Requirements are often divided into functional requirements (FRs) and quality requirements (QRs). However, we still have little knowledge about to which extent this distinction makes sense from a practical perspective. In this paper, we report on a survey we conducted with 103 practitioners to explore whether and, if so, why they handle requirements labeled as FRs differently from those labeled as QRs. We additionally asked for consequences of this distinction w.r.t. the development process. Our results indicate that the development process for requirements of the two classes strongly differs (e.g., in testing). We identified a number of reasons why practitioners do (or do not) distinguish between QRs and FRs in their documentation and we analyzed both problems and benefits that arise from that. We found, for instance, that many reasons are based on expectations rather than on evidence. Those expectations are, in fact, not reflected in specific negative or positive consequences per se. It therefore seems more important that the decision whether to make an explicit distinction or not should be made consciously such that people are also aware of the risks that this distinction bears so that they may take appropriate countermeasures.
Chung and Nixon @cite_14 investigate how practitioners handle QRs. They argue that QRs are often retrofitted in the development process or pursued in parallel with, but separately from, functional design and that an ad hoc development process often makes it hard to detect defects early. They perform three experimental studies on how well a given framework @cite_11 can be used to systematically deal with QRs. Svensson et al. @cite_7 perform an interview study on how QRs are used in practice. Based on their interviews, they found that there is no QR-specific elicitation, documentation, and analysis, that QRs are often not quantified and, thus, difficult to test, and that there is only an implicit management of QRs with little or no consequence analysis. Furthermore, they found that at the project level, QRs are not taken into consideration during product planning (and are thereby not included as hard requirements in the projects) and they conclude that the realization of QRs is a reactive rather than proactive effort.
@cite_14 @cite_7 @cite_11
1864331247 2108057276 2963686848 2276400542
[Context and motivation] In market-driven software development it is crucial, but challenging, to find the right balance among competing quality requirements (QR). [Problem] In order to identify the unique challenges associated with the selection, trade-off, and management of quality requirements an interview study is performed. [Results] This paper describes how QR are handled in practice. Data is collected through interviews with five product managers and five project leaders from five software companies. [Contribution] The contribution of this study is threefold: Firstly, it includes an examination of the interdependencies among quality requirements perceived as most important by the practitioners. Secondly, it compares the perceptions and priorities of quality requirements by product management and project management respectively. Thirdly, it characterizes the selection and management of quality requirements in down-stream development activities. Quality assurance (QA) tasks, such as testing, profiling, and performance evaluation, have historically been done in-house on developer-generated workloads and regression suites. Since this approach is inadequate for many systems, tools and processes are being developed to improve software quality by increasing user participation in the QA process. A limitation of these approaches is that they focus on isolated mechanisms, not on the coordination and control policies and tools needed to make the global QA process efficient, effective, and scalable. To address these issues, we have initiated the Skoll project, which is developing and validating novel software QA processes and tools that leverage the extensive computing resources of worldwide user communities in a distributed, continuous manner to significantly and rapidly improve software quality. This paper provides several contributions to the study of distributed continuous QA. First, it illustrates the structure and functionality of a generic around-the-world, around-the-clock QA process and describes several sophisticated tools that support this process. Second, it describes several QA scenarios built using these tools and process. Finally, it presents a feasibility study applying these scenarios to a 1MLOC+ software package called ACE+TAO. While much work remains to be done, the study suggests that the Skoll process and tools effectively manage and control distributed, continuous QA processes. Using Skoll we rapidly identified problems that had taken the ACE+TAO developers substantially longer to find and several of which had previously not been found. Moreover, automatic analysis of QA task results often provided developers information that quickly led them to the root cause of the problems. Abstract Context For many years, we have observed industry struggling in defining a high quality requirements engineering (RE) and researchers trying to understand industrial expectations and problems. Although we are investigating the discipline with a plethora of empirical studies, they still do not allow for empirical generalisations. Objective To lay an empirical and externally valid foundation about the state of the practice in RE, we aim at a series of open and reproducible surveys that allow us to steer future research in a problem-driven manner. Method We designed a globally distributed family of surveys in joint collaborations with different researchers and completed the first run in Germany. The instrument is based on a theory in the form of a set of hypotheses inferred from our experiences and available studies. We test each hypothesis in our theory and identify further candidates to extend the theory by correlation and Grounded Theory analysis. Results In this article, we report on the design of the family of surveys, its underlying theory, and the full results obtained from Germany with participants from 58 companies. The results reveal, for example, a tendency to improve RE via internally defined qualitative methods rather than relying on normative approaches like CMMI. We also discovered various RE problems that are statistically significant in practice. For instance, we could corroborate communication flaws or moving targets as problems in practice. Our results are not yet fully representative but already give first insights into current practices and problems in RE, and they allow us to draw lessons learnt for future replications. Conclusion Our results obtained from this first run in Germany make us confident that the survey design and instrument are well-suited to be replicated and, thereby, to create a generalisable empirical basis of RE in practice. Unlike traditional defect prediction models that identify defect-prone modules, Just-In-Time (JIT) defect prediction models identify defect-inducing changes. As such, JIT defect models can provide earlier feedback for developers, while design decisions are still fresh in their minds. Unfortunately, similar to traditional defect models, JIT models require a large amount of training data, which is not available when projects are in initial development phases. To address this limitation in traditional defect prediction, prior work has proposed cross-project models, i.e., models learned from other projects with sufficient history. However, cross-project models have not yet been explored in the context of JIT prediction. Therefore, in this study, we empirically evaluate the performance of JIT models in a cross-project context. Through an empirical study on 11 open source projects, we find that while JIT models rarely perform well in a cross-project context, their performance tends to improve when using approaches that: (1) select models trained using other projects that are similar to the testing project, (2) combine the data of several other projects to produce a larger pool of training data, and (3) combine the models of several other projects to produce an ensemble model. Our findings empirically confirm that JIT models learned using other projects are a viable solution for projects with limited historical data. However, JIT models tend to perform best in a cross-project context when the data used to learn them are carefully selected.