Collaborative Requirements Engineering: Bridging the Gulfs Between Worlds

  • Alistair SutcliffeEmail author


A method engineering approach is described for managing communication in RE processes based on Clark’s theory of common ground. The common ground framework is used to evaluate the affordances of different RE representations such as scenarios, storyboards and models. The contribution that representations make to RE activities is reviewed to suggest heuristics for selecting appropriate representations to develop mutual understanding of RE issues between different stakeholders. A meta-model for RE activities is proposed that describes the process of communication and developing mutual understanding driven from abstract and concrete views of the problem domain. The meta-model is applied to management of RE sessions from a method engineering perspective. Application of the framework is illustrated with a case study of health informatics application.


Common Ground Stakeholder Group Mutual Understanding Requirement Engineer Discourse Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Baddeley AD (1986) Working memory. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embracing change. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brennan SE, Clark HH (1996) Conceptual pacts and lexical choice of conversation. J Exp Psychol: Learning, Memory Cognition 22(6):1482–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chantree F, Nuseibeh B, De Roeck A, Willis A (2006) Identifying nocuous ambiguities in natural language requirements. In: Proceedings of 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE’06), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark HH (1996) Using language. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conklin J, Begeman ML (1988) gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans Office Info Systems 64:303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Quarter 11(3):355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damian D, Marczak S, Kwan I (2007) Collaboration patterns and the impact of distance on awareness in requirements-centred social networks. In: Proceedings of 15th IEEE internationalrequirements engineering conference RE’07, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Green TRG, Petre M (1996) Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a cognitive dimensions framework. J Visual Languages Computing 7:131–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hauser J, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Rev 5:63–73Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jarke M, Pohl K, Jacobs S, Bubenko J, Assenova P, Holm P, Wangler B, Rolland C, Plihon V, Schmitt JR, Sutcliffe AG, Jones S, Maiden NAM, Till D, Vassiliou Y, Constantopoulos P, Spanoudakis G (1993) Requirements engineering: an integrated view of representation, process, and domain. In: Proceedings of the 4th European software engineering conference. LNCS, vol 717. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karlsson J, Ryan K (1997) A cost value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Softw 14(5):67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacLean A, Young RM, Bellotti V, Moran TP (1991) Questions, options and criteria: elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction 6(3/4):201–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell P (1997) Introduction to theory of mind: children, autism and apes. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Monk AF, Watts LA (2000) Peripheral participation in video mediated communication. Int J Human-Computer Studies 52:933–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of international conference on software engineering (ICSE-2000), ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15(2):139–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potts C (1999) ScenIC: a strategy for inquiry-driven requirements determination. In: Proceedings of 4th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ralyte J, Deneckère R, Rolland C (2003) Towards a generic model for situational method engineering. In: Proceedings of 15th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAISE’03). LNCS, vol 2681. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rescher N (1969) Introduction to value theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robertson S, Robertson J (1999) Mastering the requirements process. Addison Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rolland C (1998) A comprehensive view of process engineering. In: Proceedings of international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAISE). LNCS, vol 1413. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rolland C, Ben Achour C (1998) Guiding the construction of textual use case specifications. Data Knowl Eng J 25(1–2):125–160zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rolland C, Proix C (1992) A natural language approach for requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference (CAiSE ‘92). LNCS, vol 593. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rolland C, Prakash N, Benjamen A (1999) A multi-model view of process modelling. Reqs Eng 4(4):169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rolland C, Salinesi C, Etien A (2004) Eliciting gaps in requirements change. Reqs Eng 9(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rolland C, Souveyet C, Ben Achour C (1998) Guiding goal modeling using scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1055–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rolland C, Ben Achour C, Cauvet C, Ralyte J, Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM, Jarke M, Haumer P, Pohl K, Dubois E, Heymans P (1998) A proposal for a scenario classification framework. Reqs Eng 3(1):23–47Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sutcliffe AG (1995) Requirements rationales: integrating approaches to requirements analysis. In: Designing interactive systems: DIS 95 conference proceedings, ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sutcliffe AG (2002) User-centred requirements engineering. Springer, LondonzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutcliffe AG (2003) Scenario-based requirements engineering. In Proceedings of IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sutcliffe AG, Ryan M (1997) Assessing the usability and efficiency of design rationale. In: Proceedings of human computer interaction INTERACT-97. IFIP/Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sutcliffe AG, Fickas S, Sohlberg M (2005) Personal and contextual requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM, Minocha S, Manuel D (1998) Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1072–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thew S, Sutcliffe AG (2008) Value-based requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of 16th IEEE requirements engineering conference, RE’08, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Lamsweerde A (2000) Requirements engineering in the year 00: a research perspective. In: Proceedings of 22nd international conference on software engineering, ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Lamsweerde A, Letier E (2000) Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(10):978–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu E (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of Third IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations