Advertisement

Requirements Engineering

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 521–552 | Cite as

Workshop videos for requirements communication

  • Samuel A. Fricker
  • Kurt Schneider
  • Farnaz Fotrousi
  • Christoph Thuemmler
Original Article

Abstract

Shared understanding of requirements between stakeholders and the development team is a critical success factor for requirements engineering. Workshops are an effective means for achieving such shared understanding. Stakeholders and team representatives can meet and discuss what a planned software system should be and how it should support achieving stakeholder goals. However, some important intended recipients of the requirements are often not present in such workshops: the developers. Thus, they cannot benefit from the in-depth understanding of the requirements and of the rationales for these requirements that develops during the workshops. The simple handover of a requirements specification hardly compensates the rich requirements understanding that is needed for the development of an acceptable system. To compensate the lack of presence in a requirements workshop, we propose to record that requirements workshop on video. If workshop participants agree to be recorded, a video is relatively simple to create and can capture much more aspects about requirements and rationales than a specification document. This paper presents the workshop video technique and a phenomenological evaluation of its use for requirements communication from the perspective of software developers. The results show how the technique was appreciated by observers of the video, present positive and negative feedbacks from the observers, and lead to recommendations for implementing the technique in practice.

Keywords

Workshop videos Requirements communication Video analysis Developer perception Phenomenological evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the European Commission (FP7 project FI-STAR, Grant agreement no. 604691) and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (K3 project 13N13548).

References

  1. 1.
    Glinz M, Wieringa R (2007) Stakeholders in requirements engineering. IEEE Softw 24:18–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glinz M, Fricker S (2014) On shared understanding in software engineering: an essay. Comput Sci Res DevGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fricker S (2009) Pragmatic requirements communication: the handshaking approach: ShakerGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwaber K (1995) scrum development process. In: Presented at the OOPSLA’95 business object design and implementation workshop, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gottesdiener E (2002) Requirements by collaboration: workshops for defining needs. Addison-Wesley Professional, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25:1268–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Persson A (2008) The practice of participatory enterprise modelling: a competency perspective. In: Johannesson P, Söderström E (eds) Information systems engineering: from data analysis to process networks. IGI Publishing, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dutoit A, McCall R, Mistrík I, Paech B (2006) Rationale management in software engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Trade Organization (2011) Understanding the WTO. World Trade Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heath C, Hindmarsh J, Luff P (2010) Video in qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jirotka M, Luff P (2006) Supporting requirements with video-based analysis. IEEE Softw 23:42–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brill O, Schneider K, Knauss E (2010) Video vs. use cases: can videos capture more requirements under time pressure? Presented at the requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (REFSQ 2010), Essen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Broll G, Hussmann H, Rukzio E, Wimmer R (2007) Using video clips to support requirements elicitation in focus groups: an experience report. In: Presented at the SE 2007 workshop on multimedia requirements engineering, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pham R, Meyer S, Kitzmann I, Schneider K (2012) Interactive multimedia storyboard for facilitating stakeholder interaction. In: Presented at the 8th international conference of information and communication technology (Quatic 2012), Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zachos K, Maiden N, Tosar A (2005) Rich-media scenarios for discovering requirements. IEEE Softw 22:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rabiser R, Seyff N, Grünbacher P, Maiden N (2006) Capturing multimedia requirements descriptions with mobile re tools. In: Presented at the 1st international workshop on multimedia requirements engineering, Minneapolis, MN, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maiden N, Otojare O, Seyff N, Grünbacher P, Mitteregger K (2007) Determining stakeholder needs in the workplace: how mobile technologies can help. IEEE Softw 24:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bevan N (1995) measuring usability as quality of use. Softw Qual J 4:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holzinger A (2004) Rapid prototyping for a virtual medical campus interface. IEEE Softw 21:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Creighton O, Ott M, Bruegge B (2006) Software Cinema—Video-based Requirements Engineering. In: Presented at the 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE’06). Minneapolis, Minnesota, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ivarsson M, Gorschek T (2009) Technology transfer decision support in requirements engineering research: a systematic review of REj. Requirements Eng 14:155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fricker S, Grünbacher P (2008) Negotiation Constellations - Method Selection Framework for Requirements Negotiation. In: Presented at the requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (REFSQ 2008). France, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fricker S, Gorschek T, Byman C, Schmidle A (2010) Handshaking with implementation proposals: negotiating requirements understanding. IEEE Softw 27:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maiden N, Ncube C, Kamali S, Seyff N, Grünbacher P (2007) Exploring scenario forms and ways of use to discover requirements on airports that minimize environmental impact. In: Presented at the 15th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE’07). New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gemino A, Wand Y (2005) Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data Knowl Eng 55:301–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lauesen S (2002) Software requirements: styles and techniques. Pearson Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guarino N, Oberle D, Staab S (2009) What is an Ontology. In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on ontologies. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schneider K (2009) Experience and knowledge management in software engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wood J, Silver D (1995) Joint application development. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gottesdiener E (2004) Running a use case/scenario workshop. In: Alexander I, Maiden N (eds) Scenarios, stories, use cases: through the systems development life-cycle. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stirna J, Persson A, Sandkuhl K (2007) Participative enterprise modeling. Experiences and recommendations. In: Presented at the 19th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE 2007), Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutcliffe A, Maiden N, Minocha S, Manuel D (1998) Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Software Eng 24:1072–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weidenhaupt K, Pohl K, Jarke M, Haumer P (1998) Senarios in system development: current practice. IEEE Softw 15:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seyff N, Maiden N, Karlsen K, Lockerbie J, Grünbacher P, Graf F et al (2009) Exploring how to use scenarios to discover requirements. Requirements Eng 14:91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Atladottir G, Hvannberg ET, Gunnarsdottir S (2012) Comparing task practicing and prototype fidelities when applying scenario acting to elicit requirements. Requirements Eng 17:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rettig M (1994) Prototyping for tiny fingers. Commun ACM 37:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ishida T, Hattori H (2009) Participatory technologies for designing ambient intelligence systems. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 1:43–49Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stapel K, Schneider K, Lübke D, Flohr T (2007) Improving an industrial reference process by information flow analysis: a case study. In: Presented at the product-focused software process improvement (PROFES 2007). Riga, LatviaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stapel K, Schneider K (2012) Managing knowledge on communication and information flow in global software projects. Expert systems—special issue on knowledge engineering in global software developmentGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stapel K, Knauss E, Schneider K (2009) Using flow to improve communication of requirements in globally distributed software projects. In: Presented at the collaboration and intercultural issues on requirements: communication, understanding and soft skills (CIRCUS 2009). Atlanta, Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kwan I, Damian D, Storey M-A (2006) Visualizing a requirements-centred social network to maintain awareness wtihin development teams. In: Presented at the 1st international workshop on requirements engineering visualization (REV 2006). DC, USA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gorschek T, Wohlin C (2006) Requirements abstraction model. Requirements Eng 11:79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kruchten P (1996) A rational development process. CrossTalk 9:11–16Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Royce W (1970) Managing the development of large software systems. In: Presented at the IEEE WESCON. Los Angeles, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Raijlich VT, Bennet KH (2000) A staged model for the software life cycle. Computer 33:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fricker S, Glinz M (2010) Comparison of requirements hand-off, analysis, and negotiation: case study. In: Presented at the 18th ieee international requirements engineering conference (RE’10). Australia, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Carter LR, Karatsolis A (2009) Lessons from trying to develop a robust documentation exemplar. In: Presented at the 27th ACM international conference on design of communication, Bloomington, Indiana, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Owen R, Stilgoe J, Macnaghten P, Gorman M, Fisher E, Guston D (2013) A framework for responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Silas M, Grassia P, Langerman A (2015) Video recording of the operating room—is anonymity possible? J Surg ResGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bunn A (2015) The curious case of the right to be forgotten. Comput Law Secur Rev 31:336–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Feeney W (1983) Documenting software using video. In: Presented at the IEEE computer society workshop on software engineering technology transfer. Miami Beach, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    DeMarco T, Geertgens C (1990) Use of video for program documentation. In: Presented at the 12th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 1990), Nice, FranceGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pham R, Holzmann H, Schneider K, Brüggermann C (2012) Beyond plain video-recording of gui-tests—linking test case instructions with visual response documentation. In: Presented at the 7th IEEE/ACM international workshop on automation of software test (AST 2012). Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Alexander I, Maiden N (2005) Scenarios, stories, use cases: through the systems development life-cycle. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schneider K, Stapel K, Knauss E (2008) Beyond documents: visualizing informal communication proceedings of third international workshop on requirements engineering visualization (REV ’08)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wieringa R, Maiden N, Mead N, Rolland C (2006) Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requir Eng 11:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Miles M, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebok. SAGE Publications, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schneider K (2006) Rationale as a By-Product. In: Dutoit A, McCall R, Mistrik I, Paech B (eds) Rationale management in software engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gorschek T, Wohlin C, Carre P, Larsson S (2006) A model for technology transfer in practice. Softw IEEE 23:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Höst M, Regnell B, Wohlin C (2000) Using students as subjects: a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empir Softw Eng 5:201–214CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 87:215–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Horova I, Kolacek J, Zelinka J (2012) Kernel smoothing in matlab: theory and practice of kernel smoothing. World Scientific Pub Co, SingaporeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Trochim W, Donnelly J (2008) The research methods knowledge base, (3rd edn) Atomic DogGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Regnell B, Berntsson Svensson R, Olsson S (2008) Supporting roadmapping of quality requirements. IEEE Softw 25:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yin RK (2008) Case study research: design and methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 14:131–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Fricker S, Grau R, Zwingli A (2014) Requirements engineering: best practice. In: Fricker S, Thuemmler C, Gavras A (eds) Requirements engineering for digital health. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Glinz M (2008) A risk-based, value-oriented approach to quality requirements. IEEE Softw 25:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Davis A, Zowghi D (2006) Good requirements practices are neither necessary nor sufficient. Requir Eng 11:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Regev G, Gause D, Wegmann A (2008) Requirements engineering education in the 21st Century, an experiential learning approach. In: Presented at the 16th iEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE’08), Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kolb D (1984) Experiential learning. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fiedler M, Hossfeld T, Phuoc T-G (2010) A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. IEEE Netw 24:36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel A. Fricker
    • 1
    • 4
  • Kurt Schneider
    • 2
  • Farnaz Fotrousi
    • 1
  • Christoph Thuemmler
    • 3
  1. 1.Blekinge Institute of TechnologySERL-Sweden, Campus GräsvikKarlskronaSweden
  2. 2.Leibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Edinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUK
  4. 4.FHNWSchool of EngineeringWindischSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations