With the rise of containerization, cloud development, and continuous integration and delivery, configuration has become an essential aspect not only to tailor software to user requirements, but also to configure a software system’s environment and infrastructure. This heterogeneity of activities, domains, and processes blurs the term configuration, as it is not clear anymore what tasks, artifacts, or stakeholders are involved and intertwined. However, each re- search study and each paper involving configuration places their contributions and findings in a certain context without making the context explicit. This makes it difficult to compare findings, translate them to practice, and to generalize the results. Thus, we set out to evaluate whether these different views on configuration are really distinct or can be summarized under a common umbrella. By interviewing practitioners from different domains and in different roles about the aspects of configuration and by analyzing two qualitative studies in similar areas, we derive a model of configuration that provides terminology and context for research studies, identifies new research opportunities, and allows practitioners to spot possible challenges in their current tasks. Although our interviewees have a clear view about configuration, it substantially differs due to their personal experience and role. This indicates that the term configuration might be overloaded. However, when taking a closer look, we see the interconnections and dependencies among all views, arriving at the conclusion that we need to start considering the entire spectrum of dimensions of configuration.

@inproceedings{paperbot5749,
  title = {Dimensions of software configuration: on the configuration context in modern software development},
  author = {Norbert Siegmund and Nicolai Ruckel and Janet Siegmund},
  booktitle = {FSE},
  year = {2020},
  doi = {10.1145/3368089.3409675}
}