Managing Information Systems Requirements Volatility in Development Projects: Mapping Research and Surveying Practices This paper focuses on information systems (hereafter IS) requirements volatility during development projects. First, it provides a comprehensive researchbased map that integrates measurements, antecedents, consequences and solutions for IS requirements volatility. Second, it offers insights into industry practices related to the key IS requirements volatility components identified in that map. Findings from a survey of 44 professionals leading IS development projects show that IS requirements volatility continues to be an issue most likely caused by requirements misspecification problems. Findings also present a ranking of the relative importance of possible solutions used to minimize that volatility. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Views on Quality Requirements in Academia and Practice: Commonalities, Differences, and ContextDependent Grey Areas Abstract   Context:Quality requirements (QRs) are a topic of constant discussions both in industry and academia. Debates entwine around the definition of quality requirements, the way how to handle them, or their importance for project success. While many academic endeavors contribute to the body of knowledge about QRs, practitioners may have different views. In fact, we still lack a consistent body of knowledge on QRs since much of the discussion around this topic is still dominated by observations that are strongly contextdependent. This holds for both academic and practitionersxe2x80x99 views. Our assumption is that, in consequence, those views may differ.  Objective:We report on a study to better understand the extent to which available research statements on quality requirements, as found in exemplary peerreviewed and frequently cited publications, are reflected in the perception of practitioners. Our goal is to analyze differences, commonalities, and contextdependent grey areas in the views of academics and practitioners to allow a discussion on potential misconceptions (on either sides) and opportunities for future research.  Method:We conducted a survey with 109 practitioners to assess whether they agree with research statements about QRs reflected in the literature. Based on a statistical model, we evaluate the impact of a set of context factors to the perception of research statements.  Results:Our results show that a majority of the statements is well respected by practitioners; however, not all of them. When examining the different groups and backgrounds of respondents, we noticed interesting deviations of perceptions within different groups that may lead to new research questions.  Conclusions:Our results help identifying prevalent contextdependent differences about how academics and practitioners view QRs and pinpointing statements where further research might be useful.