity evaluation applying machine learning,” Information, vol. 15, no. 11, 2024, doi:10.3390/info15110726.
[30] E. Kula et al., “Dynamic prediction of delays in software projects using delay patterns and Bayesian modeling,” Proceedings of ESEC/FSE 2023, pp. 1012–1023, 2023, doi:10.1145/3611643.3616328.
[31] K. P. Pham and M. Neumann, “How to measure performance in agile software development? A mixed-method study,” Proceedings of SEAA, pp. 1–8, 2024, doi:10.1109/SEAA64295.2024.00074.
[32] F. Almeida and P. Carneiro, “Performance metrics in scrum software engineering companies,” International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 205–223, 2021, doi:10.1504/IJASM.2021.118061.
[33] M. Huss et al., “Comparing measured agile software development metrics using an agile model-based software engineering approach versus scrum only,” Software, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 310–331, 2023, doi:10.3390/software2030015.
[34] S. Jain, “Comparative analysis of agile frameworks: Evaluating their impact on software development lifecycle efficiency,” Intelligent Systems and Applications, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3126–3137, 2024.
[35] F. Uzomah et al., “A comparative analysis of agile and traditional project management methodologies,” vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 5737–5746, 2024, doi:10.53555/kuey.v30i1.9237.
[36] R. Menezes et al., “Metrics in large-scale agile software development: A multivocal literature review,” CIbSE 2024, pp. 106–120, 2024, doi:10.5753/cibse.2024.28442.
[37] L. López et al., “Quality measurement in agile and rapid software development: A systematic mapping,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 186, p. 111187, 2022, doi:10.1016/j.jss.2021.111187.
[38] B. Falah, “Evaluating agile methodologies for software requirements and construction: A SWEBOK-based analysis,” vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 174–194, 2025.
[39] A. Mishra and Y. I. Alzoubi, “Structured software development versus agile software development: A comparative analysis,” International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1504–1522, 2023, doi:10.1007/s13198-023-01958-5.
[40] P. Malla, “Analyzing the impact of agile methodologies on software quality and delivery speed: A comparative study,” vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1207–1216, 2025.
[41] L. Siewert, K. Gericke, N. Siller, J. Rusin, and D. Göhlich. Impact, benefits and challenges of agile development: an explorative study on physical products. Proceedings of the Design Society. 2025; 5:2879–2888. doi:10.1017/pds.2025.295.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
