Advertisement

An Exploratory Study of Topic Importance in Requirements Elicitation Interviews

  • Corentin Burnay
  • Ivan J. Jureta
  • Stéphane Faulkner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8484)

Abstract

Interviewing stakeholders is a common way to elicit information about requirements of the system-to-be and the conditions in its operating environment. One difficulty in preparing and doing interviews is how to avoid missing the information that may be important to understand the requirements and environment conditions. Some information may remain implicit throughout the interview, if the interviewed stakeholder does not consider it important, and the business analyst fails to mention it, or a topic it relates to. We propose the so-called Elicitation Topic Map (ETM), which is intended to help business analysts prepare elicitation interviews. ETM is a diagram that shows topics that can be discussed during requirements elicitation interviews, and shows how likely it is that stakeholders tend to discuss each of the topics spontaneously (as opposed to being explicitly asked questions on that topic by the business analyst). ETM was produced through a combination of theoretical and empirical research.

Keywords

Elicitation Interviews Context RE Topics Exploratory study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Christel, M.G., Kang, K.C.: Issues in requirements elicitation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-12 ESC-TR-92-012 (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goguen, J.A., Linde, C.: Techniques for requirements elicitation. In: Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 152–164 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zowghi, D., Coulin, C.: Requirements Elicitation: A Survey of Techniques, Approaches, and Tools. In: Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 19–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, A.M., Dieste, O., Hickey, A.M., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.: Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation Techniques: Empirical Results Derived from a Systematic Review. In: 14th International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 179–188. IEEE (September 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zave, P.: Classification of research efforts in requirements engineering. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 29(4), 315–321 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDermott, D., Doyle, J.: Non-monotonic logic I. Artificial intelligence 13(1), 41–72 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCarthy, J.: Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1), 27–39 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1-2), 81–132 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore, R.: Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25(1), 75–94 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sampaio do Prado Leite, J.C., Gilvaz, A.P.: Requirements Elicitation Driven by Interviews : The Use of Viewpoints. In: IWSSD. (1996) 85–94Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lecoeuche, R., Mellish, C., Robertson, D.: A framework for requirements elicitation through mixed-initiative dialogue. In: Proc. 3rd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 190–196 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davey, B., Cope, C.: Requirements Elicitation - What’ s Missing? Information Science and Information Technology 5 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamanka, T., Komiya, S.: A Method to Navigate Interview-driven Software Requirements Elicitation Work. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications 7(6), 784–798 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burnay, C., Jureta, I.J., Faulkner, S.: Context Factors: What they are and why they matter for Requirements Problems. In: Proc. 25th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 30–35 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burnay, C., Jureta, I.J., Faulkner, S.: Context-Driven Elicitation of Default Requirements: an Empirical Validation. CoRR abs/1211.2 (November 2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenspan, S., Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A.: Capturing more world knowledge in the requirements specification. In: Proc. 6th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 225–234 (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dubois, E., Hagelstein, J., Lahou, E., Ponsaert, F., Rifaut, A.: A knowledge representation language for requirements engineering. Proceedings of the IEEE 74(10), 1431–1444 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hagelstein, J.: Declarative approach to information systems requirements. Knowledge-Based Systems 1(4), 211–220 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A.: Telos: Representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 8(4), 325–362 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dardenne, A., Van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu, E.S.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proc. 3rd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 226–235 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gauker, C.: Zero tolerance for pragmatics. Synthese 165(3), 359–371 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stalnaker, R.: On the Representation of Context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7(1), 3–19 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy, J., Buvac, S.: Formalizing context (expanded notes) (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dourish, P.: What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8(1), 19–30 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baldauf, M.: A survey on context-aware systems. International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing 2(4), 263–277 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lenat, D.: The Dimensions of Context-Space. Technical Report 512 (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walsham, G.: Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 320–330 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lê, S., Josse, J., Husson, F.: FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1), 1–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Potts, C., Hsi, I.: Abstraction and context in requirements engineering: toward a synthesis. Annals of Software Engineering 3(1), 23–61 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jackson, M.: The meaning of requirements. Annals of Software Engineering 3(1), 5–21 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Viller, S., Sommerville, I.: Social analysis in the requirements engineering process: from ethnography to method. In: Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, vol. 6, pp. 6–13 (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pohl, K.: The three dimensions of requirements engineering. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jarke, M., Pohl, K., Jacobs, S., Bubenko, J., Assenova, P., Holm, P., Wangler, B., Rolland, C., Plihon, V., Schmitt, J.R., Sutcliffe, A., Jones, S., Maiden, N., Till, D., Vassiliou, Y., Constantopoulos, P., Spanoudakis, G.: Requirements engineering: an integrated view of representation, process, and domain (1993)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheng, B.H., Atlee, J.M.: Research directions in requirements engineering. In: Future of Software Engineering (FUSE), pp. 285–303. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jarke, M., Loucopoulos, P., Lyytinen, K., Mylopoulos, J., Robinson, W.: The brave new world of design requirements. Information Systems 36(7), 992–1008 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Holtzblatt, K., Jones, S.: Contextual inquiry: A participatory technique for system design. In: Participatory design: Principles and Practice, pp. 180–193 (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Potts, C., Takahashi, K., Anton, A.: Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Software 11(2), 21–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maiden, N.: CREWS-SAVRE: Scenarios for acquiring and validating requirements. Automated Software Engineering 5(4), 419–446 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sutcliffe, A., Ryan, M.: Experience with SCRAM, a scenario requirements analysis method. In: Proc. 3rd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mullery, G.P.: CORE - A method for controlled requirement specification. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 126–135 (1979)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Easterbrook, S.: Domain Modelling with Hierarchies of Alternative Viewpoints. In: First IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (January 1993)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cohene, T., Easterbrook, S.: Contextual risk analysis for interview design. In: Proc. 13th International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 95–104 (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Coughlan, J., Lycett, M., Macredie, R.D.: Communication issues in requirements elicitation: a content analysis of stakeholder experiences. Information and Software Technology 45(8), 525–537 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goguen, J.A.: Formality and Informality in Requirements Engineering. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 102–108 (1996)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stone, A., Sawyer, P.: Identifying tacit knowledge-based requirements. IEEE Proceedings-Software 153(6), 211–218 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singer, L., Brill, O.: Utilizing Rule Deviations in IT Ecosystems for Implicit Requirements Elicitation. In: Managing Requirements Knowledge (MARK), pp. 22–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Daramola, O., Moser, T., Sindre, G., Biffl, S.: Managing Requirements Using Semantic Case-Based Reasoning Research Preview. In: Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 172–178 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corentin Burnay
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ivan J. Jureta
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stéphane Faulkner
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRSBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of NamurBelgium
  3. 3.PReCISE Research CenterUniversity of NamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations