2005Unpublished venueRequires access

Rethinking the Notion of Non-Functional Requirements

Martin Glinz

Open publisher page 75 citations

Abstract

Abstract. Requirements standards and textbooks typically classify requirements into functional requirements on the one hand and attributes or non-functional requirements on the other hand. In this classification, requirements given in terms of required operations and/or data are considered to be functional, while performance requirements and quality requirements (such as requirements about security, reliability, maintainability, etc.) are classified as nonfunctional. In this paper, we present arguments why this notion of non-functional requirements is flawed and present a new classification of requirements which is based on four facets: kind (e.g. function, performance, or constraint), representation (e.g. operational, quantitative or qualitative), satisfaction (hard or soft), and role (e.g. prescriptive or assumptive). We define the facets, discuss typical combinations of facets and argue why such a faceted classification of requirements is better than the traditional notion of functional and non-functional requirements. 1

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract. Requirements standards and textbooks typically classify requirements into functional requirements on the one hand and attributes or non-functional requirements on the other hand. In this classification, requirements given in terms of required operations and/or data are considered to be functional, while performance requirements and quality requirements (such as requirements about security, reliability, maintainability, etc.) are classified as nonfunctional. In this paper, we present arguments why this notion of non-functional requirements is flawed and present a new classification of requirements which is based on four facets: kind (e.g. function, performance, or constraint), representation (e.g. operational, quantitative or qualitative), satisfaction (hard or soft), and role (e.g. prescriptive or assumptive). We define the facets, discuss typical combinations of facets and argue why such a faceted classification of requirements is better than the traditional notion of functional and non-functional requirements. 1

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 75 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract. Requirements standards and textbooks typically classify requirements into functional requirements on the one hand and attributes or non-functional requirements on the other hand. In this classification, requirements given in terms of required operations and/or data are considered to be functional, while performance requirements and quality requirements (such as requirements about security, reliability, maintainability, etc.) are classified as nonfunctional. In this paper, we present arguments why this notion of non-functional requirements is flawed and present a new classification of requirements which is based on four facets: kind (e.g. function, performance, or constraint), representation (e.g. operational, quantitative or qualitative), satisfaction (hard or soft), and role (e.g. prescriptive or assumptive). We define the facets, discuss typical combinations of facets and argue why such a faceted classification of requirements is better than the traditional notion of functional and non-functional requirements. 1

Key concepts: Non-functional requirement, Functional requirement, Non-functional testing, Maintainability, Functional specification, Computer science, Requirements analysis, Requirements management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Rethinking the Notion of Non-Functional Requirements — Research Paper | ScholarLens