Logo des Repositoriums

Auflistung nach Autor:in "Eckhardt, Jonas"

1 - 2 von 2
  • Konferenzbeitrag
    Are “Non-functional” Requirements really Non-functional?
    (Software Engineering 2017, 2017) Eckhardt, Jonas; Vogelsang, Andreas; Fernández, Daniel Méndez
    Non-functional requirements (NFRs) are commonly distinguished from functional requirements (FRs) 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 FRs, without quantitative mea- sures, 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 FRs. In this paper, we empirically investigate this point of view and aim to increase our understanding on the nature of NFRs addressing system properties. Our re- sults 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 FRs.
  • ConferencePaper
    Views on Quality Requirements in Academia and Practice: Commonalities, Differences, and Context-Dependent Grey Areas
    (Software Engineering 2021, 2021) Vogelsang, Andreas; Eckhardt, Jonas; Mendez, Daniel; Berger, Moritz
    This article originally appeared in Information and Software Technology (IST). Context: Quality requirements (QRs) are a topic of constant discussions both in industry and academia. While many academic endeavors contribute to the body of knowledge about QRs, practitioners may have different views. Objective: We report on a study to better understand the extent to which available research statements on QRs from academic 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. Method: We conducted a survey with 109 practitioners to assess their agreement with the selected research statements about QRs. 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 of respondents, we noticed deviations of perceptions that lead to new research questions. Conclusions: Our results help identifying context-dependent differences about how academics and practitioners view QRs and statements where further research is useful.