Advertisement

Requirements Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 262–275 | Cite as

Applying a pragmatics-based creativity-fostering technique to requirements elicitation

  • Luisa Mich
  • Cinzia Anesi
  • Daniel M. Berry
Original article

Abstract

This paper proposes the application to requirements elicitation of an innovative creativity fostering technique based on a model of the pragmatics of communication, the Elementary Pragmatic Model (EPM). The EPM has been used to define a creative process, called EPMcreate (EPM Creative Requirements Engineering TEchnique) that consists of sixteen steps. In each step, the problem is analyzed according to one elementary behavior identified by the EPM. Each behavior suggests that the analyst look at the problem from a different combination of users’ viewpoints. The feasibility and effectiveness of the technique in requirements elicitation was demonstrated by experiments on two projects with very different characteristics. Each experiment compared the performances of two analysis teams, one of which used EPMcreate and the other of which used brainstorming. The results of both experiments highlights the higher effectiveness of EPMcreate. Additional data from the experiments are examined for other insights into how and why EPMcreate is effective.

Keywords

Exploratory experiment Pragmatics of communication Problem solving Viewpoint 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the various anonymous reviewers for their comments on all versions of this paper. They thank the attendees of REFSQ 2004, particularly Søren Lauesen and Neil Maiden, for their incisive comments following a presentation of that earlier paper. They thank Pier Luigi Novi Inverardi for his advice on statistics. Finally, they thank Björn Regnell, Erik Kamsties, and Vincenzo Gervasi, the editors of this special issue, for their patient discussions of alternative strategies for dealing with the reviewers’ comments. Daniel Berry’s work was supported in part by a Canadian NSERC grant NSERC-RGPIN227055-00.

References

  1. 1.
    Mich L, Anesi C, Berry DM (2004) Requirements engineering and creativity: an innovative approach based on a model of the pragmatics of communication. In: Regnell B, Kamsties E, Gervasi V (eds) Proceedings of the 10th anniversary international workshop on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality, REFSQ’04. Riga, Latvia, Essener Informatik Beiträge, pp 129–143Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glass R (1995) Software creativity. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Browne GJ, Rogich MB (2001) An empirical investigation of user requirements elicitation: comparing the effectiveness of prompting techniques. J Manag Inf Syst 17:223–249Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robertson S (2001) Requirements trawling: techniques for discovering requirements. Int J Hum Comput Stud 55:405–421CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cybulski JL, Nguyen L, Thanasankit T, Lichtenstein S (2003) Understanding problem solving. In: Proceedings of RE 7th Pacific Asia conference on information systems, Adelaide, pp 465–482Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mavin A, Maiden N (2003) Determining socio-technical systems requirements: experiences with generating and walking through scenarios. In: Proceedings of 11th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, Monterey Bay, pp 213–222Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maiden N, Gizikis A, Robertson S (2004) Provoking creativity: imagine what your requirements could be like. IEEE Softw 21:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gause D, Weinberg G (1989) Exploring requirements: quality before design. Dorset House, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osborn A (1953) Applied imagination. Charles Scribner’s, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wood J, Silver D (1999) Joint application development. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maiden N, Manning S, Robertson S, Greenwood J (2004) Integrating creativity workshops into structured requirements processes. In: Conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’2004), Cambridge, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lefons E, Pazienza MT, Silvestri A, Tangorra F, Corfiati L, De Giacomo P (1977) An algebraic model for systems of psychically interacting subjects. In: Dubuisson O (ed) Proceedings of IFAC workshop on information and systems, Compiegne, FR, pp 155–163Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watzlawick P, Behavin JH, Jackson DD (1967) Pragmatics of human communication. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Giacomo P, Silvestri A (1982) New horizons in psychiatric research: the elementary pragmatic approach to the study of interactional behavior. In: Proceedings of WPA regional symposium, Kyoto, JP, pp 118–123Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silvestri A, De Giacomo P, Pierri G, Lefons E, Pazienza MT, Tangorra F (1980) A basic model of interacting subjects. Cybern Syst Int J 11:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Giacomo P, Silvestri A (1985) An elementary pragmatic model in family therapy. Int J Fam Ther 6:245–263Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Giacomo P, Pereira OG (1997) Brief pragmatic psychotherapy (in Portuguese). Tumpam, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colazzo L, Malinverni D, Mich L, Schäl T (1991) An experiment on computer mediated communication supported by the Coordinator using a pragmatic model. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on CSCW, Berlin, pp 34–58Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colazzo L, Mich L, Silvestri L (1999) User modelling in didactic application: a pragmatic approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on computers in education. ICCE’99, Japan, pp 232–235Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Giacomo P, Mich L (2002) A method of counseling on line using the elementary pragmatic model. In: Proceedings of AATP 2002, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Giacomo P (1995) Mente e Creatività: Il Modello Pragmatico Elementare quale Strumento per Sviuppare la Creatività in Campo Medico, Psicologico e Manageriale. Franco Angeli, Milano, IT (in Italian)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anesi C (2003) Analisi dei requisiti software e creatività: un approccio innovativo basato sul modello pragmatico elementare. Degree Thesis, University of Trento, Italy. (in Italian, http://www.economia.unitn.it/etourism/risorseCollegateCreativity.asp#tesiRE)
  23. 23.
    Poincaré H (2001) Science and method. Key Texts, South Bend, IN (originally published in 1914)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fromm E (1959) The creative attitude. In Anderson H (ed) Creativity and its cultivation. Harper & Row, New York, pp 44–54Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon H, Newell A (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bono ED (1985) Six thinking hats. Viking, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Binnig G (1989) Aus dem Nichts. Über die Kreativität von Natur und Mensch (in German). Piper, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nagasundaram M, Bostrom RP (1995) Structuring creativity with GSS: an experiment. In: Proceeding of Americas conference on information systems. (http://www.cispom.boisestate.edu/murli/home/research/AIS95/AIS95.html)
  29. 29.
    Evans JR (1991) Creative thinking in the decision and management sciences. South Western, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Couger JD, Higgens LF, McIntyre SC (1993) (Un)structured creativity in information systems organizations. MIS Q 17:375–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Couger JD (1995) Creative problem solving and opportunity finding. Boyd & Fraser, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Couger JD (1996) Creativity and innovation in information systems organizations. Boyd & Fraser, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sweeney RB (2003) Creativity in the information technology curriculum proposal. In: Proceeding of the 4th conference on information technology curriculum. CITC4’03, Lafayette, pp 139–141Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aurum A, Handzic M, Cross J, Toorn CV (2001) Software support for creative problem solving. In: IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT’01), Madison, pp 160–162Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schenk KD, Vitalari NP, Davis KS (1998) Differences between novice and expert systems analysts: what do we know and what do we do? J Manag Inf Syst 15:9–50Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gallagher K, Mason RM, Vandenbosch B (2004) Managing the tension in IS projects: balancing alignment, engagement, perspective and imagination. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rickards T (1974) Problem solving through creative analysis. Gower, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leigh A (1983) Decisions, decisions!: a practical management guide to problem solving and decision making. Gower Aldershot, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mullery G (1996) The perfect requirements myth. Requirement Eng J 1:132–134 (also at http://rej.co.umist.ac.uk/Volume-1/Issue-2/Viewpoints.html)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McBreen P (2001) Tutorial 38: creativity in software development. In: OOPSLA 2001, Tampa Bay, FLGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Robertson J (2002) Eureka! why analysts should invent requirements. IEEE Softw 19:22–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Robertson S, Maiden N (2002) Tutorial notes T08: creativity, the path to innovative requirements. In: IEEE joint international requirements engineering conference, EssenGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nguyen L, Carroll J, Swatman PA (2000) Supporting and monitoring the creativity of IS personnel during the requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of 33rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. HICSS-33, Maui (http://www.computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0493/04937/04937008.pdf).
  45. 45.
    The Standish Group (1994) The CHAOS report. Technical report, The Standish Group (http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/chaos_1994_1.php)
  46. 46.
    Al-Ani B, Lowe D, Leany J (1998) Incomplete requirements: when requirements go missing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Australian conference on requirements engineering. Deakin University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wiegers KE (2001) Inspecting requirements. Technical report, StickyMinds.com Original Column (http://www.stickyminds.com/se/S2697.asp)
  48. 48.
    Aurum A, Martin E (1998) Requirements elicitation using solo brainstorming. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Australian conference on requirements engineering. Deakin University, Australia, pp 29–37Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bono ED (1993) Serious creativity: using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Parnes S (1992) Source book for creative problem solving. Creative Foundation, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Silvestri A, Mich L, Pereira OG, Ferreira CP (1987) Simulation of the development of individual interactional patterns. Cybern Syst Int J 18:489–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Byrne JG, Barlow T (1993) Structured brainstorming: a method for collecting user requirements. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 37th annual meeting, Seattle, pp 427–431Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Williams F (1997) TCD: Test della Creatività e Pensiero Divergente (in Italian). Centro Studi Erickson, TrentoGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Williams F, Taylor CW (1966) Instructional media and creativity. In: Proceedings of the 6th Utah creativity research conference. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Anesi C, Mich L, Franch M (2004) Un approccio basato sulla pragmatica della comunicazione per lo sviluppo della creatività: sperimentazione nello sviluppo di applicazioni web. Technical Report 88, Dipartimento di Informatica e Studi Aziendali (DISA), Università di Trento, Trento (in Italian)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jaoui H (1991) La Créativité Mode d’Emploi. E.S.F. Editeur – Entreprise Moderne d’Edition – Librairies Techniques, Paris (in French)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Goldenberg J, Mazursky D (2002) Creativity in product innovation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Telecommunication TechnologyUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Management SciencesUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations