Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder-Centric Clustering Methods for Conflict Resolution in the Requirements Engineering Process

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2021)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1556))

Abstract

This paper describes the development and evaluation of a framework that combines expert-based and clustering methods for resolving conflicts in requirements elicited from stakeholders. The purpose of the framework was to identify and resolve conflicts among expectations by multiple stakeholders that often arise during the requirements elicitation phase. By means of qualitative and quantitative research approaches, face-to-face oral interviews, quantitative surveys, brainstorming sessions, and focus groups, scenarios were generated with stakeholders of a given problem domain. Our approach was implemented within an interactive system that empirically supports the adequacy of our framework with the involvements of experts and other stakeholders of the chosen problem domain. In addition, we presented a dataset of requirements with their weight scales that formed the basis for resolving conflicting views by stakeholders by applying scientific criteria. The framework was validated in a real-life case study. The results demonstrated 85.71% of correctly clustered instances of requirements, based on which the experts agreed that the interactive system was good enough for resolving conflicting subjective views in requirements analysis. The research performed has the two-fold threat to validity, which suggests (i) the need to adequately capture and harmoniously represent the views by different stakeholders in a multicultural and multidisciplinary domain and (ii) the need to validate the framework in other real life case studies in different domains. The research performed has a high potential for reducing software development costs and saving time at the early stage of the development of software products.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4603841.

  2. 2.

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4603824.

  3. 3.

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4603824.

  4. 4.

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4603848.

References

  1. Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R.: A clustering based technique for large scale prioritization during requirements elicitation. In: Herawan, T., Ghazali, R., Deris, M.M. (eds.) Recent Advances on Soft Computing and Data Mining. AISC, vol. 287, pp. 623–632. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07692-8_59

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmad, S.: Negotiation in the requirements elicitation and analysis process. In: 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (ASWEC 2008), pp. 683–689. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aldekhail, M., Chikh, A., Ziani, D.: Software requirements conflict identification: review and recommendations. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. (IJACSA) 7(10), 326 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: Reasoning with contextual requirements: detecting inconsistency and conflicts. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(1), 35–57 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alshazly, A.A., Elfatatry, A.M., Abougabal, M.S.: Detecting defects in software requirements specification. Alex. Eng. J. 53(3), 513–527 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Azadegan, A., Cheng, X., Niederman, F., Yin, G.: Collaborative requirements elicitation in facilitated collaboration: report from a case study. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 569–578. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barchiesi, M.A., Costa, R., Greco, M.: Enhancing conflict resolution through an AHP-based methodology. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 13(1), 17–41 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Benavides, D., Cortés, A.R., Trinidad, P., Segura, S.: A survey on the automated analyses of feature models. In: JISBD, pp. 367–376 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bendjenna, H., Charrel, P., Zarour, N.: Using AHP method to resolve conflicts between non-functional concerns. In: International Conference on Education, Applied Sciences and Management (ICEASM 2012), pp. 26–27 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boehm, B., Bose, P., Horowitz, E., Lee, M.J.: Software requirements negotiation and renegotiation aids: a theory-w based spiral approach. In: 1995 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, p. 243. IEEE (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boehm, B., In, H.: Identifying quality-requirement conflicts. IEEE Softw. 