(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications

Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

Gamification for the purpose of eliciting

requirements: A Systematic Literature
Baber Hayat Hafiz Zubair Latif
Department of Computer Sciences, Department of Computer Sciences,
University of Lahore, Chenab Campus, University of Lahore, Chenab Campus,
Pakistan Pakistan

Adnan Naseem
Department of Computer Sciences and IT,
Al hamd Islamic University Islamabad Campus,
Pakistan
Abstract--Requirements play an important role in the development of software system because they tell one why to make
this system. Requirements are the basic need of user from a system. And therefore unclear requirements may result in
failure. Elicitation of requirement is tough activity and demand high user involvement. Many different methods are
used to elicit requirements. As games involved their user in their interface and the more user interaction depicts their
need clearly. This paper discusses the latest gamification concept used for requirement elicitation and classifies them
into 5 different categories. This help to choose the best practice to increase customer satisfaction and market place.

Keywords: gamification; requirement elicitation; requirement gatheri ng.

I. Introduction:

Requirement engineering (RE) is an initial and vital
activity of software development lifecycle. RE includes
numbers of processes for gathering requirements according
to stakeholders and users of a software project. Many
issues and difficulties may occur in software project
development if RE is not properly conducted. RE aims at
collecting quality requirements, analyzing, documenting
and implementing into software code to achieve the desired
functionality and meet the users' needs. It is an iterative
process that targets developing quality product. A precise
definition of RE is defined by Zave as "The branch of
software engineering concerned with the real world goals
for functions of and constraints on the software systems. It
is also concerned with the relationship of these factors to
precise specifications of software behavior and their
evolution overtime and across software families”[1]
The two main categories of RE process are: Requirement
Gathering[1] which includes eliciting, analyzing,
specifying, and validating requirements and Requirement
Implementation[1] which includes executing the
requirements in the software development activities.
Requirement gathering or requirement elicitation consists
of four phases:
1) Requirement elicitation and development 2)
Documentation of requirements
3) Validation & verification of requirements 4)
Requirement management and planning
There are many methods used for eliciting requirements
depending on the resources, time and the type of project.
Traditionally used methods for eliciting requirements are
questionnaires, surveys, interviews, task analysis, domain
analysis, Introspection, Repertory grids, card sorting,
laddering and protocol analysis, Group works,
brainstorming, JAD requirement workshops, conversation
analysis, and observations or social analysis. User or
stakeholder involvement plays a key role in eliciting
correct requirements [1,2].
Lack of communication with stakeholders may cause
difficulty in eliciting requirements. Interviewing is an
informal interaction where analysts explore needs asking
stakeholders about the system in use. Many pieces of
research are made on Conversations and interviews,
somehow user is engaged in both techniques but still have
to improve the methods to gain user attention [3].To
develop interest and involvement in this critical process of
requirement elicitation many tools and techniques are used.
Game-based tools and technology help a lot as game
interface engages its users and involves them completely to
achieve a target[3]. Games-based learning (GBL) has been
applied in a wide variety of different fields including
medicine, knowledge management, military training,
science and mathematics, software engineering, computer
science and information systems [2,3].Games give
experiential learning where learning is made through the
Change of experience providing the four stages of the
experiential learning cycle: concrete experience, reflective

1|P age
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation. Traditional methods are outdated and
based on define content methodology whereas GBL is
more up to date and known for seeking more information
and creative learning.[3]
Gamification has emerged as a powerful technique for the
past few years that can be applied to different problems to
influence human behavior. Gamification is a concept in
which game design elements are used in non -game
context[5]. These elements should be characteristic of
games and have a significant role in gameplay. There is a
difference between GBL, serious games, and gamification.
GBL uses the serious game where games are designed for a
non-recreational environment like education while in
gamification only games principals and elements are used
in a process of a requirement gathering[6]. The motivation
behind applying gamification is to increas e user
involvement[6,7]. There are many benefits of gamification
investigated after different empirical studies. The
important claim about gamification is that it has a positive
impact on increasing user motivation towards certain
behavior[6]. The useful effect of gamification depends on
the context in which it is implemented and how to design
gamified experiences that encourage player (e.g.,
employee, customer) motivation and engagement[6].
In this paper, gamification and the many ways it has been
used in requirement gathering process has been discussed.
How gamification has improved requirement gathering
process?
There are many ways of eliciting requirements. The main
focus of eliciting requirements is to meet the customer’s
need. The proper collection of requirements give a
consistent and complete image of the project but any
mistake while collecting requirements may lead to
inconsistency in the system. The continuous changing
requirements can affect the cost, schedule, and quality of a
software project. A complete understanding of
stakeholders’ problems and their concise and clear
representation, as well as a representation understandable
for stakeholders, helps to design software that meets
customers' needs. Customer need is fulfilled when the
customer is also clear about his project and also
stakeholder has full participation in the development of the
project. Introducing the gamification in requirement
elicitation involved the stakeholder as playing games needs
player attention and full involvement. The main objective
of this research is to evaluate how much this helps us to
gain more proper requirements.
The purpose of conducting this SLR is to describe the
importance of gamification in requirement elicitation
www.thesai.org
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019
process and how it minimizes the conflicts and
communication barriers.
The remaining paper consists of 4 sections: Sections II
Research methodology, Section III Findings, Section IV
Results and Section V Conclusion that summarizes the
whole paper.
II. Research methodology
This work has been undertaken as a systematic
literature review by following the guidelines as proposed
by[20]. A protocol is a significant step in systematic
literature review which provides the methods used to guide
the systematic review. For this study the protocol started
with defining the research questions by following to
identify the search strategy, sources used, inclusion and
exclusion criteria and search table.
2.1. Research questions
This systematic review addresses the following
five research questions (RQs):
RQ1. What are the existing techniques used for
requirement elicitation?
RQ2. In which context proposed requirement elicitation
techniques have been used?
RQ3. What are the limitations of these techniques?
RQ4. What are the variations in the processes involved
in software requirement elicitation across these techniques?
RQ5. Which traditional techniques form basis for these
requirement elicitation techniques?
2.2. Search strategy
The search strings, sources for literature and
search process used in this review are explained below:
2.2.1. Search strings
The following steps were used to build the search
string.
(a) Derivation of major terms from the research questions.
(b) Identification of synonyms and alternative spellings for
these terms.
(c) Identification of keywords in relevant papers or books.
(d) Usage of the Boolean OR to incorporate alternative
spellings and synonyms.
(e) Usage of the Boolean AND to link the major terms.
The resultant search strings build on the basis of these rules
are described as under.
2|P age
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

