Requirements elicitation is the process of seeking, uncovering, acquiring, and elaborating requirements for computer based systems. It is generally understood that requirements are elicited rather than just captured or collected. This implies there are discovery, emergence, and development elements to the elicitation process. Requirements elicitation is a complex process involving many activities with a variety of available techniques, approaches, and tools for performing them. The relative strengths and weaknesses of these determine when each is appropriate depending on the context and situation. The objectives of this chapter are to present a comprehensive survey of important aspects of the techniques, approaches, and tools for requirements elicitation, and examine the current issues, trends, and challenges faced by researchers and practitioners in this field.

In this article, we present findings from our recent empirical study of the critical success factors (CSFs) for software process improvement (SPI) implementation with 34 SPI practitioners. The objective of this study is to provide SPI practitioners with sufficient knowledge about the nature of issues that play a positive role in the implementation of SPI programmes in order to assist them in effectively planning SPI implementation strategies.Through our empirical study we identified seven factors (higher management support, training, awareness, allocation of resources, staff involvement, experienced staff and defined SPI implementation methodology) that are generally considered critical for successfully implementing SPI. We also report on a literature survey of CSFs that impact SPI and identify six factors (senior management commitment, staff involvement, staff time and resources, training and mentoring, creating process action teams and reviews). We compared our empirical study results with the literature and confirmed the factors identified in the literature, and also identified two new CSFs (SPI awareness and defined SPI implementation methodology) that were not identified in the literature. Finally, we analyzed the CSFs identified by different groups of practitioners and found that they are aware of what is imperative for the successful implementation of SPI programmes. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract

The ubiquity, flexibility, ease of access and diverse capabilities of mobile technologies make them valuable and a necessity in current times. However, they are under-utilized assets in mathematics and science school education. This article analyses the high quality empirical evidence on mobile learning in secondary school science and mathematics education. Our study employed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) using well-accepted and robust guidelines. The SLR resulted in the detailed analysis of 49 studies (60 papers) published during 2003-2016. Content and thematic analyses were used to ascertain pedagogical approaches, methodological designs, foci, and intended and achieved outcomes of the studies. The apps and technologies used in these studies were further classified for domain, type and context of use. The review has highlighted gaps in existing literature on the topic and has provided insights that have implications for future research.

Context: For more than four decades it has been intuitively accepted that user involvement (UI) during system development lifecycle leads to system success. However when the researchers have evaluated the user involvement and system success (UI-SS) relationship empirically, the results were not always positive. Objective: Our objective was to explore the UI-SS relationship by synthesizing the results of all the studies that have empirically investigated this complex phenomenon. Method: We performed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following the steps provided in the guidelines of Evidence Based Software Engineering. From the resulting studies we extracted data to answer our 9 research questions related to the UI-SS relationship, identification of users, perspectives of UI, benefits, problems and challenges of UI, degree and level of UI, relevance of stages of software development lifecycle (SDLC) and the research method employed on the UI-SS relationship. Results: Our systematic review resulted in selecting 87 empirical studies published during the period 1980-2012. Among 87 studies reviewed, 52 reported that UI positively contributes to system success, 12 suggested a negative contribution and 23 were uncertain. The UI-SS relationship is neither direct nor binary, and there are various confounding factors that play their role. The identification of users, their degree/level of involvement, stage of SDLC for UI, and choice of research method have been claimed to have impact on the UI-SS relationship. However, there is not sufficient empirical evidence available to support these claims. Conclusion: Our results have revealed that UI does contribute positively to system success. But it is a double edged sword and if not managed carefully it may cause more problems than benefits. Based on the analysis of 87 studies, we were able to identify factors for effective management of UI alluding to the causes for inconsistency in the results of published literature.

No abstract

The use of logic in identifying and analyzing inconsistency in requirements from multiple stakeholders has been found to be effective in a number of studies. Nonmonotonic logic is a theoretically well-founded formalism that is especially suited for supporting the evolution of requirements. However, direct use of logic for expressing requirements and discussing them with stakeholders poses serious usability problems, since in most cases stakeholders cannot be expected to be fluent with formal logic. In this article, we explore the integration of natural language parsing techniques with default reasoning to overcome these difficulties. We also propose a method for automatically discovering inconsistencies in the requirements from multiple stakeholders, using both theoremproving and model-checking techniques, and show how to deal with them in a formal manner. These techniques were implemented and tested in a prototype tool called CARL. The effectiveness of the techniques and of the tool are illustrated by a classic example involving conflicting requirements from multiple stakeholders