13(2), 25–35 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boehm, B., Port, D., Al-Said, M.: Avoiding the software model-clash spiderweb. Computer 33(11), 120–122 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brito, I.S., Moreira, A., Ribeiro, R.A., Araújo, J.: Handling conflicts in aspect-oriented requirements engineering. In: Moreira, A., Chitchyan, R., Araújo, J., Rashid, A. (eds.) Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering, pp. 225–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38640-4_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Butt, W.H., Amjad, S., Azam, F.: Requirement conflicts resolution: using requirement filtering and analysis. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6786, pp. 383–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21934-4_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Capra, L., Emmerich, W., Mascolo, C.: A micro-economic approach to conflict resolution in mobile computing. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 27(6), 31–40 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coolican, H.: Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Psychology Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Damian, D., Izquierdo, L., Singer, J., Kwan, I.: Awareness in the wild: why communication breakdowns occur. In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2007), pp. 81–90. IEEE (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  18. De Souto, M.C., De Araujo, D.S., Costa, I.G., Soares, R.G., Ludermir, T.B., Schliep, A.: Comparative study on normalization procedures for cluster analysis of gene expression datasets. In: 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence), pp. 2792–2798. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Derntl, M., Renzel, D., Nicolaescu, P., Koren, I., Klamma, R.: Distributed software engineering in collaborative research projects. In: 2015 IEEE 10th International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 105–109. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deutsch, M.: The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. Yale University Press (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  21. van Dijk, R.: Determining the suitability of agile methods for a software project. In: 15th Twente Student Conference on IT (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Easterbrook, S.: Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowl. Acquis. 3(3), 255–289 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Easterbrook, S.: Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation. Requirements Eng. Soc. Tech. Issues 1, 41–65 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Egyed, A.: Fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2007), pp. 292–301. IEEE (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Egyed, A., Grunbacher, P.: Identifying requirements conflicts and cooperation: how quality attributes and automated traceability can help. IEEE Softw. 21(6), 50–58 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Faber, V.: Clustering and the continuous k-means algorithm. Los Alamos Sci. 22(138144.21), 67 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, L., Goedicke, M.: Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 2(01), 31–57 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Freeman, R.E.: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gambo, I., Adjicheboutou, A., Ikono, R., Iroju, O., Yange, S.: An investigative process model for predicting information difusion on social media: Information system perspective. Ife J. Technol. 27(1), 47–59 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gambo, I., Ikono, R., Achimugu, P., Soriyan, A.: An integrated framework for prioritizing software specifications in requirements engineering. Requir. Eng. 12(1), 33–46 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gambo, I.P., Ikono, R., Iroju, O.G., Omodunbi, T.O., Zohoun, O.K.: Hybridized ranking model for prioritizing functional software requirements. Int. J. Softw. Innov. 9(4), 1–31 (2021). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSI.289167

  32. Gambo, I., Taveter, K.: Identifying and resolving conflicts in requirements by stakeholders: a clustering approach. In: ENASE, pp. 158–169 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gambo, I., Taveter, K.: A pragmatic view on resolving conflicts in goal-oriented requirements engineering for socio-technical systems. In : Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Technologies, pp. 333–341 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5220/0010605703330341

  34. Gobeli, D.H., Koenig, H.F., Bechinger, I.: Managing conflict in software development teams: a multilevel analysis. J. Product Innov. Manag. 15(5), 423–435 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grünbacher, P., Seyff, N.: Requirements negotiation. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 143–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Hadar, I., Zamansky, A., Berry, D.M.: The inconsistency between theory and practice in managing inconsistency in requirements engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24(6), 3972–4005 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09718-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Haraty, R.A., Dimishkieh, M., Masud, M.: An enhanced k-means clustering algorithm for pattern discovery in healthcare data. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 11(6), 615740 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hassan, T., Hussain, M.Z., Hasan, M.Z., Ullah, Z., Qamar, N.: Quantitative based mechanism for resolving goals conflicts in goal oriented requirement engineering. In: Bajwa, I.S., Kamareddine, F., Costa, A. (eds.) INTAP 2018. CCIS, vol. 932, pp. 822–831. Springer, Singapore (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6052-7_71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Hassine, J., Amyot, D.: An empirical approach toward the resolution of conflicts in goal-oriented models. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(1), 279–306 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-015-0460-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hennig, C., Meila, M., Murtagh, F., Rocci, R.: Handbook of Cluster Analysis. CRC Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. In, H., Olson, D., Rodgers, T.: A requirements negotiation model based on multi-criteria analysis. In: Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 312–313. IEEE (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  42. In, H., Roy, S.: Visualization issues for software requirements negotiation. In: 25th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. COMPSAC 2001, pp. 10–15. IEEE (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jureta, I.J., Faulkner, S., Schobbens, P.Y.: Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. 13(2), 87 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Keeney, S., McKenna, H., Hasson, F.: The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Kendall, M.G., Smith, B.B.: The problem of m rankings. Ann. Math. Stat. 10(3), 275–287 (1939)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Khaled, O.M., Hosny, H.M., Shalan, M.: Exploiting requirements engineering to resolve conflicts in pervasive computing systems. In: Damiani, E., Spanoudakis, G., Maciaszek, L. (eds.) ENASE 2017. CCIS, vol. 866, pp. 93–115. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94135-6_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim, M., Park, S., Sugumaran, V., Yang, H.: Managing requirements conflicts in software product lines: a goal and scenario based approach. Data Knowl. Eng. 61(3), 417–432 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lim, W.C.: Effects of reuse on quality, productivity, and economics. IEEE Softw. 11(5), 23–30 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Litvak, C., Antonelli, L., Rossi, G., Gigante, N.: Improving the identification of conflicts in collaborative requirements engineering. In: 2018 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), pp. 872–877. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lutz, R., Schäfer, S., Diehl, S.: Using mobile devices for collaborative requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 298–301 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Maalej, W., Thurimella, A.K.: Towards a research agenda for recommendation systems in requirements engineering. In: 2009 Second International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge, pp. 32–39. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Matthiesen, S.B., Aasen, E., Holst, G., Wie, K., Einarsen, S.: The escalation of conflict: a case study of bullying at work. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 4(1), 96–112 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Maxwell, J.C., Antón, A.I., Swire, P.: A legal cross-references taxonomy for identifying conflicting software requirements. In: 2011 IEEE 19th International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 197–206. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mistrík, I., Grundy, J., Van der Hoek, A., Whitehead, J.: Collaborative software engineering: challenges and prospects. In: Mistrík, I., Grundy, J., Hoek, A., Whitehead, J. (eds.) Collaborative Software Engineering, pp. 389–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10294-3_19

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Murukannaiah, P.K., Kalia, A.K., Telangy, P.R., Singh, M.P.: Resolving goal conflicts via argumentation-based analysis of competing hypotheses. In: 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 156–165. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nentwich, C., Emmerich, W., Finkelsteiin, A., Ellmer, E.: Flexible consistency checking. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 12(1), 28–63 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 35–46 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Version One: 9th annual state of agile survey. Survey (2015). Accessed Online 15

    Google Scholar 

  59. Poort, E.R., de With, P.: Resolving requirement conflicts through non-functional decomposition. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2004), pp. 145–154. IEEE (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Punj, G., Stewart, D.W.: Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and suggestions for application. J. Mark. Res. 20(2), 134–148 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Robbins, S.: Organisational Behaviour, Concepts, Controversies and Applications, p. 599. Prentice Hall Inc., New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Robillard, P.N., Robillard, M.P.: Types of collaborative work in software engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 53(3), 219–224 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Robinson, W.N., Pawlowski, S.D., Volkov, V.: Requirements interaction management. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 35(2), 132–190 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rodrigues, O., Garcez, A.A., Russo, A.: Reasoning about requirements evolution using clustered belief revision. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Labidi, S. (eds.) SBIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3171, pp. 41–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28645-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Rombach, H.D., Basili, V.R., Selby, R.W.: Experimental Software Engineering Issues: Critical Assessment and Future Directions. International Workshop, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, 14–18 September 1992. Proceedings, vol. 706. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ross, S., Fang, L., Hipel, K.W.: A case-based reasoning system for conflict resolution: design and implementation. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 15(3–4), 369–383 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Saaty, T.L.: The analytic hierarchy process in conflict management. Int. J. Conflict Manag. (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sadana, V., Liu, X.F.: Analysis of conflicts among non-functional requirements using integrated analysis of functional and non-functional requirements. In: 31st Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2007), vol. 1, pp. 215–218. IEEE (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sardinha, A., Chitchyan, R., Weston, N., Greenwood, P., Rashid, A.: EA-analyzer: automating conflict detection in aspect-oriented requirements. In: 2009 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 530–534. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Siegel, S.: Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sterling, L., Taveter, K.: The Art of Agent-Oriented Modeling. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  72. Strauss, A.L.: Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order, vol. 1. Jossey-Bass San Francisco (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Tan, P.N., Steinbach, M., Kumar, V.: Data mining cluster analysis: basic concepts and algorithms. In: Introduction to Data Mining, pp. 487–533 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Taveter, K., Sterling, L., Pedell, S., Burrows, R., Taveter, E.M.: A method for eliciting and representing emotional requirements: two case studies in e-healthcare. In: 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp. 100–105. IEEE (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Taylor, P.S., Greer, D., Coleman, G., McDaid, K., Keenan, F.: Preparing small software companies for tailored agile method adoption: minimally intrusive risk assessment. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 13(5), 421–437 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tenso, T., Norta, A., Vorontsova, I.: Evaluating a novel agile requirements engineering method: a case study. In: ENASE, pp. 156–163 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tenso, T., Taveter, K.: Requirements engineering with agent-oriented models. In: ENASE, pp. 254–259 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Urbieta, M., Escalona, M.J., Robles Luna, E., Rossi, G.: Detecting conflicts and inconsistencies in web application requirements. In: Harth, A., Koch, N. (eds.) ICWE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7059, pp. 278–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27997-3_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. Van Lamsweerde, A., Darimont, R., Letier, E.: Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw.Eng. 24(11), 908–926 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Veerappa, V., Letier, E.: Clustering stakeholders for requirements decision making. In: Berry, D., Franch, X. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 6606, pp. 202–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19858-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  81. Viana, T., Zisman, A., Bandara, A.K.: Identifying conflicting requirements in systems of systems. In: 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 436–441. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Vieira, F., Brito, I., Moreira, A.: Using multi-criteria analysis to handle conflicts during composition. In: Workshop on Early Aspects, 5th International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD 2006) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Vogelsang, A., Borg, M.: Requirements engineering for machine learning: perspectives from data scientists. In: 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp. 245–251. IEEE (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wang, X.T., Xiong, W.: An integrated linguistic-based group decision-making approach for quality function deployment. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(12), 14428–14438 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Yang, D., Wu, D., Koolmanojwong, S., Brown, A.W., Boehm, B.W.: WikiWinWin: a wiki based system for collaborative requirements negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), p. 24. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Yang, H., Kim, M., Park, S., Sugumaran, V.: A process and tool support for managing activity and resource conflicts based on requirements classification. In: Montoyo, A., Muńoz, R., Métais, E. (eds.) NLDB 2005. LNCS, vol. 3513, pp. 114–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11428817_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  87. Yen, J., Tiao, W.A.: A systematic tradeoff analysis for conflicting imprecise requirements. In: Proceedings of ISRE 1997: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 87–96. IEEE (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Yin, R.K., et al.: Case study research and applications: design and methods (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Zhang, W., Mei, H., Zhao, H.: Feature-driven requirement dependency analysis and high-level software design. Requirements Eng. 11(3), 205–220 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Iqbal, T., Khan, M., Taveter, K., Seyff, N.: Mining reddit as a new source for software requirements. In: 2021 IEEE 29th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 128–138. IEEE, 20 September 2021

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank all the experts at the Pharmacy Department of the OAUTHC who provided invaluable input to the framework for resolution. The research work reported in this paper has received funding from the European Social Fund via the IT Academy programme and from the Mobilitas Pluss Postdoctoral Research grant MOBJD343 by the Estonian Research Agency awarded to the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Ishaya Gambo & Kuldar Taveter

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

    Ishaya Gambo

Authors
  1. Ishaya Gambo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kuldar Taveter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ishaya Gambo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hamad bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar

    Raian Ali

  2. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Hermann Kaindl

  3. Wrocław University of Economics, Wrocław, Poland

    Leszek A. Maciaszek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gambo, I., Taveter, K. (2022). Stakeholder-Centric Clustering Methods for Conflict Resolution in the Requirements Engineering Process. In: Ali, R., Kaindl, H., Maciaszek, L.A. (eds) Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering. ENASE 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1556. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96648-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96648-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-96647-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-96648-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation