Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-mediated communication to support distributed requirements elicitations and negotiations tasks

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Requirements engineering is one of the most communication-intensive activities in software development, greatly affected by project stakeholder geographical distribution. Despite advances in collaboration technologies, global software teams continue to experience significant challenges in the elicitation and negotiation of requirements. Deciding which communication technologies to deploy to achieve effective communication in distributed requirements engineering activities is not a trivial task. Is face-to-face or text-based communication more appropriate for requirements elicitations and negotiations? In teams that do not have access to face-to-face communication, is text-based communication more useful in requirements elicitations than in requirements negotiations? Here, we report an empirical study that analyzes the effectiveness of synchronous computer-mediated communication in requirements elicitations and negotiations. Our investigation is guided by a theoretical framework that we developed from theories of computer-mediated communication, common ground, and media selection for group tasks; a framework that considers the effectiveness of a communication medium in relation to the information richness needs of requirements elicitation and negotiation tasks. Our findings bring forward empirical evidence about the perceived as well as objective fit between synchronous communication technology and requirements tasks. First, face-to-face is not always the most preferred medium for requirements tasks, and we reveal a number of conditions in which, in contrast to common belief, text-based communication is preferred for requirements communication. Second, we find that in evaluating outcomes of requirements elicitations and negotiations objectively, group performance is not affected by the communication medium. Third, when groups interact only via text-based communication, common ground in requirements negotiations takes longer to achieve than in requirements elicitations, indicating that distributed requirements elicitation is the task where computer-mediated communication tools have most opportunity for successful application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std_public/description/se/830-1998_desc.html

References

  • Al-Rawas A, Easterbrook S (1996) Communication Problems in Requirements Engineering: a Field Study. Proc. 1st Conf. on Professional Awareness in Software Engineering, 47–60

  • Andrews DC (Mar. 1991) JAD: a crucial dimension for rapid applications development. J Syst Manag 42(3):23–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Biffl S, Halling M (May 2003) Investigating the defect detection effectiveness and cost benefit of nominal inspection teams. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(5):385–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnholtz JP, Finholt TA, Horn DB, Bae SJ (2005) Grounding Needs: achieving common ground via lightweight chat in large, distributed, ad-hoc Groups. Proc. Int’l Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05), 21–30, doi:10.1145/1054972.1054976

  • Calefato F, Lanubile F (2009) Using frameworks to develop a distributed conferencing system: an experience report. Software Pract Ex 39(15):1293–1311. doi:10.1002/spe.937, ISSN: 0038–0644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell CL, Van de Walle B (2003) Asynchronous Requirements Engineering: Enhancing Distributed Software Development. Proc. Int’l Conf. Information Technology: Research and Education (ITRE’03), 133–136, doi:10.1109/ITRE.2003.1270588.

  • Carmel E, Agarwal R (2001) Tactical approaches for alleviating distance in global software development. IEEE Softw 18(2):22–29. doi:10.1109/52.914734, Mar/Apr 2001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng B, Atlee J (2007) Research directions in requirements engineering. Future of Software Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 285–303, doi: 10.1109/FOSE.2007.17

  • Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in Communication. In: Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 127–149

  • Conover WJ (1980) Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan J, Macredie RD (2002) Effective communication in requirements elicitation: a comparison of methodologies. Requir Eng J 7(2):47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins RA, Gullone E (2000) Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: the case for subjective quality of life measurement. Proc. 2nd Int’l Conf. quality of life in cities, 74–93

  • Curtis B, Krasner H, Iscoe N (1988) A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun ACM 31(11):1268–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32(5):554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian D (2007) Stakeholders in global requirements engineering: lessons learned from practice. IEEE Softw 24(2):21–27, Mar./Apr

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian D, Zowghi D (2003) Requirements challenges in multi-site software development organizations. Requir Eng J 8(3):149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian D, Eberlein A, Shaw ML, Gaines BR (2000) Using different communication media in requirements negotiation. IEEE Softw 17(3):28–36, May/Jun. 2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian D, Eberlein A, Shaw ML, Gaines BR (2003) An exploratory study of facilitation in distributed requirements engineering. Requir Eng 8(1):23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damian D, Lanubile F, Mallardo T (Jan. 2008) On the need for mixed media in distributed requirements negotiations. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 34(1):116–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Valacich JS (1998) Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Inf Syst Res 9(3):156–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32(3):575–60, Sept