Software AND (Requirement/ OR Requirements/) AND
("Elicit" OR "Elicitation" OR "Eliciting" OR "Gather" OR
"Gathering" OR "Collect" OR "Collection" OR
"Collecting") AND ( "technique" OR "techniques" OR
"Approach “OR "Approaches" OR "activities" OR
"process/" OR "processes /" OR "practice/" OR "method"
OR "methods" OR "practices/")
2.2.2. Sources used
A systematic review is carried out against the following
electronic sources used in which search string is executed.
These sources include Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, ACM
Digital Library, and Science Direct. Search strings
provided in section 2.2.1 were injected into the mentioned
electronic search engines while dealing with the features
and restrictions a source had. Search was used to conduct
on title, keywords and abstract.
This section of paper has 4 parts;
1) Research questions 2) Research strategy 3) Inclusion
criteria 4) Exclusion criteria.
1) Research Questions:
RQ1: Which methodologies have been proposed and why?
RQ2: What is the main focus of these papers?
RQ3: What is the common problem statement in these
papers?
RQ4: Have the proposed methodologies been validated and
how?
2) Research Strategy:

Libraries and Keywords

Digital Library IEEE (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org )
ACM (https://dl.acm.org/ )
Science Direct (https://www.sciencedirect.com/ )
Search Item Conference papers
Journal papers
Keywords “requirement elicitation” AND “game”
(+requirement +elicitation +through +game)
("requirement elicitation" "game")
(+requirement +gathering +game)
(((requirement) AND elicitation) AND game)
(((requirement) AND gathering) AND game)
“Requirement Gathering” AND “game”
“requirement” AND “engineering” AND “game”
3) Inclusion Criteria:  Context is in English

The following points were considered while selecting  Not similar with other digital libraries
papers:
 Papers published from 2010 to 2018
 Relevant with topic
 Proposed methodologies have been validated

3|P age
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

Figure 1: Scrutinization

4) Exclusion Criteria: Studies categorized according to traditional requirement

The following points were considered while rejecting
papers:
 Not relevant with topic
 Context is not in English
 Similar with other digital libraries
 Papers published before 2010
 Proposed methodologies have not been validate
elicitation technique and the percentages of the selected
studies are represented in
Figure2. PERCENATAGE OF CONTEXT CATAGORIES
Studies arranged in detail according to their context are
presented in
Table 1—TRADITIONAL REQUIREMENT ELICITATION
TECHNIQUES. However, the detailed descriptions of the
process steps of the studies which qualified the quality
criteria are shown in the Table A1 in the appendix section.

4|P age
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Figure2 . PERCENATAGE OF CONTEXT CATAGORIES
To establish a discussion that seeks to answer the
research questions defined for this review; all the papers
that we have studied are considered. The findings of this
study is the fact that all requirement elicitation techniques
are based on the collaboration of stakeholders in different
ways, but the basic foundation is upon the traditional
RE techniques. We have identified the current
techniques of requirement elicitation in response to RQ1.
Techniques are presented with their context in which they
are applicable and their limitations in response to RQ2
and RQ3. All the techniques are based on some of the
process steps with variations. Four (4) generic process
steps are proposed for researchers and academics to make
the new customized elicitation technique, in response to
RQ4. Each and every technique is based on one or more of
traditional requirement elicitation technique shown by
Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference
source not found. in response to RQ5. Detailed response to
research questions RQ1-RQ5 with tables and figures
depicting information is as below:
Requirement elicitation techniques with context and
limitations:
By excluding 9 papers having not pure techniques, but
models or tools [28] [37] [41] [50] [53] [55] [56] [58] [67],
46 techniques were identified.
Table 1 —TRADITIONAL REQUIREMENT ELICITATION
TECHNIQUES depicts the approaches, tools, techniques,
models etc and their detailed description. All techniques
are based on one or more of the basic or traditional
requirement elicitation techniques. Techniques are broadly
categorized into 8 according to their context.
Figure2 . PERCENATAGE OF CONTEXT CATAGORIES depicts
the categorization of these studies. 32% of the selected
studies had distributed context. Category of large projects
having 4 techniques with a percentage of 7 of all selected
techniques might or might not be merging with distributed
context. Scalability of data cleaning and poor criteria for
stakeholder’s prioritization are the issues with large
projects. For global or distributed context, stakeholders are
setting on different geographical locations and techniques
are proposed to have collaboration between them.
Preference is given to have an online or distributed
platform and all stakeholders collaborate. Studies, which
propose techniques for distributed environment are facing
some common issues or limitations related to usability
issues or platform issues, training issues, biased voting by
stakeholders, issues related to the applicability,
stakeholders take time in their feedback that leads to time
S.no Technique Context
1 Collaborative Web Based
Requirement
Elicitation Technique
(Crete)
www.thesai.org
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019
consuming, geographical issues, language issues,
understandability issues and complexity issues etc.
4 studies belong to small and medium sized projects and
four studies were used in an agile context as a whole it
makes 8% of the whole studies. Stakeholder involvement
in a project about agile context is a must. Scope creep is
the common issue that leads to project more Costly and
takes extra time. Some other issues found in proposed
techniques are software issues need of exhaustive analyst
involvement, sporting tool issues, traceability issues
among various UML Diagrams. Conflicts arose when no of
stakeholders are addressing requirements.
There are 8 Domain Specific techniques containing 14 %
of all the studies selected for this review. Domain specific
techniques are limited to their own domain and it contains
issues related to its own environment where it is used like
in the health care system, issues related to training and
safety are most prominent. Some of the issues we found is:
There is no specific functionality to support team work.
Requirement change according to customer’s view may
lead to scope creep. Not all trial design rationality may
have been exposed. The approach is healthy to evaluate
and applied. The pilot study evaluation might be biased.
Interactive systems and information systems don dot lie in
the same category, but each have 4 techniques with 7% of
the whole review for each context. Interactive systems are
more complex and difficult to understand, so time
consuming and usability issues occurs, but information
systems cannot be applied to entirely new project, they
check the quality of requirement before goal elicitation and
do not cover the incorporation of strategic issues and new
activities.
7 techniques that form 13% of all the techniques belong to
the category of multiple contexts. But some of the
techniques cannot provide the sufficient result for
embedded systems. Other limitations are: biased voting by
stakeholders, construction of ontology by hand is a slow
process, avoid non-functional requirements. Only 3 studies
were not able to make their place in the stated categories so
listed in remaining or other category. Much manual work
and scalability issues occur in context aware service
evaluation and in a context where customer is not clear
about the requirements; that technique is not suitable for
critical systems where clear and concise requirements are
required. Following is the table for requirement elicitation
techniques with context, advantages and disadvantages.
Table 1 —TRADITIONAL REQUIREMENT ELICITATION
TECHNIQUES
Advantages Limitations Ref.
-Large number of -Usability issues [21]
geographically- -Training need
distributed clients can - Biased voting
share their requirements
collaboratively.
5|P age
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

- Requirement creation
without any clues
2 Computer Supported -Global Software Heterogeneous software When the stake holder [22]
Co-Operative Work Development And inspection team has preference seems to be
(Cscw) Distributed better performance than opposite, then there
Environment homogenous become a conflict
3 Feature Modeling Domain Specific -More stakeholder being -No specific [23]
Approach Software Involved in R.E are from functionality is
different discipline with provided to support
different background teamwork.
-Traditional
requirement elicitation
technique and tools are
difficult to be applied in
the scientific computing
project.
4 HCI Technique Interactive System -Personas help to gain a -Complex and difficult [24]
deeper understanding of to understand
the users
5 Form-Based -Open Source -Promote the negotiation -Applicability [25]
Distributed Communities among stakeholders -Usability
Requirement Elicitation -Distributed - Identify the capability
Environment of stakeholders
6 Requirements -Small And -Solve the volatility - Software issues [26]
Elicitation Using Qfd Medium Size problem -Costly
Projects - Reduce language
barriers during
requirement elicitation
7 Stakeholder -Large Projects -Easy and required less NI [27]
Recommender Model Distributed effort
Environment -Scalable and can be
used for large projects
- No communication
problem
8 The Integration Of KPI -Information -Eliminates the need of -Quality of KPI must be [28]
Requirements System user interests in checked before the
Elicitation Process requirement elicitation elicitation of goals
Originating From
Organization Goals
9 Stakerare -Large Projects - Scale up big projects - Scalability of the data [29]
-Improve the cleaning
involvement of
stakeholders
10 Laddering Technique - Interactive System -Solve the conflicts - Usability issues [30]
And Art2 Neural between requirements
Network arising from
multicultural groups
11 Group Storytelling Information System - Ability to capture -Does not cover the [31]
complete information - incorporation of
No biasedness Strategic issues and
new activities
12 Elicitation Of Where The End users are more This technique doesn’t [32]
Pervasive System Customer Is involved, it helps the end allow us to handle
Requirement Through Physically Present user to identify the scope creep because it
Immediate requirement avoids user to modify
Visualization. the requirement when
modification start
13 Agent Based Goal Agile Software Show requirements in Requirements are [33]
Elicitation(Ata Ble) Development natural language for user addressed by maximu m
Environment understanding. number of members

6|P age
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

that arises conflicts.

14 Elicitation Of Software Railway Project Effective and efficient of Requirement [34]
Requirements And the freight transportation prioritization if the
Prioritization Using between source and requirement is highly
Ahp destination using an costly, but more
optimized algorithm. important than the
customer can change its
view due to the high
cost so the priority can
change which may
cause scope creep.
15 Background Reading Small And Medium -Eliminate the need of -Need exhaustive [35]
(BR) Size Projects potential customer -Analyst involvement
- Minimize the
possibility of Human
error
16 Elicit Requirements Interactive System -Multiple dimensions of -More complex [36]
Using Systemic Models the system are captured
on a single platform
-Stakeholder framework
ensures completeness
-Essential validation and
traceability between the
two systemic models,
stakeholder analysis and
Cybernetics model
17 Requirement Elicitation -Large Projects Automatic -Poor criteria for [37]
Using Stakeholder The recommendation of stakeholders
Recommendation And the stakeholders related prioritization
Predictive Analysis to the System
18 Evolutionary Safety Critical -Efficiently elicit the -Does not focus on the [38]
Prototyping Model traceability requirement traceability System
Dynamically requirement from the
consumer viewpoint.
19 Athena Web Based -Improves -Time consuming [39]
communication among
stakeholders and reduces
the ambiguity and
contradictions of their
views.
-Can be applied to
multiple domain
20 Rpure Multiple -From this requirement, RPURE does not [40]
it becomes easier the provide the sufficient
estimate the total size of result for any embedded
the project. system.
-It became easy to gather
the requirement from the
stakeholder point of
view due to the
automation in the
requirement elicitation.
-Good for the system
which are native at their
environment.
21 Collaborative -Global A positive effect -Global time zone [41]
Requirements Requirement To motivate users to Issues.
Elicitation With Elicitation Contribute (online -Geographical issues
Visualization communications) -Language issues
Techniques

7|P age
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

22 Computer Aided -Where Security Is It accelerates the The tool does not have [42]
Privacy Requirement Functional And elicitation process Helps any seal of approval of
Elicitation Technique Most Critical prevent privacy privacy law
Requirement requirement Leaks compliance..
especially for those who
are not familiar with the
privacy laws of
technique.
23 Spatial Hypertext Wiki Global Software -Easy to use -Understandability [43]
Development - Incremental content - Language issues
creation
24 Irequire -Distributed -Automatically gather -Usability issues [44]
Environment information on the
End-users environment.

25 Remo-Ekd Used For Industrial -It maximizes the total Can anyone elicit more [45]
And Organizational no of the requirement requirement when using
Context. found heuristic.
Web Based System -Helps to identify Does heuristic turns to
Having A Basis requirement much faster easy to identify
EKD Organization -Helps your performance software requirement.
Model in Requirement
Elicitation task
26 Focus Group Interactive System -Provide a platform on - Domain and [46]
Discussion For which user can share background
Requirements their requirements identification is
Elicitation (FGDRE) -Requirements are necessary
represented as mind
maps that improve the
understanding.
27 Gamifying Multiple Different people put Biasness [47]
Requirement Elicitation different suggestions to
reach a common point
28 Goore Any -Embed the ontological -Constructing an [48]
system through goal- ontology by hand is
oriented analysis slow
29 FLEX Reqmodel Combination Of Modification in existing [49]
Both Traditional requirement is easy
And Agile when discussed with
User
30 Goal And Any Promotes customer Avoid non-functional [50]
Scenario Authoring communication in requirements
defining system
requirements
Less time consuming
and cheaper
31 Goal-Oriented Analysis Small And Medium Support goal No supporting tool [51]
Method Size Projects decomposition and
refinement activities
Support cooperation
work of stakeholders
32 Interview Process Any Helpful to the elicitation No supporting tool [52]
Model (Where team who face a
Stockholders Are stakeholder that have
Available) problems in phrasing
their needs and
expectations from the
system.
33 Ithink Web Based Increase the Usability issues and [53]
collaboration and complexity

8|P age
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

stakeholder involvement
34 Knowledge Audit Information System Solve the problem of Can’t be apply to [54]
Model communication between entirely new projects
user and developers
35 Novel Reengineering Context-Aware Context awareness much manual work [55]
Service Evolution Scalability issues
36 Wiki-Based Distributed -A lightweight approach -Increased complexity [56]
Stakeholder Environment to documentations of wiki syntax to
Participation In Re -easy page linking denominate metadata
-Easy history captured -Missing replication of
wiki content
37 Requirement Elicitation Information System Solve requirement NI [52]
Conceptual Model conflict and
inconsistencies between
them reduce
communication barriers
38 Requirements Health Care System Provide Not all trial design [56]
Elicitation In A multidisciplinary rationales may have
Telemedicine Pain- collaboration between been exposed
Treatment Trial1 trial designers and
system engineers that
makes topics of
discussions clear and
mutually understandable
39 Requirements Small And Medium An integrated use of traceability among [57]
Elicitation Through Size Projects several searching various UML diagrams
Model-Driven techniques, such as Only for functional
Evaluation Of Software keyword-based Search, requirements.
Components case-based reasoning
(CBR) and analytic
hierarchy Process (AHP)
40 Requirements Interactive System Improve communication Time consuming [58]
Elicitation Using
Visual And Textual
Information
41 Requirements Security System Focus on both functional NI [59]
Elicitation Using View and non-functional
Points requirements
42 A Collaborative Any Allowing stockholders to More time and effort [60]
Approach To define requirements required
Requirements collaboratively resulting
Elicitation clear and less ambiguous
requirements.
43 Collaborative Distributed Consider NI [61]
Requirements Environment interdependencies into
Elicitation And account by introducing
Decision-Supported requirements sets as
Requirements Analysis units
44 Goal-Oriented Idea Any Collaborative way of Ambiguous definition [62]
Generation Method defining goal as of goal
requirements removing No toll support
conflicts and
inconsistencies
45 Persona-Scenario-Goal Web Based Easy way to identify Issues regarding [56]
Methodology new requirements by requirements conflicts
evaluating different Platform and usability
scenario that eliminated issues
the need of stakeholders.
46 Utilizing Rule Ultra-Large-Scale Requires no or almost no Approach is not [63]
Deviations In It Software Systems interaction with the end evaluated and applied.

9|P age
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

Ecosystems For users

Implicit Requirements
Elicitation
47 “Innovation” Distributed Less technical Usability issues [64]
Requirement Elicitation Environment Stakeholders
participation
48 Critical Incident Medical Wide target group, i.e. The pilot study [65]
Technique Public evaluation might be
Health professionals not biased
try to narrow
49 User Storytelling Where Customer Is It helps to reveals critical For critical system the [66]
Not Clear About information tacit story telling is not
His Own knowledge as well as suitable where clear and
Requirement more detail as likely to concise requirement are
serve in brainstorming required.
50 Using Mobile Re Tools -Multiple - Requirements gathers on Usability issues [52]
To Give End-Users Distributed detail, precise base with
Their Own Voice Environment reasons
51 Using Ethnography For Multiple Mobile based not Monitoring may create [67]
Techniques In Context Using desktop based problems for
Developing A Mobile Mobile Tool stakeholders like user
Tool For Requirements may feel uncomforted
Elicitation with feeling that
someone is trying to
control them
52 Towards A Cognitive- Global Software Heterogeneous software When the stake holder [68]
Based Approach To Development And inspection team have preference seems to be
Distributed Distributed better performance than opposite then there
Requirement Elicitation Environment homogenous become a conflict
Processes
53 Successful Complex Software Combination of R.E NI [69]
Requirement Elicitation Large Scale techniques that is highly
By Combining Software effective and helpful to
Requirement Development produce high quality
Engineering . requirement
Techniques
54 “Story Based Mobile Distributed User involvement Usability issues [70]
Application For Environment throughout till validation
Requirements and verification process
Engineering Process
(Smarep)”
55 Web-Based Focus Web Based Consensus to remove NI [71]
Groups For Environment misunderstandings
Requirements between stakeholders
Elicitation and analysts.
56 Stakerare Large Scale It uses social networks - scalability of the data [72]
Requirement and collaborative cleaning
Elicitations filtering to identify and
prioritize requirements
57 Ore (Ontology Based Keep consistency by [73]
Requirements using inference rules and
Elicitation), a quality metrics
NI= Not Indicated

III. Findings and Discussion

1) Conference papers:

N0 Paper Title Authors Tools/ methodolog y

1 “A driving Simulator for discovering requirements in Andreas SDAT designs using UNITY
10 | P a g e
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

complex systems” Gregoriades game engine

2 “CUTA4UML: Bridging the gap between informal and Ivonne Erfurth CUTA card game
formal requirements for dynamic system aspects.”
3 “A methodology for managing distributed virtual H. Lally Singh Distributed Virtual
environment scalability” Environments DVE
4 “A collaborative method for business process oriented Han Lai Collective Intelligence driven
requirements acquisition and refining” business process oriented
requirements acquisition and
refining method.
5 “Requirement elicitation with adapted CUTA cards: first Ivonne Erfurth Interview technique and CUTA
experiences with business process analysis” card game evaluation
6 “Simulating the software engineering interview process Adrian Rusu Decision based game
using a decision-based serious computer game”
7 “A feature modeling approach for domain-specific Olga De Troyer Feature modeling based
requirement elicitation” approach
8 “Therapist-centered requirements: A multi-method Cynthia Putnam Multi-method approach of
approach of requirement gathering to support requirement elicitation for the
rehabilitation gaming” CBR system.
9 “Inviting everyone to play: Gamifying collaborative Naomi Unkelos- REVISE: Requirement
requirements engineering” Shpigel Elicitation and Verification
Integrated in Social
Environment.
10 “Refine: A gamified platform for participatory Remco Snijders Refine a gamified platform for
requirements engineering” requirement elicitation
11 “A serious game for eliciting social engineering security Kristian Beckers Card game to elicit requirements
requirements”
12 “Tailoring gamification to requirements elicitation: a Martin Z. Huber Threefold
stakeholder centric motivation concept” Kolpondinos
13 “Requirements gathering and testing by game playing” Diane Kelly Experience report on table-top
gaming skills with requirement
gathering and testing
2) Journal papers:

No. Paper Title Authors Tools/ methodolog y

1 “Evaluation of a game to teach requirements collection Thomas Hainey Game based learning
and analysis in software engineering at tertiary education application
level”
2 “Designing a course for stimulating entrepreneurship in F. Bellotti Serious Game (SG)
higher education through serious games”
3 “iThink: a game-based approach towards improving Joao Fernandes iThink game-based tool
collaboration and participation in requirement elicitation”
4 “Applying collaborative process design to user AbidaAzadegan Case Study CE applied to
requirements elicitation: A case study” design collaborative processes
that consists of ThinkLets
5 “Gamifying requirement elicitation: practical implications Claudia Ribeiro Evaluation of gamification
and outcomes in improving stakeholders collaboration” approach and six thinking hats.
6 “Special issues on serious games” F. Bellotti Issues on SG
7 “Supporting the requirement analysis phase for the Olga De Troyer Tablet (ipad) app
development of serious games for children”
8 “Gamification in software engineering a systematic Oscar Pedreira Gamification elements
mapping”
9 “Gamification in theory and action: A survey” Katie Seaborn Comparison study
10 “Utilizing online serious games to facilitate distributed HadiGhanbari Online Serious Games for
requirements elicitation” gathering requirements
11 “A framework for gamification in software engineering” Felix Garcia Framework for gamification in
software engineering
12 “Striving for balance: a look at gameplay requirements of Maya Daneva Massively multiplayer online
massively multiplayer online role-playing games” role-playing game (MMORPGs)
13 “Design and preliminary evaluation of cyber security Affan Yasin Serious game using cyber

11 | P a g e
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

requirements education game (SREG)” security knowledge and game-

based techniques
14 “Gamification in software engineering education: A Manal M. Framework to highlight the
systematic mapping” Alhammad complexity of deciding which
gamification approach to
follow.
The answers of the 4 research questions Gamification in paper-based approach means
according to papers that have been selected are using hard games not online games to elicit
discussed here. The papers have been classified requirements. Different card games
into 5 categories according to their [12],[13],[14]has been introduced to gather
methodologies: requirements. This paper-based approach
1) Web-based approach 2) Paper-based makes the interview technique of requirement
approach 3) Simulation-based approach 4) elicitation entertaining.
Framework/architecture 5) Hybrid approach.
Simulation-based approach:
These categories elaborate the ways in which
gamification concept can be used. Gamification in simulation-based approach is
used to provide virtual environment to gather
RQ1: Which methodologies have been
requirements. This approach is cost
proposed?
effective[15] as it creates the virtual prototype
To answer this question gamification has been to gather requirements. This approach is also
classified into 5 different categories 1) Web- effective according to learning aspect [16],[17]
based approach, 2) Paper-based approach, 3) as it is a prototype any risk, any error in virtual
Simulation-based approach, 4) environment won’t be effective and it would
Framework/architecture help customers to know which requirement
should be added and which should be deleted.
Web-based approach:
Frameworks/architecture:
Web-based approach provides online platform
to gather stakeholders from different locations. Different frameworks and tools has been
It gets more difficult to gather requirements proposed [18],[19] which are using
when stakeholders are not collocated. In such gamification or supporting gamification
scenarios stakeholders get bored and exhausted techniques. Frameworks has been used to
looking at web pages and giving requirements. support gamification’s integration with other
To overcome these limitations this web-based domains such as software engineering[20] or
approach has been integrated with gamification software requirement elicitation. Tools have
to keep stakeholders’ interest alive and to keep been used to support requirement analysis
them motivated during the requirement process [21]. These frameworks and tools
elicitation process. Gamification makes the allow both technical and non-technical persons
whole requirement elicitation process to understand the elicitation process.
entertaining. In Figure 2 papers fall in web-
Hybrid approach: This approach of
based approach [1,2],[10],[11] as these papers
are using web-based gamification gamification covers 2 different aspects of
requirement elicitation process [22],[23]. First
methodology. Web-based approach supports
it finds the requirements from given
the collaborative requirement elicitation.
information and second it provides a
Paper-based approach: mechanism that guides the technical and non-

12 | P a g e
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

technical people to guide them through

requirement elicitation.

13 | P a g e
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

Design & preliminary evaluation of a cyber security requirements education game (SREG)

Utilizing online serious games to facilitate distributed requirements elicitation

web-based

REfine: a gamified platform for participatory requirements elicitation

iThink: A game-based approach towards improving collaboration and participation in requirement

elicitation

CUTA4UM L-bridging the gap between informal & formal requirements for dynamic system aspects

paper-based Requirement elicitation with adapted CUTA cards: first experiences with business process analysis

A serious game for eliciting social engineering security requirements

Gamification

A driving simulator for discovering requirements in complex systems

simulation-based A methodology for managing distributed virtual environment scalability

Simulating the Software engineering interview process using decision based serious computer game

Supporting the requirements analysis phase for development of serious games for children

A framework for gamification in software engineering

Frameworks/
Architecture
A collaborative method for business process oriented requirements Acquisition & Refining

Inviting everyone to play: Gamifying collaborative requirements engineering

A featuring modeling approach for domain-specific requirement elicitation

Multi-method approach

Tailoring gamification to requirements elicitation: A stakeholder centric

14 | P a g e
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

Figure 2

RQ2: What is the main focus in these papers? to help non-technical people in understanding
requirement elicitation process[18,19].
Papers main focus is different according to their
methodology. Papers using web-based approach RQ3: What is the common problem statement
are focusing on increasing collaborative in these papers?
requirement elicitation[4],[9],[10],7]. Papers
Old techniques for requirement elicitation such
using paper-based approach are focusing on
as interview, observation, brainstorming etc. are
making interview technique more
less entertaining. These old techniques make
entertaining[8,9,10]. Papers using simulation-
stakeholders less interested in requirement
based approach are focusing on creating virtual
elicitation.
environment as prototype to gather better
requirements in cost effective manner[11,12,13]. RQ4: Have the proposed methodologies been
Papers using hybrid approach are focusing on validated?
improving 2 different aspects: 1 is to find the
hidden requirement from the raw data gathered All papers using different methodologies
from the users and 2 is to provide a mechanism validated their methodologies.
N0. Paper Title Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 “A driving Simulator for discovering requirements in complex Yes Yes Yes Yes
systems”
2 “CUTA4UML: Bridging the gap between informal and formal Yes Yes Yes Yes
requirements for dynamic system aspects.”
3 “A methodology for managing distributed virtual environment Yes Yes Yes Yes
scalability”
4 “A collaborative method for business process oriented requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes
acquisition and refining”
5 “Requirement elicitation with adapted CUTA cards: first Yes Yes Yes Yes
experiences with business process analysis”
6 “Simulating the software engineering interview process using a Yes Yes Yes Yes
decision-based serious computer game”
7 “A feature modeling approach for domain-specific requirement Yes Yes Yes Yes
elicitation”
8 “Therapist-centered requirements: A multi-method approach of Yes Yes Yes Yes
requirement gathering to support rehabilitation gaming”
9 “Inviting everyone to play: Gamifying collaborative requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes
engineering”
10 “Refine: A gamified platform for participatory requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes
engineering”
11 “A serious game for eliciting social engineering security Yes Yes Yes Yes
requirements”
12 “Tailoring gamification to requirements elicitation: a stakeholder Yes Yes Yes Yes
centric motivation concept”
13 “Requirements gathering and testing by game playing” Yes Yes Yes Yes
14 “Evaluation of a game to teach requirements collection and analysis Yes Yes Yes Yes
in software engineering at tertiary education level”
15 “Designing a course for stimulating entrepreneurship in higher Yes Yes Yes Yes
education through serious games”
16 “iThink: a game-based approach towards improving collaboration Yes Yes Yes Yes
and participation in requirement elicitation”
17 “Applying collaborative process design to user requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes
elicitation: A case study”
18 “Gamifying requirement elicitation: practical implications and Yes Yes Yes Yes
outcomes in improving stakeholders collaboration”
15 | P a g e
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

19 “Special issues on serious games” Yes Yes Yes Yes

20 “Supporting the requirement analysis phase for the development of Yes Yes Yes Yes
serious games for children”
21 “Gamification in software engineering a systematic mapping” Yes Yes Yes Yes
22 “Gamification in theory and action: A survey” Yes Yes Yes Yes
23 “Utilizing online serious games to facilitate distributed requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes
elicitation”
24 “A framework for gamification in software engineering” Yes Yes Partially Yes
25 “Striving for balance: a look at gameplay requirements of massively Yes Yes Partially Yes
multiplayer online role-playing games”
26 “Design and preliminary evaluation of cyber security requirements Yes Yes Partially Yes
education game (SREG)”
27 “Gamification in software engineering education: A systematic Yes Yes Partially Yes
mapping”
IV. Conclusion: [2] A. Azadegan, K. N. Papamichail, and P.
Sampaio, “Applying collaborative process design to user
This research paper represents a literature requirements elicitation: A case study,” Comput. Ind., vol.
review on requirement elicitation through 64, no. 7, pp. 798–812, 2013.

gamification. 3 different databases have been
covered to provide a best review on
gamification. The Findings reveal that the
methodologies proposed in literature have
minimized the boring factor while eliciting the
requirements. In this paper these methodologies
has been categorized according to 5 different
approaches. 1) Web-based approach, 2) Paper-
[3] T. Hainey, T. M. Connolly, M. Stansfield, and E.
A. Boyle, “Evaluation of a game to teach requirements
collection and analysis in software engineering at tertiary
education level,” Comput. Educ., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 21–
35, 2011.
[4] M. Mira, “iThink : A game-based approach
towards improving collaboration and participation in
requirement elicitation,” vol. 15, pp. 66–77, 2012.

based approach, 3) Simulation-based approach, [5] S. Deterding, “Gamification : Toward a

4) Frameworks/ architecture and 5) Hybrid
approach. These 5 major categories help to
understand in what ways we can apply
gamification.
The only limitation that was concluded after
reviewing these papers is that less work has
been done in this particular domain. More game
elements should be integrated with requirement
elicitation techniques. Gamification is the good
way to keep stakeholders motivated.
Gamification is a way to entertain them.
Gamification also doesn’t want all stakeholders
at one place. Stakeholders are not forced to be
collocated in gamification method.
Reference:
Definition,” pp. 12–15, 2011.
[6] M. M. Alhammad and A. M. Moreno,
“Gamification in software engineering education: A
systematic mapping,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 141, pp. 131–
150, 2018.
[7] K. Seaborn and D. I. Fels, “Gamification in
theory and action: A survey,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.,
vol. 74, pp. 14–31, 2015.
[8] O. Pedreira, F. García, N. Brisaboa, and M.
Piattini, “Gamification in software engineering - A
systematic mapping,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 57, no. 1,
pp. 157–168, 2015.
[9] R. Snijders, F. Dalpiaz, S. Brinkkemper, M.
Hosseini, R. Ali, and A. Ozüm, “REfine: A Gamified
Platform for Participatory Requirements Engineering,”
pp. 1–6, 2015.

[10] A. Yasin, L. Liu, T. Li, J. Wang, and D. Zowghi,

[1] T. ur Rehman, M. N. A. Khan, and N. Riaz,
“Design and preliminary evaluation of a cyber Security
“Analysis of Requirement Engineering Processes,
Tools/Techniques and Methodologies,” Int. J. Inf. Requirements Education Game (SREG),” Inf. Softw.
Technol., vol. 95, no. April 2017, pp. 179–200, 2018.
Technol. Comput. Sci., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 40–48, 2013.

