Promoting Group Creativity in Upstream Requirements Engineering

  • Rosalie J. OckerEmail author
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS, volume 20)


The upstream stage of requirements engineering (RE) focuses primarily on determining high-level organizational requirements. Upstream RE provides perhaps the best opportunity to instill creativity into the design process, as it is here where stakeholders figure out what to build. However, how to incorporate creativity into current RE methods remains a fundamental concern. Negative intergroup social processes, such as those associated with status differentials, ingroup bias, and majority influence, can impede group creativity and otherwise negatively impact the upstream RE process. This chapter discuses these issues and suggests how creativity can be promoted using an IBIS design rationale coupled with group support system tools intended to diminish negative social influences between (and within) stakeholder groups.


Requirements engineering Social influences Group support systems Brainstorming. 


  1. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories or creativity (pp. 61–91). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1977). Gender and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 44–557.Google Scholar
  6. Boehm, B. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boehm, B., & Kitapci, H. (2006). The WinWin approach: Using a requirements negotiation tool for rationale capture and use. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bos, N., Shami, N. S., Olson, J. S., Cheshin, A., & Nan, N. (2004). In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams: An experimental simulation. CSCW, 6(3), 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrol, J. B. (1985). Domains of cognitive ability. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. (1991). Status processes in groups. American Sociological Review, 56, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems (TOIS), 6(4), 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1989). gIBIS: A tool for all reasons. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 40, 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 24(4), 490–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cottrell, N. B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 185–236). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  15. Couger, J. D. (1996). Creativity & innovation in information systems organizations. Danvers: Boyd & Fraser.Google Scholar
  16. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 231–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutoit, A. H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., & Paech, B. (2006). Rationale management in software engineering: Concepts and techniques. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 1–43). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 350–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, D. (1962). Experimental studies of social influence in simple judgment situations. Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Buffalo: Creative Education Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent production. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffman, L. R. (1959). Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leader, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. R. (1995). Requirements gathering: The human factor. Communications of the ACM, 38(5), 31–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions in group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to numerical minority women. The American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 81–100). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Working paper no. 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  31. Latané, B. (1981) The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latane, B. (1986). Responsibility and effort in organizations. In: P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 277–304). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.Google Scholar
  34. Lim, J., & Guo, X. (2008). A study of group support systems and the intergroup setting. Decision Support Systems, 45(3), 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lott, A., & Lott, B. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 428–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malone, T. W., Grant, K., Lai, K.-Y., Rao, R., & Rosenblitt, D. (1986). Semi-structured messages are surprisingly useful for computer-supported coordination. Proceedings of CSCW’86, MCC/ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Austin, Texas, 102–114.Google Scholar
  38. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of groups. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes, 9 (pp. 237–280). Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
  39. Moscovici, S. (1974). Social influence I, Conformity and social control. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology, classic and contemporary integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  40. Moscovici, S., & Nemeth, C. (1974). Social influence II. Minority influence. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology, classic and contemporary integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  41. Mouton, J. S., Blake, R. R., & Olmstead, J. A. (1956). The relationship between frequency of yielding and the disclosure of personal identity. Journal of Personality, 24, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nguyen, L., & Swatman, P. A. (2006). Promoting and supporting requirements engineering in creativity. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Ocker, R. J., Huang, H., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2011). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  48. Panteli, N., & Davison, R. M. (2005). The role of subgroups in the communication patterns of global virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parmeter, S. M., & Gaber, J. D. (1971). Creative scientists rate creativity factors. Research Management, November, 65–70.Google Scholar
  50. Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline concept to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rooksby, J., Sommerville, I., & Pidd, M. (2006). A hybrid approach to upstream requirements: Ibis and cognitive mapping. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Sell, J., Lovaglia, M. J., Mannix, E. A., Samuelson, C. D., & Wilson, R. K. (1992). Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 44–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sherif, M. (1935). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., O’Bannon, D., & Scully, J. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  57. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson.Google Scholar
  59. Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work group. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Turner, J. C. (1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup behaviour. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 66–101). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Vinacke, W. E., Wilson, W. R., & Meredith, G. M. (1964). Dimensions of social psychology. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co.Google Scholar
  63. Wagner, D., & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program in theoretical research programs. In J. Berger & M. Zeldich Jr. (Eds.), Studies in the growth of theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wagner, D., & Berger, J. (1997). Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts, Sociological Perspectives, 40(1–32), 1997.Google Scholar
  65. Walz, D. B., Elam, J. J., & Curtis, B. (1993). Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration. Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 207–230). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  67. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.Google Scholar
  68. Woodman, R., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: An interactionist perspective. In J. A. Glover & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 77–92). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  69. Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 292–321.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations