Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Views on quality requirements in academia and practice: commonalities, differences, and context-dependent grey areas
Technical University of Berlin, DEU.
Tableau Software, DEU.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Universität Bonn, DEU.
2020 (English)In: Information and Software Technology, ISSN 0950-5849, E-ISSN 1873-6025, Vol. 121, article id 106253Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Context: Quality requirements (QRs) are a topic of constant discussions both in industry and academia. Debates entwine around the definition of quality requirements, the way how to handle them, or their importance for project success. While many academic endeavors contribute to the body of knowledge about QRs, practitioners may have different views. In fact, we still lack a consistent body of knowledge on QRs since much of the discussion around this topic is still dominated by observations that are strongly context-dependent. This holds for both academic and practitioners’ views. Our assumption is that, in consequence, those views may differ. Objective: We report on a study to better understand the extent to which available research statements on quality requirements, as found in exemplary peer-reviewed and frequently cited publications, are reflected in the perception of practitioners. Our goal is to analyze differences, commonalities, and context-dependent grey areas in the views of academics and practitioners to allow a discussion on potential misconceptions (on either sides) and opportunities for future research. Method: We conducted a survey with 109 practitioners to assess whether they agree with research statements about QRs reflected in the literature. Based on a statistical model, we evaluate the impact of a set of context factors to the perception of research statements. Results: Our results show that a majority of the statements is well respected by practitioners; however, not all of them. When examining the different groups and backgrounds of respondents, we noticed interesting deviations of perceptions within different groups that may lead to new research questions. Conclusions:Our results help identifying prevalent context-dependent differences about how academics and practitioners view QRs and pinpointing statements where further research might be useful. © 2020 Elsevier B.V.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier B.V. , 2020. Vol. 121, article id 106253
Keywords [en]
Context factors, Eempirical study, Non-functional requirements, Quality requirements, Requirements engineering, Survey, Information systems, Software engineering, Surveying, Body of knowledge, Context dependent, Research questions, Statistical modeling, Surveys
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-19180DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2019.106253Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85078462227OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-19180DiVA, id: diva2:1392043
Available from: 2020-02-06 Created: 2020-02-06 Last updated: 2020-02-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mendez, Daniel
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
In the same journal
Information and Software Technology
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf