Comparative Analysis

As discussed in previous sections, the research method involves the analysis of the collected data at various levels given as follows:

■ Level 1: analysis of data collected for case study and survey. These two empirical methods are studied separately and not in relation to each other.

■ Level 2: comparison of survey findings with case study findings.

■ Level 3: comparison of survey, case study and literature findings.

Level 1 is completed in preceding sections. The industrial projects’ findings are compared to the case study results to complete Level 2 of the analysis. Hie comparative results are given in Table 4.9.

The data analyzed through comparative analysis of industrial projects and case study observations converged into common agreement. The empirical results agreed with each other, meaning the data reported by industry participants and the students are prevailing in real industrial situations. Hie

Table 4.8 Case Study Findings

SI. No.

Research Question

Project Development and Complexity

Remarks

1.

RQ 1. What is the extent to which nonfunctional requirements get the software developers' attraction?

Mass-market incremental

Fewer NFRs implemented. Effort is to enhance success rates in competitive markets.

Bespoke incremental

Marginal cost and payments used to implement NFRs. Clients can be slightly convinced for the same.

Bespoke one-go

Offered as free add-on feature. Clients can never be convinced.

2.

RQ 2. What is the cost and time percentage of NFR in overall project cost and duration?

Mass-market incremental (high)

Cost varies between 8 and 12% and time from 10 to 18%. Lower rates are there for well-established bigger organizations.

Bespoke incremental (low, med, high)

Cost share of 2-6% and time 3-8%. High-complexity projects have higher cost and time-share. Range varies according to maturity and organization size.

Bespoke one-go (low, med, high)

Cost percentage is in range of 1-3% of the total cost and 3-5% of the total time.

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

3.

RQ 3. What is the implementation status of NF R to F R for different complexity projects?

Mass-market incremental, bespoke incremental, bespoke one-go

The ratio comes out to be 0.15-0.20 for low complexity, 0.13-0.16 for medium and 0.11-0.13 for high-complexity projects. Decrease in ratio is higher for high-complexity projects because of increase in number of functional requirements than NFRs. Ratio decrease is slight less for matured organizations.

4.

RQ4. What are the typical categories of NF Rs implemented by mobile software developers?

Mass-market incremental

Bespoke incremental

Bespoke one-go

No well-defined category. It depends on competitor, previously implemented NFRs, reusability aspect and innovativeness (mass market only).

5.

RQ 5. How are nonfunctional requirements prioritized

Mass-market incremental

Bespoke incremental

Bespoke one-go

They are not subjected to any prioritization. Prioritization is considered as a biggest reason for increase in cost and timeline.

6.

RQ 6. What is the extent to which the answers to the above questions depend on the maturity and size of software organization?

Matured organizations

  • • Better ratio of NFR to FR.
  • • Ratio decreases from one-go to incremental.
  • • Ratio decreases with increase in project complexity.
  • • Time and cost is higher in mass market than bespoke incremental and one-go.
  • • Time and cost for any development type and complexity better than corresponding values for less matured ones.
  • • Innovative NFR can be implemented due to possibility of reuse.
  • • No prioritization employed.

(Continued)

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

Table 4.8 Case Study Findings (Continued)

SI. No.

Research Question

Project Development and Complexity

Remarks

Less matured organizations

  • • NFR's financial burden mostly on customers.
  • • Ratio decreases from one-go to incremental.
  • • Ratio decreases with increase in project complexity.
  • • Time and cost is higher in mass market than bespoke incremental and one-go.
  • • Time and cost less than those with matured ones.
  • • Basic NFR implemented.

7.

RQ 7. How the present practices of the mobile development firms impact project success and failure rates?

Matured organizations

  • • Impact of missing NFR hard on product success with increase in complexity.
  • • Good management practices make impact up to maximum level of dropout rate to medium.

Less matured organizations

• Impact increases with increase in complexity but increase higher than in the case of matured ones.

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

Table 4.9 Comparative Results of Industrial and Case Study Results

SI. No.

Research Question

Project Development and Complexity

Industrial Survey Analysis Results

Case Study Observations

Comparative Results

(Y for

Consistent)

1.

RQ 1. What is the extent to which nonfunctional requirements get the software developers' attraction?

Mass-market incremental

Little attention is paid. Customers need to pay for nonfunctional requirements.

Fewer NFRs implemented. The effort is to enhance success rates in competitive markets.

Bespoke incremental

Marginal cost used to pay partly for nonfunctional requirements.

Marginal cost and payments used to implement NFRs. Clients can be slightly convinced for the same.

Y

Bespoke one-go

Offered as a free add-on feature.

Offered as a free add-on feature. Clients can never be convinced.

Y

(Continued)

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

co

Table 4.9 Comparative Results of Industrial and Case Study Results (Continued)

SI. No.

Research Question

Project Development and Complexity

Industrial Survey Analysis Results

Case Study Observations

Comparative Results

(Y for

Consistent)

2.

RQ 2. What is the cost and time percentage of NFR in overall project cost and duration?

Mass-market incremental (high)

Cost percentage is 8% of the total cost and 19% of the total time.

The cost varies between 8 and 12% and time from 10 to 18%. Lower rates are there for well-established bigger organizations.

Y

Bespoke incremental (low, med, high)

Cost percentage is in the range 2-4% of the total cost and 3-6% of the total time.

Cost share of 2-6% and time 3-8%. High complexity projects have higher cost and time-share. Range varies among maturity and organization size.

Y

Bespoke one-go (low, med, high)

Cost percentage is in the range 2-3% total cost and 4-5% of total time.

Cost percentage is in the range of 1-3% of the total cost and 3-5% of the total time.

Y

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

3.

RQ 3. What is the implementation status of NFR to FR for different complexity projects?

Mass-market incremental, bespoke incrementa 1, bespoke one-go.

Consolidated ratio is 0.15-0.26 for high, 0.23-0.30 for medium and 0.26-0.35 for low-complexity projects for bespoke and mass market. Ratio decreases from bespoke one-go to bespoke incremental and finally to massmarket developments. However, the decrease is higher for high-complexity projects.

The ratio comes out to be 0.15-0.20 for low complexity, 0.13-0.16 for medium and 0.11-0.13 for high complexity projects. Decrease in ratio is higher for high-complexity projects because of the increase in the number of functional requirements than NFRs. The ratio decrease is slightly less for matured organizations.

Y

(Continued)

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

U1

a-' o

Table 4.9 Comparative Results of Industrial and Case Study Results (Continued)

SI. No.

Research Question

Project Development and Complexity

Industrial Survey Analysis Results

Case Study Observations

Comparative Results (Y for Consistent)

4.

RQ4. What are the typical categories of NFRs implemented by mobile software developers?

Mass-market

incremental

Bespoke incremental

Bespoke one-go

No well-defined category. It depends on cost, time and functional requirements. Typical NFR includes performance (including optimalism), reliability, security, availability, usability, responsiveness, GUI requirements and storage.

No well-defined category. It depends on the competitor, previously implemented NFRs, reusability aspect and innovativeness (mass market only).

Y

5.

RQ 5. How are nonfunctional requirements prioritized?

Mass-market

incremental

Bespoke incremental

Bespoke one-go

They are not subjected to any prioritization. They are invented by the developer in accordance with what his experience says.

• They are not subjected to any prioritization. Prioritization is considered as a big reason for increase in cost and timeline.

Y

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

f>.

RQ 6. What is the extent to which the answers to the above questions depend on the maturity and size of software organization?

Matured large organizations

  • • NFRs considered to some extent. Innovativeness is mostly in incremental ones. One-go developments witness almost previously implemented ones.
  • • Low costs and time of NFR implementations.
  • • Ratio of NFR to FR decreases with the increase in complexity but decrease not steep. Values are higher for mass market than bespoke incremental and bespoke one-go.
  • • Innovative NFR can be implemented due to possibility of reuse.
  • • Better ratio of NFR toFR.
  • • The ratio decreases from one-go to incremental.
  • • The ratio decreases with increase in project complexity.
  • • Time and cost is higher in mass market than bespoke incremental and one-go.
  • • Time and cost for any development type and complexity better than corresponding values for less matured ones.
  • • No prioritization employed.

Y

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

(Continued)

Table 4.9 Comparative Results of Industrial and Case Study Results (Continued)

SI. No.

Research Question

Project Development and Complexity

Industrial Survey Analysis Results

Case Study Observations

Comparative Results (Y for Consistent)

Less matured small organizations

  • • NFRsare implemented with higher costs and time.
  • • Offer NFR as a free add-on or charged ones in later increments.
  • • Ratio of NFR to FR decreases from low to high complexity and relative decrease is higher than matured ones.
  • • Ratio value is smaller in one-go than incremental.
  • • NFRs have high costs and time associated.
  • • NFR's financial burden mostly on custo mers.
  • • The ratio decreases from one-go to incremental.
  • • The ratio decreases with increase in project complexity.
  • • Time and cost is higher in mass market than bespoke incremental and one-go.
  • • Time and cost less than those with matured ones.
  • • Basic NFR implemented.

Y

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

7.

RQ 7. How the present practices of the mobile development firms impact project success and failure rates?

Matured organizations Less matured organization

  • • The impact of missing NFR on project success increases with increase in project complexity and type of development (bespoke one-go to mass-market incremental).
  • • The above trends hold in both matured and less matured firms but are less in matured firms.
  • • The impact of missing NFR hard on product success with an increase in complexity.
  • • Impact increases with an increase in complexity, but increase higher than in the case of matured ones.

Y

Status of Nonfunctional Requirement

reported results are verified and validated through case studies. The agreed analysis is to be compared with the findings of the literature surveys. This final level of comparative analysis proceeds to identify the gaps between the research reported by researchers and those prevailing in industries. Table 4.9 gives the results of this comparative analysis.

Comparative Analysis of Survey Results, Case Study and Literature Survey

To complete Level 3 of the adopted research methodology (Figure 4.1), the results of industrial survey, case study and literature survey are compared and presented in Table 4.10. Hie literature survey had resulted in limited information about the research questions. However, the limited information and inferences applied made the comparative analysis possible. Hie comparative analysis is shown in Table 4.10. However, the comparison cannot be made at finer levels against different complexity and development types.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >