# Requirements Quality vs Process and Stakeholders' Well-being: A Case of a Nordic Bank

**Authors:** Emil Lind, Javier Gonzalez-Huerta, Emil Alégroth  
**arXiv:** [2211.06122](https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06122)  
**Date:** 2022-11-11  
**Summary page:** https://www.summarizepaper.com/en/arxiv-id/2211.06122v1/

## Key points

- The study explores the relationship between requirements quality and its impact on software development process and stakeholders' well-being
- Descriptive interview study conducted at a sub-organization of a Nordic bank that develops its own web and mobile apps
- 20 practitioners interviewed, including requirements engineers, developers, testers, and newly employed developers with five interviewees from each group
- Different roles have different views on what makes a requirement good quality
- Negative emotions, more work and overhead communication experienced when working with poor-quality requirements; positive effects on performance and positive feelings when working with good-quality requirements
- Investing in high-quality requirements can lead to better outcomes for both the development process and stakeholders' well-being
- All relevant stakeholders should be involved in defining requirements quality criteria to ensure everyone's needs are met
- Understanding practitioners' perceptions regarding requirements quality is important as it can impact the effectiveness and efficiency of the development process as well as stakeholders' well-being
- Identifying causes of poor-quality requirements and potential solutions for them can improve software development processes while ensuring employees' satisfaction.

## Summary

This study by Emil Lind, Javier Gonzalez-Huerta, and Emil Alégroth explores the relationship between requirements quality and its impact on the software development process and stakeholders' well-being. The authors conducted a descriptive interview study at a sub-organization of a Nordic bank that develops its own web and mobile apps. They interviewed 20 practitioners, including requirements engineers, developers, testers, and newly employed developers with five interviewees from each group. The study aimed to investigate how software development practitioners define requirements quality; how the perceived quality of requirements impacts the process and stakeholders' well-being; and what causes poor-quality requirements and potential solutions for them. The results showed that different roles have different views on what makes a requirement good quality. Participants highlighted that they experience negative emotions, more work and overhead communication when they work with requirements they perceive to be of poor quality. On the other hand, they described positive effects on their performance and positive feelings when they work with requirements that they perceive to be good. This suggests that investing in high-quality requirements can lead to better outcomes for both the development process and stakeholders' well-being. The authors recommend involving all relevant stakeholders in defining requirements quality criteria to ensure everyone's needs are met. Overall, this study highlights the importance of understanding practitioners' perceptions regarding requirements quality as it can impact the effectiveness and efficiency of the development process as well as stakeholders' well-being. By identifying causes of poor-quality requirements and potential solutions for them, organizations can improve their software development processes while ensuring their employees' satisfaction.