Advertisement

Group Decision Support for Requirements Negotiation

  • Alexander Felfernig
  • Christoph Zehentner
  • Gerald Ninaus
  • Harald Grabner
  • Walid Maalej
  • Dennis Pagano
  • Leopold Weninger
  • Florian Reinfrank
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7138)

Abstract

Requirements engineering is one of the most critical phases in software development. Requirements verbalize decision alternatives that are negotiated by stakeholders. In this paper we present the results of an empirical analysis of the effects of applying group recommendation technologies to requirements negotiation. This analysis has been conducted within the scope of software development projects at our university where development teams were supported with group recommendation technologies when deciding which requirements should be implemented. A major result of the study is that group recommendation technologies can improve the perceived usability (in certain cases) and the perceived quality of decision support. Furthermore, it is not recommended to disclose preferences of individual group members at the beginning of a decision process – this could lead to an insufficient exchange of decision-relevant information.

Keywords

Group Recommender Systems Requirements Engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pohl, K.: Process-Centered Requirements Engineering. John Wiley and Sons (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofmann, H., Lehner, F.: Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Software 18(4), 58–66 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: The fundamental nature of requirements engineering activities as a decision-making process. Information and Software Technology 45(14), 945–954 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alenljung, B., Persson, A.: Decision-making activities in the requirements engineering decision processes: A case study. In: ISD 2005, Karlstad, Sweden, pp. 707–718 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castro-Herrera, C., Duan, C., Cleland-Huang, J., Mobasher, B.: Using data mining and recommender systems to facilitate large-scale, open, and inclusive requirements elicitation processes. In: 16th IEEE Intl. Conf. on Req. Engineering (RE 2008), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 165–168 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Masthoff, J.: Group recommender systems: Combining individual models. In: Recommender Systems Handbook, pp. 677–702. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jameson, A., Baldes, S., Kleinbauer, T.: Two methods for enhancing mutual awareness in a group recommender system. In: ACM Intl. Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, Gallipoli, Italy, pp. 48–54 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McFadden, D.: Rationality for economists? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(1), 73–105 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bettman, J., Luce, M., Payne, J.: Constructive consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 25(3), 187–217 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blythe, J.: Visual exploration and incremental utility elicitation. In: 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 526–532 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pu, P., Chen, L.: User-involved preference elicitation for product search and recommender systems. AI Magazine 29(4), 93–103 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boehm, B., Gruenbacher, P., Briggs, R.: Developing groupware for requirements negotiation: Lessons learned. IEEE Software 18(3), 46–55 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: A roadmap. In: Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 35–46 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felfernig, A., Mandl, M., Schubert, M., Maalej, W., Ricci, F.: Recommendation and decision technologies for requirements engineering. In: 2nd International Workshop on Recommendation Systems for Software Engineering (RSSE 2010), pp. 11–15 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cialdini, R.: The science of persuasion. Scientific American (284), 76–81 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greitemeyer, T., Schulz-Hardt, S.: Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Jrnl. of Personality & Soc. Psych. 84(2), 332–339 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mojzisch, A., Schulz-Hardt, S.: Knowing other’s preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Jrnl. of Personality & Soc. Psych. 98(5), 794–808 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hastie, R., Kameda, R.: The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review 112(2), 80–86 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heider, W., Gruenbacher, P., Rabiser, R.: Negotiation constellations in reactive product line evolution. In: 4th International Workshop on Software Product Management (IWSPM 2010), pp. 63–66 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, K., Zhang, W., Zhao, H., Mei, H.: An approach to constructing feature models based on requirements clustering. In: 13th IEEE Intl. Conf. on Req. Engineering (RE 2005), Paris, France, pp. 31–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maalej, W., Thurimella, A.: Towards a research agenda for recommendation systems in requirements engineering. In: 2nd Int. Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge (MARK 2009), Atlanta, USA (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Felfernig
    • 1
  • Christoph Zehentner
    • 1
  • Gerald Ninaus
    • 1
  • Harald Grabner
    • 1
  • Walid Maalej
    • 2
  • Dennis Pagano
    • 2
  • Leopold Weninger
    • 3
  • Florian Reinfrank
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Software EngineeringGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  2. 2.Applied Software EngineeringTechnische Universitaet MuenchenGarchingGermany
  3. 3.wsopViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations