Non-functional requirements (NFRs) are commonly distinguished from functional requirements by differentiating how the system shall do something in contrast to what the system shall do. This distinction is not only prevalent in research, but also influences how requirements are handled in practice. NFRs are usually documented separately from functional requirements, without quantitative measures, and with relatively vague descriptions. As a result, they remain difficult to analyze and test. Several authors argue, however, that many so-called NFRs actually describe behavioral properties and may be treated the same way as functional requirements. In this paper, we empirically investigate this point of view and aim to increase our understanding on the nature of NFRs addressing system properties. We report on the classification of 530 NFRs extracted from 11 industrial requirements specifications and analyze to which extent these NFRs describe system behavior. Our results suggest that most "non-functional" requirements are not non-functional as they describe behavior of a system. Consequently, we argue that many so-called NFRs can be handled similarly to functional requirements.
Pohl @cite_18 discusses the misleading use of the term non-functional'' and argues to use quality requirements'' for product-related NFRs that are not constraints. Glinz @cite_2 performs a comprehensive review on the existing definitions of NFRs, analyzes problems with these definitions, and proposes a definition on his own. He highlights three different problems with the current definitions: a definition problem, i.e., NFR definitions have discrepancies in the used terminology and concepts, a classification problem, i.e., the definitions provide very different sub-classifications of NFRs, and finally a representation problem, i.e., the notion of NFRs is representation-dependent. In our study, we faced all of the three problems: we motivate our study based on the definition and classification problem and during the execution of our study, we faced the representation problem (see also our discussion on threats to validity in ). Although we agree on the critique about the obsolete and misleading notion of the term non-functional'', it still dominates the way requirements are handled in practice, as reflected in our data.
@cite_18 @cite_2
1510131813 2134934846
Although Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) are recognized as very important contributors to the success of software projects, studies to date indicate that there is still no general consensus in the software engineering community regarding the notion of NFRs. This paper presents the result of an extensive and systematic analysis of the extant literature over three NFRs dimensions: (1) definition and terminology; (2) types; and (3) relevant NFRs in various types of systems and application domains. Two different perspectives to consider NFRs are described. A comprehensive catalogue of NFRs types as well as the top five NFRs that are frequently considered are presented. This paper also offers a novel classification of NFRs based on types of systems and application domains. This classification could assist software developers in identifying which NFRs are important in a particular application domain and for specific systems. Context: Seamless model-based development provides integrated chains of models, covering all software engineering phases. Non-functional requirements (NFRs), like reusability, further play a vital role in software and systems engineering, but are often neglected in research and practice. It is still unclear how to integrate NFRs in a seamless model-based development. Goal: Our long-term goal is to develop a theory on the specification of NFRs such that they can be integrated in seamless model-based development. Method: Our overall study design includes a multi-staged procedure to infer an empirically founded theory on specifying NFRs to support seamless modeling. In this short paper, we present the study design and provide a discussion of (i) preliminary results obtained from a sample, and (ii) current issues related to the design. Results: Our study already shows significant fields of improvement, e.g., the low agreement during the classification. However, the results indicate to interesting points; for example, many of commonly used NFR classes concern system modeling concepts in a way that shows how blurry the borders between functional and NFRs are. Conclusions: We conclude so far that our overall study design seems suitable to obtain the envisioned theory in the long run, but we could also show current issues that are worth discussing within the empirical software engineering community. The main goal of this contribution is not to present and discuss current results only, but to foster discussions on the issues related to the integration of NFRs in seamless modeling in general and, in particular, discussions on open methodological issues.