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunsmore A, Roper M, Wood M (August 2003) The development and evaluation of three diverse techniques for object-oriented code inspection. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(8):677–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad J, Hiltz R (Dec. 1998) An assessment of group support systems experimental research: methodology and results. J Manag Inf Syst 15(3):7–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland R (1991) The mid-point on a rating scale: is it desirable? Mark Bull 2:66–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottesdiener E (2002) Requirements by collaboration: Workshops for defining needs. Addison-Wesley Longman

  • Gunawardena CN, Zittle FJ (1997) Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. Am J Dist Educ 11(3):8–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher L, Stepanski EJ (1994) Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb JD, Mockus A, Finholt TA, Grinter RE (2001) An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed. Proc. Int’l Conf on Software Engineering (ICSE’01), 81–90, doi:10.1109/ICSE.2001.919083

  • Herbsleb JD, Atkins DL, Boyer DG, Handel M, Finholt TA (2002) Introducing instant messaging and chat into the workplace. Proc. Int’l Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI ‘02). Minneapolis, USA, 171–178, doi:10.1145/503376.503408.

  • Laitenberger O, El Emam K, Harbich TG (May 2001) An internally replicated quasi-experimental comparison of checklist and perspective-based reading of code documents. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(5):387–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd WJ, Rosson MB, Arthur JD (2002) Effectiveness of elicitation techniques in distributed requirements engineering. Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. on Requirements Engineering (RE’02), 311–318, doi:10.1109/ICRE.2002.1048544

  • Macaulay LA (1996) Requirements Engineering. Springer-Verlag Telos .

  • Maiden N, Manning S, Robertson S, Greenwood J (2004) Integrating creativity workshops into structured requirements processes. Proc. 5th Conf. on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods and techniques (DIS’04). Cambridge, MA, USA, 113–122

  • Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1984) Groups: interaction and Performance. Prentice Hall

  • McGrath JE (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups. Small Group Res 22(2):147–174

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • McHoul AW, Rapley M (2001) How to analyse talk in institutional settings: a casebook of methods. Continuum International Publishing Group

  • Montgomery DC (1996) Design and Analysis of Experiments, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Murthy US, Kerr DS (2000) Task/technology fit and the effectiveness of group support systems: evidence in the context of tasks requiring domain specific knowledge. Proc 33rd Hawaii int’l conf On system sciences (hicss-33) 2:1–10. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2000.926611

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally J (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements Engineering: a roadmap. Proc. Int’l Conf. on the Future of Software Engineering (ICSE’00), 35–46, doi:10.1145/336512.336523

  • Olson JS, Olson GM (2000) Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact 15(2/3):139–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson JS, Olson GM, Meader DK (1995) What Mix of Video and Audio is Useful for Remote Real-Time Work? Proc. Int’l Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘95), 362–368, doi:10.1145/223904.223951

  • Robert LP, Dennis AR (2005) Paradox of richness: a cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Trans Professional Comm 48(1):10–21. doi:10.1109/TPC.2004.843292, Mar/Apr

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer C, Jeffery DR, Land L, Yetton P (2000) The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally motivated program of research. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaman CB (1999) Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(4):557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Requirements Engineering: A Good Practical Guide. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemler S (2001) An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 7(17)

  • Sutton DC (2000) Linguistic problems with requirements and knowledge elicitation. Requir Eng J 5(2):114–124

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SJ, Bogdan R (1984) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Have P (1999) Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. Sage, 1999.

  • Titscher S, Jenner B, Meyer M (2000) Methods of text and discourse analysis: in search of meaning. Sage

  • Veinott E, Olson JS, Olson GM, Fu X (1999) Video helps remote work: speakers who need to negotiate common ground benefit from seeing each other. Proc. Int’l Conf. Computer-Human Interaction (CHI’99), 302–309, doi:10.1145/302979.303067.

  • Walther JB (1996) Computer-mediated Communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun Res 23(1):3–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walz DB, Elam JJ, Curtis B (1993) Inside a software design team: knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration. Commun ACM 36(10):63–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin C, Runesson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in Software Engineering. An Introduction, Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs I, Buckland BK (Sep 1998) A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Q 22(3):313–334. doi:10.2307/249668

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the students who took part in the experiment and the RS inspectors. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Fabio Calefato & Filippo Lanubile

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

    Daniela Damian

Authors
  1. Fabio Calefato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Damian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Filippo Lanubile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Lanubile.

Additional information

Editor: Daniel M. Berry

Appendix: Experimental Data

Appendix: Experimental Data

1.1 Appendix 1 Description of projects and teams used in the empirical investigation

Project

Team

Description

Project 1

UVic Centre for Scholastic

Gr1 (5 clients)

An educational game designed to help students in grades 1 & 2 with Math, English and Problem-Solving skills

Entertainment Edu Game

Gr2 (8 developers)

Project 2

Equipment and Patient

Gr2 (8 clients)

A system to keep track of supplies, equipment and patients of St. Peter Hospital

Tracking for St. Peter Hospital.

Gr3 (6 developers)

Project 3

Bus Tracking System

Gr3 (6 clients)

A bus tracking system to assist passengers with route planning, time schedule, and connecting busses

Gr4 (6 developers)

Project 4

G4-consulting Groupwork System

Gr4 (6 clients)

A collaborative development suite to improved developers collaboration

Gr5 (6 developers)

Project 5

University of Vancouver Island Room Organization System

Gr5 (6 clients)

A centralized web based system used to view and book room resources around campus for various events

Gr6 (7 developers)

Project 6

SysCal Shared Calendar

Gr6 (7 clients)

A shared calendar for arranging meetings/schedules of company employees.

Gr1 (5 developers)

1.2 Appendix 2. Categories of the coding schema (thematic units) in content analysis

Category

Description

QUESTION

YES-NO

A question that takes a yes/no answer or just a few words (e.g., Q: "How many beds are available in the hospital overall?", A: "There are 400"). It may initiate a grounding chain.

 

COMPLEX

Any other question not covered by the YES-NO QUESTION category, such as the wh- questions or those that aggregate multiple questions in a single utterance (e.g., "What information will each employee use to login to the system? Is a key card a consideration?"). It may initiate a grounding chain.

ANSWER

YES-NO

An answer to a question that takes a few words or a yes-no utterance (e.g., yes, no, yep, nope, y, n, yeah, "yeah, 400"). Normally appears after a YES-NO QUESTION or CHECK. It may close a grounding chain.

 

COMPLEX

Any other answer to a question not covered by the YES-NO ANSWER category (e.g., Q: "Are you going to do the display public events portion for the final product?", A: "No, they’re shown elsewhere"). It may close a grounding chain.

CHECK

PROVISIONAL

Any utterance that explicitly looks for confirmation of acceptance through provisional, try-marked statements (e.g., "So we decided for 400 beds, right?"). It is normally followed by an AGREEMENT or an ANSWER.

 

VERBATIM COPY

Any utterance that explicitly gives confirmation of acceptance by verbatim copying a previous utterances (e.g., "Backup monthly on a tape", "Ok, once a month on tape"). It is normally followed by an AGREEMENT.

 

MISUNDERSTANDING

Any utterance that provides evidence that a previously entered utterance was not accepted (e.g., "I'm not sure I get the question", "What?"). It may initiate a grounding chain and is normally followed by a TASK or an ANSWER.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Any utterance that explicitly demonstrates that a previously entered utterance has been understood and accepted (e.g., ok, k, fine), but not after a CHECK or QUESTION. It may close a grounding chain.

TASK

Any task-related utterance, presented not in response to a question, which does not express acknowledgement or (dis)agreement (e.g., for providing clarification or extra information).

AGREEMENT

Expresses agreement with a previously entered utterance, but not as an affirmative answer to a question, including smileys (e.g., yes, yep, y, k, yeah, ok, right, I see, I agree). It normally appears after a QUESTION, CHECK, or TASK utterance and may also close a grounding chain.

DISAGREEMENT

Expresses disagreement with a previously entered utterance, but not as a negative answer to a question (e.g., no, nope, n). It may also initiate or continue a grounding chain.

REPAIR

Any fragment entered to repair an error, typically in case of typos (e.g., "(The system) will use various (calendar formats) depending on the information displayes", "…displayed").

OTHER

Off-topic communication, not related to task, such as technical issues, preparation, and social messages. It may include smileys (e.g., "I got disconnected here", "Sorry, I'm late!", "LOL!").

1.3 Appendix 3. An example of a grounding chain with categories

Unit

Sender

Content

Category

1

Developer1

How long do patient records remain on the system?

Y/N Question

2

Client1

Forever

Y/N Answer

3

Developer1

Okay

Acknowledgment

4

Client2

No wait

Disagreement

5

Client1

?

Check Misunderstanding

6

Client2

if the patients have checked out for over a month then their information should be archived but still remain accessible if need be

Task

7

Client3

Yeah patient records are permanent

Agreement

8

Developer1

Ok, records archived after one month

Check Verbatim Copy

9

Client3

Yeah

Agreement

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Calefato, F., Damian, D. & Lanubile, F. Computer-mediated communication to support distributed requirements elicitations and negotiations tasks. Empir Software Eng 17, 640–674 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9179-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9179-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation