Information quality and quantity-based model to represent the appropriateness of software requirements elicitation techniques
To capture information about the needs of stakeholders and the problem domain and to specify the requirements of planned software, developers can use several elicitation techniques from various sciences such as the social sciences or psychology. Each technique has different performance depending on the context in which it is applied. Therefore, to know which requirements elicitation technique is the most appropriate, it is necessary to understand the meaning of appropriate technique. Practitioners and researchers have differing views of the techniques suitability. This paper proposes a model to represent the appropriateness of elicitation techniques. The model uses an estimator calculated through the variables of requirements quantity and quality. To illustrate the proposal, it was validated with data from an experiment found in the related literature. Our work aims to unify an appropriateness construct, which can help standardize future empirical studies and thus facilitate the creation of a body of knowledge on requirements elicitation techniques.
P. Bourque and R. E. Fairley, Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK (R)): Version 3.0, 3rd ed. CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2014.
S. Robertson, “Requirements trawling: techniques for discovering requirements,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 405-421, 2001.
A. M. Hickey and A. M. Davis, “Requirements elicitation and elicitation technique selection: model for two knowledge-intensive software development processes,” in Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HI, USA, 2003, pp. 96-105.
N. R. Darwish, A. A. Mohamed and A. S. Abdelghany, “A Hybrid Machine Learning Model for Selecting Suitable Requirements Elicitation Techniques,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1-12, 2016.
D. Carrizo, C. Ortiz and L. Aguirre, “What do researchers mean by “the right requirements elicitation techniques”?,” Ingeniare, Revista chilena de ingeniería, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 263-273, 2016.
D. Carrizo, “Comparison of Research and Practice Regarding What We Mean by “The Right Software Requirements Elicitation Technique”,” in 2016 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), Lisbon, Portugal, 2016, pp. 79-82.
A. M. Davis, Software requirements: objects, functions, and states, Revised Edition. 2nd ed., New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993.
A. Hickey and A. Davis, “The role of requirements elicitation techniques in achieving software quality,” in International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations for Software Quality (REFSQ), 2002.
K. Pohl, Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. 1st ed., Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, New York, USA. 2010.
M. G. Christel and K. C. Kang, “Issues in requirements elicitation,” Software Engineering Inst., Pittsburgh, USA, Tech. Rep. No. CMU/SEI-92-TR-12, Sept. 1992.
D. Carrizo, “Contextual dynamic of the software requirements elicitation,” Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia, no. 69, pp. 34-52, 2013.
B. Nuseibeh and S. Easterbrook, “Requirements engineering: a roadmap,” in Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, New York, USA, 2000, pp. 35-46.
C. Potts, “Seven (plus or minus two) challenges for requirements research,” in Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Software specification and design, Como, Italy, 1991, pp. 256-259.
D. Carrizo, O. Dieste and N. Juristo, “Systematizing requirements elicitation technique selection,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 644-669, 2014.
O. Dieste and N. Juristo, “Systematic review and aggregation of empirical studies on elicitation techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 283-304, 2011.
B. A. Kitchenham, T. Dyba and M. Jorgensen, “Evidence- Based Software Engineering,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, Washington D.C., USA, 2004, pp. 273-281.
G. J. Browne and M. B. Rogich, “An Empirical Investigation of User Requirements Elicitation: Comparing the Effectiveness of Prompting Techniques,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 223-249, 2001.
A. M. Sen and K. Hemachandran, “Elicitation of Goals in Requirements Engineering Using Agile Methods,” in 34th Annual IEEE Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW), Seoul, South Korea, 2010, pp. 263-268.
S. R. Costa, D. Viana, R. do Nascimento and T. Conte, “Using Empirical Studies to evaluate the REMO Requirement Elicitation Technique,” in SEKE 24th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, San Francisco, USA, 2012, pp. 33-38.
A. P. Massey and W. A. Wallace, “Focus groups as a knowledge elicitation technique: an exploratory study,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 193-200, 1991.
V. Laporti, M. R. Borges and V. Braganholo, “Athena: A collaborative approach to requirements elicitation,” Computers in Industry, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 367-380, 2009.
N. Boulila, A. Hoffmann and A. Herrmann, “Using Storytelling to record requirements: Elements for an effective requirements elicitation approach,” in Fourth International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering-Beyond Mere Descriptions and with More Fun and Games (MERE), Trento, Italy, 2011, pp. 9-16.
C. J. Chao and G. Salvendy, “Impact of cognitive abilities of experts on the effectiveness of elicited knowledge,” Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.174-182, 1995.
D. M. Vásquez, M. I. Sánchez, F. Medina, and A. Amescua, “Guideline to Select Knowledge Elicitation Techniques,” in 4th World Summit on Knowledge Society, Mykonos, Greece, 2011, pp. 374-384.
L. Jiang and A. Eberlein, “Selecting Requirements Engineering Techniques Based on Project Attributes--A Case Study,” in 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems ECBS’07, Tucson, AZ, USA, 2007, pp. 269-278.
Z. Zhang, “Effective Requirements Development-A Comparison of Requirements Elicitation techniques,” in Software Quality Management XV: Software Quality in the Knowledge Society, E. Berki, J. Nummenmaa, I. Sunley, M. Ross and G. Staples (Ed.) British Computer Society, 2007, pp. 225-240.
S. Zapata, E. Torres, G. Sevilla, L. Aballay and M. Reus, “Effectiveness of traditional software requirement elicitation techniques applied in distributed software development scenarios,” in XXXVIII Conferencia Latinoamericana en Informática (CLEI), Medellín, Colombia, 2012, pp. 1-7.
Copyright (c) 2017 Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors can archive the pre-print version (i.e., the version prior to peer review) and post-print version (that is, the final version after peer review and layout process) on their personal website, institutional repository and / or thematic repository
- Upon acceptance of an article, it will be published online through the page https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/ingenieria/issue/archive in PDF version with its correspondent DOI identifier
The Revista Facultad de Ingeniería -redin- encourages the Political Constitution of Colombia, chapter IV
Chapter IV Sanctions 51
The following shall be liable to imprisonment for two to five years and a fine of five to 20 times the legal minimum monthly wage: (1) any person who publishes an unpublished literary or artistic work, or part thereof, by any means, without the express prior authorization of the owner of rights; (2) any person who enters in the National Register of Copyright a literary, scientific or artistic work in the name of a person other than the true author, or with its title altered or deleted, or with its text altered, deformed, amended or distorted, or with a false mention of the name of the publisher or phonogram, film, videogram or software producer; (3) any person who in any way or by any means reproduces, disposes of, condenses, mutilates or otherwise transforms a literary, scientific or artistic work without the express prior authorization of the owners thereof; (4) any person who reproduces phonograms, videograms, software or cinematographic works without the express prior authorization of the owner, or transports, stores, stocks, distributes, imports, sells, offers for sale, acquires for sale or distribution or in any way deals in such reproductions. Paragraph. If either the material embodiment or title page of or the introduction to the literary work, phonogram, videogram, software or cinematographic work uses the name, business style, logotype or distinctive mark of the lawful owner of rights, the foregoing sanctions shall be increased by up to half.