What existing technology does your research build on? What existing technology or prior research does your research provide a superior alternative to? What’s new here compared to your own previous work? What alternatives have other researchers pursued, and how is your work different or better?
As in other areas of science and engineering, software engineering knowledge grows incrementally. Program committees are very interested in your interpretation of prior work in the area. They want to know how your work is related to the prior work, either by building on it or by providing an alternative. If you don’t explain this, it’s hard for the program committee to understand how you’ve added to our store of knowledge. You may also damage your credibility if the program committee can’t tell whether you know about related work.
Explain the relation to other work clearly …
|Awful||▼||The galumphing problem has attracted much attention [3,8,10,18,26,32,37]|
|Bad||▼||Smith  and Jones  worked on galumphing.|
|Poor||▼||Smith  addressed galumphing by blitzing, whereas Jones  took a flitzing approach.|
|Good||▲||Smith’s blitzing approach to galumphing  achieved 60% coverage . Jones  achieved 80% by flitzing, but only for pointer-free cases .|
|Better||▲||Smith’s blitzing approach to galumphing  achieved 60% coverage . Jones  achieved 80% by flitzing, but only for pointer-free cases . We modified the blitzing approach to use the kernel representation of flitzing and achieved 90% coverage while relaxing the restriction so that only cyclic data structures are prohibited.|