Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Who Uses Personas in Requirements Engineering: The Practitioners' Perspective

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.15917 v1 pith:LW2UMPSA submitted 2024-03-23 cs.SE

Who Uses Personas in Requirements Engineering: The Practitioners' Perspective

classification cs.SE
keywords personaspractitionerssoftwarechallengesengineeringrequirementsaspectseffectiveness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Personas are commonly used in software projects to gain a better understanding of end-users' needs. However, there is a limited understanding of their usage and effectiveness in practice. This paper presents the results of a two-step investigation, comprising interviews with 26 software developers, UI/UX designers, business analysts and product managers and a survey of 203 practitioners, aimed at shedding light on the current practices, methods and challenges of using personas in software development. Our findings reveal variations in the frequency and effectiveness of personas across different software projects and IT companies, the challenges practitioners face when using personas and the reasons for not using them at all. Furthermore, we investigate the coverage of human aspects in personas, often assumed to be a key feature of persona descriptions. Contrary to the general perception, our study shows that human aspects are often ignored for various reasons in personas or requirements engineering in general. Our study provides actionable insights for practitioners to overcome challenges in using personas during requirements engineering stages, and we identify areas for future research.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Two Integration Pathways in Human-Centered Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study of Structural Gaps

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A mapping of 56 studies reveals two parallel but disconnected pathways in human-centered requirements engineering, with the absence of translation mechanisms between human-centered artifacts and formal specifications ...