Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing Ethical Requirements Elicitation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement (EuroSPI 2023)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1890))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 465 Accesses

Abstract

The process of Requirements Elicitation (RE) demands from a software development team the need to communicate and engage with a variety of stakeholders, for numerous purposes regarding many aspects of the project. The aim is to translate the needs of the “customer” into accurate and actionable requirements. In this initial step of the software life cycle process several ethical challenges are invoked, which, if left unresolved, may lead to unintended consequences.

Computer Ethics focuses on the questions of right and wrong that arise from the development and deployment of computers. Thus, it urges that the ethical and social impact of computers must be analysed. The purpose of normative ethics is to scrutinise standards about the rightness and wrongness of actions, the goal being the identification of the true human good. A rational appeal can be made to normative ethical principles to arrive at a judicious, ethically justifiable judgement.

In software engineering, the Software Process Improvement (SPI) Manifesto was developed by groups of experts in the field, aimed to improve the software produced, through improving the process, the attitudes of software engineers, and the organisational culture and practices. In this position and constructive design research paper, we argue that software developers, in accordance with the SPI Manifesto aim of improving the software produced, address the ethical challenges invoked in the Requirements Elicitation process.

The steps taken in this paper are: First we report on the findings of a broad literature review of related research, which refers to the current challenges in RE. Second, we source from ethical theory, generic Deontological and Teleological ethical principles that can serve as normative guidelines for addressing the challenges identified in the initial step. Third, we prescribe a set of ethical rights and duties that must be exercised and fulfilled by software developers for them to exhibit ethical behaviour. Each of these suggested actions are substantiated via an appeal to one, or several normative guidelines, identified in the second step. By identifying and recommending a set of defensible ethical obligations that must be fulfilled in the RE process, software developers can fulfil their ethical duties and thus reduce the number of unintended consequences that plague Requirements Elicitation. Ultimately RE must be underpinned with ethical consideration.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
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

References

  1. Hofmann, H.F., Lehner, F.: Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Softw. 18(4), 58–66 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferreira Martins, H., et al.: Design thinking: challenges for software requirements elicitation. Information 10, 371 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sommerville, I., Sawyer, S.: Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide. Wiley (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Rowel, R., Alfeche, K.: Requirements Engineering A good practice guide. John Wiley and Sons (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ryan, M.J.:  The Role of Stakeholders in Requirements Elicitation, John Wiley & Sons Inc. (2014).  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2014.tb03131.x

  6. Siakas, E., Rahanu, H., Georgiadou, E., Siakas, K.: Towards reducing communication gaps in multicultural and global requirements elicitation. In: Yilmaz, M., Clarke, P., Messnarz, R., Reiner, M. (eds.) EuroSPI. CCIS, vol. 1442, pp. 257–277. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85521-5_17

  7. Siakas, D., Siakas, K.: Value proposition through knowledge sharing and crowdsourcing: engaging users of social networking. J. Media Manag. Entrep. (JMME), 2(1), 124–138 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4018/JMME.2020010108,

  8. Johnson, J.: CHAOS Report: Decision Latency Theory: It Is All About the Interval, The Standish Group (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alflen, N.C., Prado, E.P. and Grotta, A.: A Model for Evaluating Requirements Elicitation Techniques in Software Development Projects. In: ICEIS, vol. (2), pp. 242–249 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N. and Moreno, A.M.: Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2006), Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, USA, pp. 179–188 (2006). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2006.17

  11. Valusek, J.R., Fryback, D.G.:  Information requirements determination: Obstacles within, among and between participants. In: Gallers, R. (ed.) Information Analysis: Selected Readings, pp. 139–151.  Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, USA (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Siakas, E., Rahanu, H., Georgiadou, E., Siakas, K.:  Requirements Volatility in Multicultural Situational Contexts. In: Yilmaz, M., Clarke, P., Messnarz, R., Wöran, B. (eds) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. EuroSPI 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 1646, pp. 633–655 (2022). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15559-8_45

  13. Kallman, E.A., Grillo, J.P.:  Ethical Decision Making and Information Technology: An Introduction with Cases New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Spinello, R.A.: Ethical Aspects of Information Technology Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Korsaa, M., et al.: The SPI Manifesto and the ECQA SPI manager certification scheme. J. Softw.: Evolut. Proc. 24(5), 525–540 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Korsaa, M., et al.: The people aspects in modern process improvement management approaches. J. Softw. Evolut. Proc. 25(4), 381–391 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Messnarz, R., et al.: Social responsibility aspects supporting the success of SPI. J. Softw. Evolut. Proc. 26(3), 284–294 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sanchez-Gordon, M.L., Colomo-Palacios, R.,  Amescua, A.: Towards measuring the impact of the SPI manifesto: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of European System and Software Process Improvement and Innovation Conference, pp. 100–110 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stieglitz, C.:  Beginning at the end—requirements gathering lessons from a flowchart junkie. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Global Congress, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute (2012).  https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/requirements-gathering-lessons-flowchart-junkie-5981 (Accessed 12 April 2023)

  20. Hussain, A., Mkpojiogu, E.O.C., Kamal, F.M.: The Role of requirements in the success or failure of software project. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 6(7), 306–311 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Raza, S.A.: Managing ethical requirements elicitation of complex socio-technical systems with critical systems thinking: A case of course-timetabling project. Technol. Soc. 66, 101626 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Christel, M., Kang, K.:  Issues in Requirements Elicitation. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-012 (2012).  http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=12553 (Accessed 12 April 2023)

  23. Seyff, N., Todoran, I., Caluser, K., Singer, L., Glinz, M.: Using popular social network sites to support requirements elicitation, prioritization and negotiation. J. Internet Serv. Appli. 6(1), 1–16 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13174-015-0021-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elrakaiby, Y., Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Gnesi, S., Nuseibeh, B.: Using argumentation to explain ambiguity in requirements elicitation interviews. In: IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Lisbon, Portugal, vol. 2017, pp. 51–60 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.27

  25. Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Gnesi, S.: Ambiguity and tacit knowledge in requirements elicitation interviews. Requirements Eng. 21(3), 333–355 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0249-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ambriola, V., Gervasi, V.: On the systematic analysis of natural language requirements with Circe. Autom. Softw. Eng. 13, 107–167 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-006-5468-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ross, W.D.: The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press (1930)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hamelink, C.J.:  The Ethics of Cyberspace. Sage Publications Limited (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Antona, M., A., Ntoa, S., Adami, I. and Stephanidis, C. (2009). User requirements elicitation for universal access. In The Universal Access Handbook, Taylor & Francis

    Google Scholar 

  30. Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., Guest, G.: An ethnographic approach to design. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 964–986. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mulla, N.:  A new approach to requirement elicitation based on stakeholder recommendation and collaborative filtering. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appli. 3(3) (2012). https://doi.org/10.5121/ijsea.2012.3305

  32. Vashistha, S.:  Ambiguity in Natural Language Processing (2021).  http://blog.ncuindia.edu/2021/02/ambiguity-in-natural-language-processing.html (Accessed: 12 April 2023)

  33. Stair, R., Reynolds, G.:  Fundamentals of Information Systems, Cengage Learning, 9th edn.  (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kengphanphanit, N. and Muechaisri, P. (2020). Automatic requirements elicitation from social media (ARESM). In: Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computer Communication and Information Systems, August 2020, pp 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/3418994.3419004

  35. Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Agile Alliance. What does INVEST Stand For? (2023).  https://www.agilealliance.org/glossary/invest/ (Accessed 17 May 2023)

  37. British Computer Society. BCS Code of Conduct (2023).  https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/become-a-member/bcs-code-of-conduct/ (Accessed 17 May 2023]

  38. INCOSE. INCOSE Guide to Writing Requirements V3.1 Summary Sheet (2022).  https://www.incose.org/docs/default-source/working-groups/requirements-wg/rwg_products/incose_rwg_gtwr_summary_sheet_2022.pdf?sfvrsn=a95a6fc7_2 (Accessed 17 May 2023)

  39. ISO.  ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 Systems and software engineering - Life cycle processes - Requirements engineering (2018).  https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec-ieee:29148:ed-2:v1:en (Accessed 17 May 2023)

  40. Johnson, D.G.: Ethics online. Commun. ACM 40(1), 60–65 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mendelow, A.L.: Environmental scanning: the impact of the stakeholder concept. In: Proceedings From the Second International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 407–418. Cambridge, MA (1991)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Greece

    Errikos Siakas

  2. Middlesex University London, London, UK

    Harjinder Rahanu, Joanna Loveday & Elli Georgiadou

  3. Interenational Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Kerstin Siakas

  4. University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland

    Kerstin Siakas

  5. Southampton Solent University, Southampton, UK

    Margaret Ross

Authors
  1. Errikos Siakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harjinder Rahanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna Loveday
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elli Georgiadou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kerstin Siakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Margaret Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Errikos Siakas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye

    Murat Yilmaz

  2. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Paul Clarke

  3. Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France

    Andreas Riel

  4. I.S.C.N. GesmbH, Graz, Austria

    Richard Messnarz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 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

Siakas, E., Rahanu, H., Loveday, J., Georgiadou, E., Siakas, K., Ross, M. (2023). Managing Ethical Requirements Elicitation. In: Yilmaz, M., Clarke, P., Riel, A., Messnarz, R. (eds) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. EuroSPI 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1890. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42307-9_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42307-9_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-42306-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-42307-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation