Abstract Context Nowadays software-development organizations are urged to exploit their data for empowering their decision-making processes. Such data may be used to monitor the status of meaningful software indicators (e.g., software quality, productivity and on-time delivery) that are relevant for their decision-making processes. Forecasting the values of such indicators may provide evidence of a potentially high risk or opportunity that could help to anticipate actions accordingly. Most of the existing forecasting proposals in software engineering use open-source data rather than data from industrial projects. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence on how these proposals fit the particular needs of a software-development organization and how they can be automated into the organization’s infrastructure. Objective To enable software indicators´ forecasting in a software-development organization (Modeliosoft). Method We designed an industry-academia collaboration based on Action Design Research (ADR) to address Modeliosoft’s forecasting challenges. Results A tool-supported method called FOSI (Forecasting Of Software Indicators) for enabling forecasting in Modeliosoft. We obtained positive results regarding its suitability and technical feasibility in a pilot project of the organization. In addition, we provide details and reflections on the potential usefulness of the method for addressing similar field problems. Conclusions The procedures and results detailed in this paper are valuable to: 1) address Modeliosoft’s forecasting challenges 2) inspire other software-development organizations on how to deal with similar problems and even reuse some procedures and software support tools resulted from this work, 3) promote the win-win benefits of industry-academia collaborations.

Agile software development (ASD) promotes minimal documentation and often prioritizes functional requirements over quality requirements (QRs). The minimal documentation emphasis may be beneficial in reducing time-to-market for software. However, it can also be a concern, especially with QRs, since they are challenging to specify and document and are crucial for software success. Therefore, understanding how practitioners perceive the importance of QR documentation is valuable because it can provide insight into how they approach this task. It also helps in developing models and guidelines that support the documentation of QRs in ASD, which is a research gap. We aim to understand practitioners’ perceptions of QR documentation and factors influencing this task to derive a model that supports optimal QR documentation in ASD. We conducted a multiple case study involving 12 participants from three cases that apply ASD. Practitioners identify QR documentation as important and perceive it as contributing to ensuring quality, clarifying QRs, and facilitating decision-making. Time constraints, QR awareness, and communication gaps affect QR documentation. Missing and outdated QR documentation may lead to technical debt and a lack of common understanding regarding QRs. We introduce a model to support optimal QR documentation in ASD by focusing on the factors: time constraints, QR awareness, and communication gaps. The model provides a representation and explanation of the factors affecting QR documentation in ASD and identifies mitigation strategies to overcome issues that may occur due to these factors. The study reveals the importance of documenting QRs in ASD. It introduces a model that is based on empirical knowledge of QR documentation practices in ASD. Both practitioners and researchers can potentially benefit from the model. For instance, practitioners can analyze how time constraints or QR awareness affect documentation, see potential issues that may arise from them, and utilize strategies suggested by the model to address these issues. Researchers can learn about QR documentation in ASD and utilize the model to understand the topic. They can also use the study as a baseline to investigate the topic with other cases.

Abstract Agile methods can deliver software that fulfills customer needs rapidly and continuously. Quality requirements (QRs) are important in this regard; however, detailed studies on how companies applying agile methods to manage QRs are limited, as are studies on the rationale for choosing specific QR management practices and related challenges. The aim of this study was to address why practitioners manage QRs as they do and what challenges they face. We also analyzed how existing practices mitigate some of the found challenges. Lastly, we connect the contextual elements of the companies with their practices and challenges. We conducted 36 interviews with practitioners from four companies of varying sizes. Since each company operates in different domains, comparing QR management strategies and related challenges in different contexts was possible. We found that the companies apply proactive, reactive, and interactive strategies to manage QRs. Additionally, our study revealed 40 challenges in six categories that companies applying agile methods may face in QR management. We also identified nine contextual elements that affect QR management practice choices and which, importantly, can explain many related challenges. Based on these findings, we constructed a theoretical model about the connection between context, QR management practices, and challenges. Practitioners in similar contexts can learn from the practices identified in this study. Our preliminary theoretical model can help other practitioners identify what challenges they can expect to face in QR management in different developmental contexts as well as which practices to apply to mitigate these challenges.

Agile software development (ASD) promotes minimal documentation and often prioritizes functional requirements over quality requirements (QRs). This may be beneficial in reducing the time to market of software. When considering QRs in ASD, the minimal documentation practice may be seen as a concern since QRs determine the success of software projects and are as well not easy to specify and document. Nevertheless, what do practitioners think of the necessity of documenting QRs in ASD? How do they perceive factors that may affect documentation of QRs in ASD? We conducted a multiple case study of three cases applying ASD, involving 12 participants. ASD practitioners identify that it is important to document QRs, and perceive that it contributes to ensuring quality, clarifying QRs, and helping in decision making. Time constraint, QR awareness and communication gaps on QRs influence the documentation of QRs in ASD. ASD teams may align their documentation practices to fit the sprint duration. The influence of QR awareness on documentation was dependent on project context and roles. Communication gaps can create confusion on QRs. Missing and outdated QR documentation may result in accruing technical debt, and lack of common understanding on QRs. The study synthesizes empirical evidence on the significance of documenting QRs in ASD and provides an insight into factors affecting documentation of QRs in ASD.