Systematic Review of the Debt Requirements Literature: Its Causes and Measurement
Abstract
Technical Requirements Debt is defined as the difference between the initially stated requirements and the final software product. This study aimed to conduct a systematic literature review based on a methodology structured in three phases: definition of a search protocol, selection of relevant scientific sources, and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by a synthesis of the collected information. Research from the last five years was analyzed, considering a total of thirteen articles. The results indicate that the main causes of Technical Requirements Debt include the lack of formal documentation, pressure to meet deadlines, poor communication between the client and the development team, as well as the absence of automated tools that optimize requirements traceability, among other factors. Regarding its measurement, strategies such as cost-benefit analysis and rectification cost estimation have been proposed; however, these have not yet been validated in real-world contexts, which limits their practical applicability. In conclusion, Technical Requirements Debt represents a challenge in software engineering, directly affecting project quality and success. This work provides an updated overview that can serve as a basis for future research in the area, with the goal of developing more effective strategies for its management and possible mitigation.
Downloads
References
[2] S. McConnell, “Managing Technical Debt,” Jun. 2008, Accessed: Apr. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: www.construx.com/whitepapers
[3] Z. S. H. Abad and G. Ruhe, “Using real options to manage Technical Debt in Requirements Engineering,” 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2015 - Proceedings, pp. 230–235, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1109/RE.2015.7320428.
[4] C. Berenguer et al., “Technical Debt is not Only about Code and We Need to be Aware about It,” in XX Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Nov. 2021, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1145/3493244.3493285.
[5] Fowler Martin, “Technical Debt Quadrant.” Accessed: Mar. 07, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebtQuadrant.html
[6] N. Brown et al., “Managing technical debt in software-reliant systems,” in Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering research, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Nov. 2010, pp. 47–52. doi: 10.1145/1882362.1882373.
[7] N. A. Ernst, “On the role of requirements in understanding and managing technical debt,” 2012 3rd International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt, MTD 2012 - Proceedings, pp. 61–64, 2012, doi: 10.1109/MTD.2012.6226002.
[8] Z. Li, P. Avgeriou, and P. Liang, “A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 101, pp. 193–220, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.12.027.
[9] J. Perera, E. Tempero, Y. C. Tu, and K. Blincoe, “Quantifying Requirements Technical Debt: A Systematic Mapping Study and a Conceptual Model,” 2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), vol. 2023-September, pp. 123–133, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1109/RE57278.2023.00021.
[10] V. Lenarduzzi and D. Fucci, “Towards a Holistic Definition of Requirements Debt,” International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, vol. 2019-Septemer, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870159.
[11] V. Bonfim and F. Benitti, “Requirements debt: causes, consequences, and mitigating practices,” Jul. 2022, pp. 13–18. doi: 10.18293/SEKE2022-114.
[12] V. D. Bonfim and F. B. V. Benitti, “OntoReD: Requirements debt Ontology,” Jun. 12, 2024. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4499025/v1.
[13] B. Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, and S. Linkman, “Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review,” Inf Softw Technol, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 7–15, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009.
[14] G. Tebes, D. Peppino, P. Becker, and L. O. Gidis_Web, “Proceso para Revisión Sistemática de Literatura y Mapeo Sistemático Process for Systematic Literature Review and Systematic Mapping,” 2020.
[15] D. OBrien, S. Biswas, S. Imtiaz, R. Abdalkareem, E. Shihab, and H. Rajan, “23 shades of self-admitted technical debt: an empirical study on machine learning software,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Nov. 2022, pp. 734–746. doi: 10.1145/3540250.3549088.
[16] J. Perera, E. Tempero, Y.-C. Tu, K. Blincoe, and M. Galster, “Towards Quantifying Requirements Technical Debt for Software Requirements concerning Veracity: A Perspective and Research Roadmap,” Jun. 2024, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00391
[17] S. Charalampidou, A. Ampatzoglou, A. Chatzigeorgiou, and N. Tsiridis, “Integrating traceability within the IDE to prevent requirements documentation debt,” in Proceedings - 44th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, SEAA 2018, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Oct. 2018, pp. 421–428. doi: 10.1109/SEAA.2018.00075.
[18] V. Lenarduzzi, T. Besker, D. Taibi, A. Martini, and F. Arcelli Fontana, “A systematic literature review on Technical Debt prioritization: Strategies, processes, factors, and tools,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 171, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.110827.
[19] M. Soliman, P. Avgeriou, and Y. Li, “Architectural design decisions that incur technical debt — An industrial case study,” Inf Softw Technol, vol. 139, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106669.
[20] A. Melo, R. Fagundes, V. Lenarduzzi, and W. B. Santos, “Identification and measurement of Requirements Technical Debt in software development: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 194, p. 111483, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.JSS.2022.111483.
[21] J. Frattini et al., “An initial theory to understand and manage requirements engineering debt in practice,” Inf Softw Technol, vol. 159, p. 107201, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.INFSOF.2023.107201.
[22] M. E. Nielsen and C. Ø. Madsen, “Stakeholder influence on technical debt management in the public sector: An embedded case study,” Gov Inf Q, vol. 39, no. 3, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101706.
[23] J. Perera, E. Tempero, Y.-C. Tu, and K. Blincoe, “Modelling the quantification of requirements technical debt,” Requir Eng, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 421–458, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00766-024-00424-3.
[24] M. Zakeri-Nasrabadi and S. Parsa, “Natural Language Requirements Testability Measurement Based on Requirement Smells,” Mar. 2024, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17479
[25] G. Robiolo, E. Scott, S. Matalonga, and M. Felderer, “Technical Debt and Waste in Non-Functional Requirements Documentation: An Exploratory Study,” Sep. 2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12716
[26] International Standard - Systems and software engineering -- Life cycle processes -- Requirements engineering, “ISO/IEC/IEEE International Standard.” Accessed: Jan. 31, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/29148/6937/
Copyright (c) 2026 Innovation and Software
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors exclusively grant the right to publish their article to the Innovation and Software Journal, which may formally edit or modify the approved text to comply with their own editorial standards and with universal grammatical standards, prior to publication; Likewise, our journal may translate the approved manuscripts into as many languages as it deems necessary and disseminates them in several countries, always giving public recognition to the author or authors of the research.
