Christel, GM & Kang, KC 1992, âIssues in Requirements Elicitationâ, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Motivation. Christel, GM & Kang (1992) provide a short outline of the process of requirements elicitation and divide the problems of requirements elicitation into 3 groups from the point of view of the scope, understanding, and volatility. In addition, they provide a more detailed description of the basic elicitation techniques, e.g. Interviews, Team Approach, Use of Domain and Architectural Models (Christel & Kang 1992).
Proposed Solution. The authors suggest the use of a number of methods for requirement elicitation instead of one specific technique They analyze the factors that influence the evaluation of the described methods, create a new system of methodology, and define its benefits, namely, the focus on problem areas of requirements elicitation that derive from the issue of scope, communication, and requirements volatility (Christel & Kang 1992).
Evaluation of the Proposed Solution. Christel, GM & Kang (1992) proposed the system integrated of techniques, namely Fact-finding, Evaluation, Prioritization, and Integration which address to a wide range of the issues connected with the requirements elicitation (Christel & Kang 1992).
Contributions. The system of integrated techniques suggested by Christel, GM & Kang (1992) took on the advantages of separate methods and helped to overcome the problem of poor requirements elicitation or unsatisfactory development of software projects.
Directions for the Future Research. The paper laid the basis for a further requirements analysis process to understand better the problems of elicitation.
Davey, B & Cope, C 2008, âRequirements Elicitation â Whatâs Missing?â, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, vol. 5, Web.
Motivation. The authors of the paper classify the problems connected with poor requirements elicitation resulting in the failure of numerous software projects. While some researchers think that the requirements are stable, Davey & Cope (2008) have the opposite opinion. They claim that the difficulties with the requirements elicitation occur because of the factor of communication between people as an essential part of the requirements elicitation. (Davey & Cope 2008)
Proposed Solution. Davey & Cope (2008)The researchers analyzed a wide array of elicitation techniques, namely Observation, Unstructured Interviews, Structured Interviews, Protocol Analysis, Card Sorting, Laddering, Ethnographic methods and chose interviews to be the most suitable of them. Additionally, a number of theories were applied to prove that the poor requirements elicitation is closely connected with communication challenges. (Davey & Cope 2008)
Evaluation of the Proposed Solution. Indeed, overcoming language difficulties increases conversational performance and the elicitation outcomes in a more constructive way to meet customer’s needs.
Contributions. The researchers defined the interview as the best technique of requirements elicitation, suggested methods to improve conversation, and conducted experiments to show all possible variants of improved requirements elicitation performance.
Directions for the Future Research. The results of this paper suggested conducting the phenomenographical research of the critical aspects of the requirements elicitation for the further advancement in the field of software engineering.
Hickey, AA & Davis, AM 2002, âRequirements Elicitation and Elicitation Technique Selection: A Model for Two Knowledge-Intensive Software Development Processesâ, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Web.
Motivation. The authors of this work were concerned with the creation of a new model with the purpose of finding ways for better technique selection. They claimed that it would advance the requirements elicitation process and ensure a quicker and easier completion of IT- and software engineering-related processes (Hickey & Davis 2002, p. 4). For this purpose, the authors divided various models documented in this paper into two classes depending on the applied technique. The analysis of classified models clearly shows the inefficiency of the first- and second-class models for the elicitation or the choice of elicitation techniques (Hickey & Davis 2002).
Proposed Solution. Hickey and Davis developed a new model of requirements elicitation. The proposed model is different from the traditional models documented in the paper (Hickey & Davis 2002) in the use of generalized techniques of the requirements elicitation used as a series of mathematical functions.
Evaluation of the Proposed Solution. From the point of view of the practical application, the model proved its viability as the researchers could apply it to better understand their own methodology. Analysis of the model itself enabled the researchers to analyze their innovation critically, and to detect the pitfalls for future improvement.
Contributions. It is appropriate to suggest that the widespread use of the model will help less experienced analysts to perform elicitation easily to meet the customers’ needs.
Directions for the Future Research. In this paper, the authors define the future research directions based on the new model of the requirements elicitation technique selection. They suggest Taxonomy of Problem, Solution, and Project Characteristics (Hickey & Davis 2002, p.8). They voice their confidence in the optimistic future of that model, and it is quite likely that the model will succeed in the field of software engineering, offering innovative and optimized procedures for the area.
References
Christel, GM & Kang, KC 1992, âIssues in Requirements Elicitationâ, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Web.
Davey, B & Cope, C 2008, âRequirements Elicitation â Whatâs Missing?â, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, vol. 5.
Hickey, AA & Davis, AM 2002, âRequirements Elicitation and Elicitation Technique Selection: A Model for Two Knowledge-Intensive Software Development Processesâ, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.