To group or not to group? Group sizes for requirements elicitation

被引:0
|
作者
Mich, Luisa [1 ]
Sakhnini, Victoria [2 ]
Berry, Daniel [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Trento, Dept Ind Engn, I-38123 Trento, Italy
[2] Univ Waterloo, Cheriton Sch Comp Sci, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Group work; Individual work; Requirements elicitation; Requirements idea generation; Requirements engineering; Software engineering; STATE;
D O I
10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107229
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Context: Requirement elicitation can be done by individuals or by groups. Computer-based system development life-cycle models suggest having people working together for many steps. Also, recommendations about analysis and design methods indicate that some processes could take advantage of group work. In requirements engi-neering, groups are suggested for requirements elicitation.Objectives: From the software and the requirements engineering viewpoints, and in turn for companies, a relevant overall research question is "What is a suitable size for a requirements elicitation group?" Our goal was to answer this question, first by looking for available guidelines in textbooks and secondly by investigating requirements elicitation in companies.Method: To address the research question, we conducted two studies. The first was a review of most widely adopted software and requirements engineering textbooks. The second was a study aimed at identifying factors affecting group size for requirements elicitation, based on an online questionnaire submitted to professional analysts.Results: The review of the textbooks showed that very few give advice on the number of analysts to involve in requirements elicitation sessions. When they do, guidelines are quite general and not supported by empirical data. According to data gathered from the questionnaire, most companies use and suggest using small groups. Data also allowed identifying four categories of factors useful to make decisions about requirements elicitation group sizes: people, relation, project, and output.Conclusion: Both the textbook review and the data from the questionnaire say that it is better to aim for small groups than to have individual analysts working separately. The ideal number of analysts for a requirements elicitation session appears to be 2, but large groups are necessary in some cases. Factors in all the four categories have to be considered in deciding the size of groups.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Clustering Students Interactions in eLearning Systems for Group Elicitation
    Mengoni, Paolo
    Milani, Alfredo
    Li, Yuanxi
    COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE AND ITS APPLICATIONS - ICCSA 2018, PT III, 2018, 10962 : 398 - 413
  • [42] Nonapeptides and the evolution of social group sizes in birds
    Goodson, James L.
    Kingsbury, Marcy A.
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROANATOMY, 2011, 5 : 9
  • [43] SHINE COMBINED ANOVA AND UNEQUAL GROUP SIZES
    SHINE, LC
    EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1978, 38 (04) : 899 - 900
  • [44] Group divisible designs with large block sizes
    Lijun Ji
    Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 2018, 86 : 2255 - 2260
  • [45] Minimal orbit sizes in nilpotent group actions
    Keller, Thomas Michael
    Lv, Heng
    Qian, Guohua
    Yang, Dongfang
    JOURNAL OF ALGEBRA AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 2023, 22 (07)
  • [46] Reduction of group sizes in reproductive toxicology studies
    Aylott, M
    Parkinson, M
    TOXICOLOGY, 2001, 168 (01) : 79 - 80
  • [47] Orbit sizes and the dihedral group of order eight
    Jones, Nathan A.
    Keller, Thomas Michael
    ANNALI DI MATEMATICA PURA ED APPLICATA, 2020, 199 (06) : 2323 - 2340
  • [48] Orbit sizes and the dihedral group of order eight
    Nathan A. Jones
    Thomas Michael Keller
    Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata (1923 -), 2020, 199 : 2323 - 2340
  • [49] Mobile social group sizes and scaling ratio
    Phithakkitnukoon, Santi
    Dantu, Ram
    AI & SOCIETY, 2011, 26 (01) : 71 - 85
  • [50] THE REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN OF A STANDARD GROUP TASK
    ZAJONC, RB
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1965, 1 (01) : 71 - 88