Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements: what we know and what we do not know?

Maia Daneva, Luigi Buglione, Andrea Herrmann

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    [Context/motivation]
    Quality requirements (QRs) are a concern of both requirement engineering (RE) specialists and software architects (SAs). However, the majority of empirical studies on QRs take the RE analysts’/clients’ perspectives, and only recently very few included the SAs’ perspective. As a result, (i) relatively little is known about SAs’ involvement in QRs engineering and their coping strategies, and (ii) whatever is known mostly comes from small and midsized projects.

    [Question/problem]
    The question in this exploratory study is how SAs cope with QRs in the context of large and contract-based software system delivery projects.

    [Principal ideas/results]
    We executed an exploratory case study with 20 SAs in the context of interest. The key results indicate the role SAs play in QRs engineering, the type of requirements communication processes SAs are involved in, the ways QRs are discovered, documented, quantified, validated and negotiated. Our most important findings are that in contract-based contexts: (1) the QRs are approached with the same due diligence as the functional requirements and the architecture design demand, (2) the SAs act proactively and embrace responsibilities over the QRs, (3) willingness to pay and affordability seem as important QRs prioritization criteria as cost and benefits do, and (4) QRs engineering is perceived as a social activity and not as much as a tool and method centric activity. [Contribution] The main contributions of the paper are (i) the explication of the QRs process from SAs’ perspective, and (ii) the comparison of our findings with previously published results.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publication19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013
    EditorsJ. Doerr, A. Opdahl
    Place of PublicationLondon
    PublisherSpringer
    Pages1-17
    Number of pages17
    ISBN (Print)978-3-642-37421-0
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2013
    Event19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013 - ATLANTIC Congress Hotel , Essen, Germany
    Duration: 8 Apr 201311 Apr 2013
    Conference number: 19
    https://refsq.org/2013/

    Publication series

    NameLecture Notes in Computer Science
    PublisherSpringer Verlag
    Volume7830
    ISSN (Print)0302-9743
    ISSN (Electronic)1611-3349

    Conference

    Conference19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013
    Abbreviated titleREFSQ
    CountryGermany
    CityEssen
    Period8/04/1311/04/13
    Internet address

    Fingerprint

    Requirements engineering
    Communication
    Costs

    Keywords

    • SCS-Services
    • EWI-23183
    • Quality Requirements
    • Software Architecture Design
    • IR-85249
    • Contract-based software development
    • Exploratory case study
    • METIS-296363
    • Empirical Research Method

    Cite this

    Daneva, M., Buglione, L., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements: what we know and what we do not know? In J. Doerr, & A. Opdahl (Eds.), 19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013 (pp. 1-17). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 7830). London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1
    Daneva, Maia ; Buglione, Luigi ; Herrmann, Andrea. / Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements : what we know and what we do not know?. 19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013. editor / J. Doerr ; A. Opdahl. London : Springer, 2013. pp. 1-17 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
    @inproceedings{8545f787c70c41b0b2cd7b4be2dd6832,
    title = "Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements: what we know and what we do not know?",
    abstract = "[Context/motivation]Quality requirements (QRs) are a concern of both requirement engineering (RE) specialists and software architects (SAs). However, the majority of empirical studies on QRs take the RE analysts’/clients’ perspectives, and only recently very few included the SAs’ perspective. As a result, (i) relatively little is known about SAs’ involvement in QRs engineering and their coping strategies, and (ii) whatever is known mostly comes from small and midsized projects. [Question/problem]The question in this exploratory study is how SAs cope with QRs in the context of large and contract-based software system delivery projects. [Principal ideas/results]We executed an exploratory case study with 20 SAs in the context of interest. The key results indicate the role SAs play in QRs engineering, the type of requirements communication processes SAs are involved in, the ways QRs are discovered, documented, quantified, validated and negotiated. Our most important findings are that in contract-based contexts: (1) the QRs are approached with the same due diligence as the functional requirements and the architecture design demand, (2) the SAs act proactively and embrace responsibilities over the QRs, (3) willingness to pay and affordability seem as important QRs prioritization criteria as cost and benefits do, and (4) QRs engineering is perceived as a social activity and not as much as a tool and method centric activity. [Contribution] The main contributions of the paper are (i) the explication of the QRs process from SAs’ perspective, and (ii) the comparison of our findings with previously published results.",
    keywords = "SCS-Services, EWI-23183, Quality Requirements, Software Architecture Design, IR-85249, Contract-based software development, Exploratory case study, METIS-296363, Empirical Research Method",
    author = "Maia Daneva and Luigi Buglione and Andrea Herrmann",
    note = "10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1",
    year = "2013",
    month = "3",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1",
    language = "English",
    isbn = "978-3-642-37421-0",
    series = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science",
    publisher = "Springer",
    pages = "1--17",
    editor = "J. Doerr and A. Opdahl",
    booktitle = "19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013",

    }

    Daneva, M, Buglione, L & Herrmann, A 2013, Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements: what we know and what we do not know? in J Doerr & A Opdahl (eds), 19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7830, Springer, London, pp. 1-17, 19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013, Essen, Germany, 8/04/13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1

    Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements : what we know and what we do not know? / Daneva, Maia; Buglione, Luigi; Herrmann, Andrea.

    19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013. ed. / J. Doerr; A. Opdahl. London : Springer, 2013. p. 1-17 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 7830).

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

    TY - GEN

    T1 - Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements

    T2 - what we know and what we do not know?

    AU - Daneva, Maia

    AU - Buglione, Luigi

    AU - Herrmann, Andrea

    N1 - 10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1

    PY - 2013/3/1

    Y1 - 2013/3/1

    N2 - [Context/motivation]Quality requirements (QRs) are a concern of both requirement engineering (RE) specialists and software architects (SAs). However, the majority of empirical studies on QRs take the RE analysts’/clients’ perspectives, and only recently very few included the SAs’ perspective. As a result, (i) relatively little is known about SAs’ involvement in QRs engineering and their coping strategies, and (ii) whatever is known mostly comes from small and midsized projects. [Question/problem]The question in this exploratory study is how SAs cope with QRs in the context of large and contract-based software system delivery projects. [Principal ideas/results]We executed an exploratory case study with 20 SAs in the context of interest. The key results indicate the role SAs play in QRs engineering, the type of requirements communication processes SAs are involved in, the ways QRs are discovered, documented, quantified, validated and negotiated. Our most important findings are that in contract-based contexts: (1) the QRs are approached with the same due diligence as the functional requirements and the architecture design demand, (2) the SAs act proactively and embrace responsibilities over the QRs, (3) willingness to pay and affordability seem as important QRs prioritization criteria as cost and benefits do, and (4) QRs engineering is perceived as a social activity and not as much as a tool and method centric activity. [Contribution] The main contributions of the paper are (i) the explication of the QRs process from SAs’ perspective, and (ii) the comparison of our findings with previously published results.

    AB - [Context/motivation]Quality requirements (QRs) are a concern of both requirement engineering (RE) specialists and software architects (SAs). However, the majority of empirical studies on QRs take the RE analysts’/clients’ perspectives, and only recently very few included the SAs’ perspective. As a result, (i) relatively little is known about SAs’ involvement in QRs engineering and their coping strategies, and (ii) whatever is known mostly comes from small and midsized projects. [Question/problem]The question in this exploratory study is how SAs cope with QRs in the context of large and contract-based software system delivery projects. [Principal ideas/results]We executed an exploratory case study with 20 SAs in the context of interest. The key results indicate the role SAs play in QRs engineering, the type of requirements communication processes SAs are involved in, the ways QRs are discovered, documented, quantified, validated and negotiated. Our most important findings are that in contract-based contexts: (1) the QRs are approached with the same due diligence as the functional requirements and the architecture design demand, (2) the SAs act proactively and embrace responsibilities over the QRs, (3) willingness to pay and affordability seem as important QRs prioritization criteria as cost and benefits do, and (4) QRs engineering is perceived as a social activity and not as much as a tool and method centric activity. [Contribution] The main contributions of the paper are (i) the explication of the QRs process from SAs’ perspective, and (ii) the comparison of our findings with previously published results.

    KW - SCS-Services

    KW - EWI-23183

    KW - Quality Requirements

    KW - Software Architecture Design

    KW - IR-85249

    KW - Contract-based software development

    KW - Exploratory case study

    KW - METIS-296363

    KW - Empirical Research Method

    U2 - 10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1

    DO - 10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1

    M3 - Conference contribution

    SN - 978-3-642-37421-0

    T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science

    SP - 1

    EP - 17

    BT - 19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013

    A2 - Doerr, J.

    A2 - Opdahl, A.

    PB - Springer

    CY - London

    ER -

    Daneva M, Buglione L, Herrmann A. Software architects’ experiences of quality requirements: what we know and what we do not know? In Doerr J, Opdahl A, editors, 19th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering - Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 2013. London: Springer. 2013. p. 1-17. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_1