Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Requirements Elicitation Techniques and Tools in the Context of Artificial Intelligence

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Systems (BRACIS 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13653))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Context: During software development in the context of Artificial Intelligence (AI), just like any other software, there is the requirements elicitation phase. In this phase, developers alongside stakeholders make use of various techniques, methodologies, and tools available to elicit software requirements. Problem: The need of understanding which techniques, methodologies, and tools are suitable in requirements elicitation in the context of AI, taking into consideration ethical issues. Solution: Investigation of the ICT practitioners’ perception about their approaches regarding the requirements elicitation process for AI systems. Method: We have conducted a survey with ICT practitioners and reviewed the literature to identify requirements elicitation practices in the context of AI. Summary of Results: Most ICT practitioners work with the techniques and methodologies found in the literature. Regarding tools, our findings were inconclusive, as most practitioners do not use the tools identified in the literature, or even do not use any tools. As for ethical requirements, some were well consolidated with practitioners but others were not, such as the principle of equity and inclusion. Contributions and Impact in the IS area: An overview of how AI systems are being developed across organizations and the treatment that is given to ethical requirements. Our findings reveal that there is a need for organizations to consolidate ethical and legal notions with developers so that they can be applied during the requirements elicitation phase.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aguilar, J.A., Zaldívar-Colado, A., Tripp-Barba, C., Misra, S., Bernal, R., Ocegueda, A.: An analysis of techniques and tools for requirements elicitation in model-driven web engineering methods. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9158, pp. 518–527. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21410-8_40

  2. Ahmed Abbasi, M., Jabeen, J., Hafeez, Y., e Benish Batool, D., Fareen, N.: Assessment of requirement elicitation tools and techniques by various parameters. Softw. Eng. 3, 7–11 (2015). https://doi.org/10.11648/j.se.20150302.11

  3. Aldave, A., Vara, J.M., Granada, D., Marcos, E.: Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 157, 1–31 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alflen, N.C., Prado, E.P.V.: Técnicas de elicitação de requisitos no desenvolvimento de software: uma revisão sistemática da literatura. AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento 10(1), 39–49 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5380/atoz.v10i1.77393

  5. Alismail, S., Zhang, H.: Exploring and understanding participants’ perceptions of facial emoji likert scales in online surveys: a qualitative study. ACM Trans. Soc. Comput. 3(2), 12:1–12:12 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bibal, A., Lognoul, M., de Streel, A., Frénay, B.: Legal requirements on explainability in machine learning. Artific. Intell. Law 29(2), 149–169 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09270-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bokhari, M.U., Siddiqui, S.T.: A comparative study of software requirements tools for secure software development. BVICAM’s Int. J. Inf. Technol. 2, 1–12 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P.: Large-scale model-driven engineering of web user interaction: the webml and webratio experience. Sci. Comput. Program. 89, 71–87 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2013.03.010, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167642313000701. (special issue on Success Stories in Model Driven Engineering)

  9. Buxmann, P., Hess, T., Thatcher, J.B.: Ai-based information systems. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 63(1), 1–4 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Canedo, E.D., et al.: Proposal of an implementation process for the brazilian general data protection law (LGPD). In: Filipe, J., Smialek, M., Brodsky, A., Hammoudi, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2021, Online Streaming, 26–28 April 2021, vol. 1. pp. 19–30. SCITEPRESS (2021). https://doi.org/10.5220/0010398200190030

  11. Cemiloglu, D., Arden-Close, E., Hodge, S., Kostoulas, T., Ali, R., Catania, M.: Towards ethical requirements for addictive technology: the case of online gambling. In: REthics@RE, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/REthics51204.2020.00007

  12. de Cerqueira, J.A.S., Althoff, L.D.S., Almeida, P.S.D., Canedo, E.D.: Ethical perspectives in AI: a two-folded exploratory study from literature and active development projects. In: 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2021, 5 Jan 2021. pp. 1–10. Kauai, Hawaii, USA. ScholarSpace (2021). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/71257

  13. de Cerqueira, J.A.S., de Azevedo, A.P., Tives, H.A., Canedo, E.D.: Guide for artificial intelligence ethical requirements elicitation - re4ai ethical guide. In: 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2022, 3 Jan 2022. pp. 1–10. Kauai, Hawaii, USA. ScholarSpace (2022). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/80015

  14. de Cerqueira, J.A.S., Leão, H.A.T., Canedo, E.D.: Ethical guidelines and principles in the context of artificial intelligence. In: Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems (SBSI). pp. 36:1–36:8. ACM (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3466933.3466969

  15. Floridi, L., et al.: AI4People-an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds Mach. 28(4), 689–707 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

  16. Guizzardi, R.S.S., Amaral, G.C.M., Guizzardi, G., Mylopoulos, J.: Ethical requirements for AI systems. In: Goutte, C., Zhu, X. (eds.) Canadian Conference on AI. LNCS, vol. 12109, pp. 251–256. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47358-7_24(2020)

  17. Haenlein, M., Kaplan, A.: A brief history of artificial intelligence: on the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Manage. Rev. 61(4), 5–14 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hagendorff, T.: The ethics of AI ethics: an evaluation of guidelines. Minds Mach. 30(1), 99–120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hagendorff, T.: The ethics of AI ethics: an evaluation of guidelines. Minds Mach. 30(1), 99–120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8

  20. HLEG, A.: Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI (2019). https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai

  21. OI Huchenko, I., Gobov, D.: Requirement elicitation techniques for software projects in ukrainian IT: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 21, pp. 673–681. FedCSIS (2020). https://doi.org/10.15439/2020F16

  22. IBM: From Roadblock to Scale: The Global Sprint Towards AI (2020). https://filecache.mediaroom.com/mr5mr_ibmnews/183710/Roadblock-to-Scale-exec-summary.pdf

  23. Ignácio, R.C., Benitti, F.B.V.: Improving the selection of requirements elicitation techniques: a faceted guide. In: Hadad, G.D.S., Pimentel, J.H., Brito, I.S.S. (eds.) Anais do WER20 - Workshop em Engenharia de Requisitos, 24–28 Aug 2020. pp. 1–14. São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil. Editora PUC-Rio (2020). http://wer.inf.puc-rio.br/WERpapers/artigos/artigos_WER20/01_WER_2020_paper_1.pdf

  24. Ignácio, R.C.: Guia facetado de técnicas de elicitação de requisitos. Bachelor’s thesis, Federal University of Santa Catarina (2018). https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/192155

  25. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., Vayena, E.: The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1(9), 389–399 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2, http://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-019-0088-2

  26. Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L.: Principles of survey research part 2: designing a survey. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 27(1), 18–20 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L.: Personal opinion surveys. Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjoberg, D.I.K. (eds.) In: Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 63–92. Springer, London (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_3

  28. Krafft, T., et al.: From principles to practice - an interdisciplinary framework to operationalise AI ethics (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mangabeira, G.S.: Elicitação de requisitos baseada em análise de multidão : uma abordagem orientada a aprendizado de máquina. Bachelor’s thesis, University of Brasília (2018). https://bdm.unb.br/handle/10483/23046

  30. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M.L., Rochester, N., Shannon, C.E.: A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, august 31, 1955. AI Magazine 27(4), 12 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904, https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1904

  31. Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., Elhalal, A.: From what to how. an overview of AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. CoRR abs/1905.06876, pp. 1–28 (2019). arxiv.org/abs/1905.06876

  32. Ryan, M., Stahl, B.C.: Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: clarifying their content and normative implications. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 19(1), 61–86 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-12-2019-0138, https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-12-2019-0138

  33. Sartor, G., European Parliament, European Parliamentary Research Service, Scientific Foresight Unit: The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on artificial intelligence: study. European Parliament (2020). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/641530/EPRS_STU(2020) 641530_EN.pdf, oCLC: 1160193938

  34. Sellitto, M.A.: Inteligência Artificial: uma aplicação em uma indústria de processo contínuo. Gestão & Produção 9(3), 363–376 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2002000300010, http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext &pid=S0104-530X2002000300010 &lng=pt &tlng=pt

  35. Siau, K., Wang, W.: Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics: ethics of AI and ethical AI. J. Database Manage. 31(2), 74–87 (Apr 2020). https://doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2020040105, http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/JDM.2020040105

  36. Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. Pearson Education, Boston (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stix, C.: Actionable principles for artificial intelligence policy: three pathways. Sci. Eng. Ethics 27(1), 1–17 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00277-3

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Vakkuri, V., Kemell, K., Jantunen, M., Halme, E., Abrahamsson, P.: ECCOLA - a method for implementing ethically aligned AI systems. J. Syst. Softw. 182 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Vogelsang, A., Borg, M.: Requirements engineering for machine learning: Perspectives from data scientists. In: RE Workshops. pp. 245–251. IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/REW.2019.00050

  40. Zhou, Z., Zhi, Q., Morisaki, S., Yamamoto, S.: An evaluation of quantitative non-functional requirements assurance using archimate. IEEE Access 8, 72395–72410 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Brasília (UnB), P.O. Box 4466, Brasília–DF, Brazil

    André Filipe de Sousa Silva, Geovana Ramos Sousa Silva & Edna Dias Canedo

Authors
  1. André Filipe de Sousa Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geovana Ramos Sousa Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edna Dias Canedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edna Dias Canedo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil

    João Carlos Xavier-Junior

  2. Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Ricardo Araújo Rios

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

de Sousa Silva, A.F., Silva, G.R.S., Canedo, E.D. (2022). Requirements Elicitation Techniques and Tools in the Context of Artificial Intelligence. In: Xavier-Junior, J.C., Rios, R.A. (eds) Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13653. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21686-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21686-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21685-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21686-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation