Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Common Mistakes of Student Analysts in Requirements Elicitation Interviews

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10153))

Abstract

Context and Motivation: Customer-analyst interviews are among the most common techniques for eliciting requirements. However, students of computer science-related disciplines have little material and time for learning how to perform an effective interview. As a result, once out of the class, the effectiveness of analysts in interviewing highly depends on their experience. Question/problem: Since learning from failures is recognised as a wise strategy for professional improvement, this work aims at identifying communication mistakes of student requirements analysts. Principal idea/results: We conducted a case study involving 36 students to which we gave a typical introduction to requirements elicitation interviews. Then, we arranged and recorded 18 elicitation interviews involving the students. The interview recordings were analysed by interview experts. The experts produced a list of 9 main communication mistakes, which we report in this paper. Contribution: This is the first work that provides a concise list of mistakes of student analysts, with corrective recommendations and examples. It can be useful for instructors of software engineering courses, as well as for practitioners, who may commit the same mistakes of the students without being aware of it.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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. Agarwal, R., Tanniru, M.R.: Knowledge acquisition using structured interviewing: an empirical investigation. JMIS 7(1), 123–140 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anton, A.I.: Goal-based requirements analysis. In: RE 1996, pp. 136–144. IEEE (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aranda, A.M., Dieste, O., Juristo, N.: Effect of domain knowledge on elicitation effectiveness: an internally replicated controlled experiment. TSE 42(5), 427–451 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Argyris, C., Schon, D.A.: Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, Hoboken (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bubenko, J., Rolland, C., Loucopoulos, P., DeAntonellis, V.: Facilitating fuzzy to formal requirements modelling. In: RE 1994, pp. 154–157. IEEE (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Chung, L., Prado Leite, J.C.S.: On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Coughlan, J., Macredie, R.D.: Effective communication in requirements elicitation: a comparison of methodologies. REJ 7(2), 47–60 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: RE 2006, pp. 179–188. IEEE (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Distanont, A., Haapasalo, H., Vaananen, M., Lehto, J.: The engagement between knowledge transfer and requirements engineering. IJKL 1(2), 131–156 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Gnesi, S.: Ambiguity and tacit knowledge in requirements elicitation interviews. REJ 21(3), 333–355 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gabrysiak, G., Giese, H., Seibel, A., Neumann, S.: Teaching requirements engineering with virtual stakeholders without software engineering knowledge. In: REET 2010, pp. 36–45. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gervasi, V., Gacitua, R., Rouncefield, M., Sawyer, P., Kof, L., Ma, L., Piwek, P., De Roeck, A., Willis, A., Yang, H., et al.: Unpacking tacit knowledge for requirements engineering. In: Maalej, W., Thurimella, A.K. (eds.) Managing Requirements Knowledge, pp. 23–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hadar, I., Soffer, P., Kenzi, K.: The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: an exploratory study. REJ 19(2), 143–159 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hickey, A.M., Davis, A.M.: A unified model of requirements elicitation. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 20(4), 65–84 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.: Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. TSE 18(6), 483–497 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Niknafs, A., Berry, D.M.: An industrial case study of the impact of domain ignorance on the effectiveness of requirements idea generation during requirements elicitation. In: RE 2013, pp. 279–283. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: FOSE 2000, pp. 35–46. ACM (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ouhbi, S., Idri, A., Fernández-Alemán, J.L., Toval, A.: Requirements engineering education: a systematic mapping study. REJ 20(2), 119–138 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pacheco, C., Garcia, I.: A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation. JSS 85(9), 2171–2181 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pitts, M.G., Browne, G.J.: Stopping behavior of systems analysts during information requirements elicitation. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 21(1), 203–226 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pitts, M.G., Browne, G.J.: Improving requirements elicitation: an empirical investigation of procedural prompts. Inf. Syst. J. 17(1), 89–110 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Portugal, S.: Interviewing Users: How to Uncover Compelling Details. Rosenfeld Media, Brooklyn (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Regev, G., Gause, D.C., Wegmann, A.: Experiential learning approach for requirements engineering education. REJ 14(4), 269–287 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Robertson, S., Robertson, J.: Mastering the Requirements Process: Getting Requirements Right. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rolland, C., Salinesi, C.: Supporting requirements elicitation through goal/scenario coupling. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 398–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shuraida, S., Barki, H.: The influence of analyst communication in is projects. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14(9), 482 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sutcliffe, A., Sawyer, P.: Requirements elicitation: towards the unknown unknowns. In: RE 2013, pp. 92–104. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Svensson, R.B., Regnell, B.: Is role playing in requirements engineering education increasing learning outcome? REJ, 1–15 (2016). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00766-016-0248-4

  31. Urquhart, C.: Exploring analyst-client communication: using grounded theory techniques to investigate interaction in informal requirements gathering. In: Lee, A.S., Liebenau, J., DeGross, J.I. (eds.) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, pp. 149–181. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J.: Social modeling for requirements engineering: an introduction. Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering, pp. 3–10 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zowghi, D., Coulin, C.: Requirements elicitation: a survey of techniques, approaches, and tools. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 19–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Zowghi, D., Paryani, S.: Teaching requirements engineering through role playing: lessons learnt. In: RE 2003, pp. 233–241. IEEE (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florence, DILEF, Florence, Italy

    Beatrice Donati

  2. CNR-ISTI, Pisa, Italy

    Alessio Ferrari & Stefania Gnesi

  3. Kennesaw State University, Marietta, Georgia, USA

    Paola Spoletini

Authors
  1. Beatrice Donati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessio Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paola Spoletini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefania Gnesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Ferrari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria

    Paul Grünbacher

  2. Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy

    Anna Perini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Donati, B., Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Gnesi, S. (2017). Common Mistakes of Student Analysts in Requirements Elicitation Interviews. In: Grünbacher, P., Perini, A. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10153. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54044-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54045-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation