PreprintCited by 32Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering ResearchAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Emotion-Centric Requirements Change Handling in Software Engineering

Open access

Abstract

Background: Requirements Changes (RCs) -- the additions/modifications/deletions of functional/non-functional requirements in software products -- are challenging for software practitioners to handle. Handling some changes may significantly impact the emotions of the practitioners. Objective: We wanted to know the key challenges that make RC handling difficult, how these impact the emotions of software practitioners, what influences their RC handling, and how RC handling can be made less emotionally challenging. Method: We followed a mixed-methods approach. We conducted two survey studies, with 40 participants and 201 participants respectively. The presentation of key quantitative data was followed by descriptive statistical analysis, and the qualitative data was analysed using Strauss-Corbinian Grounded Theory, and Socio-Technical Grounded Theory analysis techniques. Findings:We found (1) several key factors that make RC handling an emotional challenge, (2) varying emotions that practitioners feel when it is challenging to handle RCs, (3) how stakeholders, including practitioners themselves, peers, managers and customers, influence the RC handling and how practitioners feel due to the stakeholder influence, and (4) practices that can be used to better handle RCs. Conclusion: Some challenges are technical and some are social which also belong to aspects of agile practice, emotional intelligence, and cognitive intelligence. Therefore, to better handle RCs with positive emotions in socio-technical environments, agility, emotional intelligence, and cognitive intelligence need to cooperate with each other.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2205.05827

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 32

Metadata

Authors
Madampe, K., Hoda, R., & Grundy, J.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
3325-3343
ISSN
0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4323338615
Cited by
32
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council
  • Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
requirements change, agile software development, emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, stakeholder influence, socio-technical systems, non-functional requirements, requirements engineering practices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review