16 | P a g e
www.thesai.org
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
[11] H. Ghanbari, J. Similä, and J. Markkula,
“Utilizing online serious games to facilitate distributed
requirements elicitation,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 109, pp. 32–
49, 2015.
[12] I. Erfurth and W. Rossak, “CUTA4UML -
Bridging the Gap between Informal and Formal
Requirements for Dynamic System Aspects,” Proc. 32nd
ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Softw. Eng., pp. 171–174, 2010.
[13] I. Erfurth and K. Kirchner, “Requirements
elicitation with adapted CUTA cards: First experiences
with business process analysis,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Eng. Complex Comput. Syst. ICECCS, no. 4, pp. 215–223,
2010.
[14] K. Beckers and S. Pape, “A Serious Game for
Eliciting Social Engineering Security Requirements,”
Proc. - 2016 IEEE 24th Int. Requir. Eng. Conf. RE 2016 ,
pp. 16–25, 2016.
[15] A. Gregoriades, J. Hadjicosti, C. Florides, M.
Pampaka, and H. Michail, “A driving simulator for
discovering requirements in complex systems,” Simul.
Ser., vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 17–26, 2015.
[16] A. Rusu, R. Russell, and R. Cocco, “Simulating
the software engineering interview process using a
decision-based serious computer game,” Proc.
CGAMES’2011 USA - 16th Int. Conf. Comput. Games AI,
Animat. Mobile, Interact. Multimedia, Educ. Serious
Games, pp. 235–239, 2011.
[17] H. L. Singh, “Denis Graˇ Virginia Tech,” pp.
2740–2751, 2011.
[18] H. Lai, R. Peng, and Y. Ni, “Evaluating the
BPCRAR Method: A Collaborative Method for Business
Process Oriented Requirements Acquisition and
Refining,” Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 432 CCIS, pp.
90–104, 2014.
[19] N. Unkelos-Shpigel and I. Hadar, “Inviting
everyone to play: Gamifying collaborative requirements
engineering,” 5th Int. Work. Empir. Requir. Eng. Emp.
2015 - Proc., pp. 13–16, 2016.
[20] F. García, O. Pedreira, M. Piattini, A. Cerdeira-
Pena, and M. Penabad, “A framework for gamification in
software engineering,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 132, pp. 21–40,
2017.
[21] O. De Troyer and E. Janssens, “Supporting the
requirement analysis phase for the development of serious
www.thesai.org
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019
games for children,” Int. J. Child-Computer Interact., vol.
2, no. 2, pp. 76–84, 2014.
[22] O. De Troyer and E. Janssens, “A feature
modeling approach for domain-specific requirement
elicitation,” 2014 IEEE 4th Int. Work. Requir. Patterns,
RePa 2014 - Proc., pp. 17–24, 2014.
[23] M. Z. H. Kolpondinos and M. Glinz, “Tailoring
gamification to requirements elicitation: A stakeholder-
centric motivation concept,” Proc. - 2017 IEEE/ACM
10th Int. Work. Coop. Hum. Asp. Softw. Eng. CHASE
2017, pp. 9–15, 2017.
[24] C. Ribeiro, C. Farinha, J. Pereira, and M. Mira da
Silva, “Gamifying requirement elicitation: Practical
implications and outcomes in improving stakeholders
collaboration,” Entertain. Comput., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 335–
345, 2014. [1] S. K. Pandey and K. Mustafa, “Recent
Advances in SRE Research,” vol. 02, no. 04, pp. 1079–
1085, 2010.
[2] T. Standish and G. Report, “The Standish Group
Report,” 2010.
[3] L. C. Cotran and R. N. Taylor, “Developing
Requirements in an Established Domain Using Tags and
Metadata,” pp. 24–27, 2011.
[4] C. Pacheco and I. Garcia, “The Journal of
Systems and Software A systematic literature review of
stakeholder identification methods in requirements
elicitation,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 2171–2181,
2012.
[5] Z. Zhang, “Effective Requirements Development
- A Comparison of Requirements Elicitation techniques,”
2007.
[6] E. W. Duggan and C. S. Thachenkary,
“Integrating nominal group technique and joint
application development for improved systems
requirements determination,” vol. 41, pp. 399–411, 2004.
[7] A. Sutcliffe and L. E. Ohb, “A Technique
Combination Approach to Requirements Engineering,”
pp. 65–76, 1997.
[8] Z. Zhang, “Effective requirements development-
A comparison of requirements elicitation techniques,”
Softw. Qual. Manag. XV Softw. Qual. Knowl. Soc. E.
Berki, J. Nummenmaa, I. Sunley, M. Ross G. Staples Br.
Comput. Soc., pp. 225–240, 2007.
[9] A. Ericksson and H. Simon, “Protocol analysis:
verbal reports as data. Revised edition.” Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1993.
[10] D. C. Duffy, J. C. Mcdonald, O. J. A. Schueller,
and G. M. Whitesides, “Rapid Prototyping of Microfluidic
17 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Systems in Poly ( dimethylsiloxane ),” vol. 70, no. 23, pp.
4974–4984, 1998.
[11] C. J. Neill and P. A. Laplante, “Requirements
engineering: the state of the practice,” IEEE Softw., no. 6,
pp. 40–45, 2003.
[12] A. Van Lamsweerde and others, “Requirements
engineering: from system goals to UML models to
software specifications,” 2009.
[13] T. Bilgi and G. Software, “Utilizing Business
Process Models for Requirements Elicitation,” pp. 1–4,
2003.
[14] A. P. Massey and W. A. Wallace, “Focus groups
as a knowledge elicitation technique: an exploratory
study,” Knowl. Data Eng. IEEE Trans., vol. 3, no. 2, pp.
193–200, 1991.
[15] E. Hudlicka, “Requirements Elicitation with
Indirect Knowledge Elicitation Techniques : Comparison
of Three Methods,” pp. 4–11, 1996.
[16] A. Hameed, D. Sleeman, and A. Preece,
“Detecting mismatches among experts’ ontologies
acquired through knowledge elicitation,” Knowledge-
Based Syst., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 265–273, 2002.
[17] A. Hart, “Knowledge elicitation : issues and
methods,” vol. 17, no. 9, 1985.
[18] K. D. Gill, “Eliciting Futuristic End-User
Requirements through Contributory Appreciative
Inquiry,” pp. 49–54, 2014.
[19] A. Davis, O. Dieste, A. Hickey, N. Juristo, and
A. M. Moreno, “Effectiveness of requirements elicitation
techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic
review,” in Requirements Engineering, 14th IEEE
International Conference, 2006, pp. 179–188.
[20] S. E. Group, “Guidelines for performing
Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering,”
2007.
[21] X. Zhou, L. Yi, and Y. Liu, “A collaborative
requirement elicitation technique for SaaS applications,”
Proc. 2011 IEEE Int. Conf. Serv. Oper. Logist.
Informatics, SOLI 2011, pp. 83–88, 2011.
[22] F. Medina-domínguez and A. Amescua,
“Computers in Human Behavior Knowledge management
acquisition improvement by using software engineering
elicitation techniques,” vol. 30, pp. 721–730, 2014.
[23] O. De Troyer and E. Janssens, “A Feature
Modeling Approach for Domain-Specific Requirement
Elicitation,” pp. 17–24, 2014.
[24] S. T. Acuña, J. W. Castro, and N. Juristo, “A
HCI technique for improving requirements elicitation,”
vol. 54, pp. 1357–1375, 2012.
www.thesai.org
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019
[25] H. Lai, R. Peng, D. Sun, and J. Liu, “A
Lightweight Forum-based Distributed Requirement
Elicitation Process for Open Source Community,” vol. 4,
no. April, pp. 138–145, 2012.
[26] P. Rajagopal, R. Lee, T. Ahlswede, C. Chiang,
D. Karolak, C. Science, A.-L. Rock, and I. A. Closures,
“A New Approach for Software Requirements
Elicitation,” vol. 2, 2005.
[27] N. Mulla and S. Girase, “A NEW APPROACH
TO REQUIREMENT ELICITATION BASED ON
STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATION AND,” vol. 3,
no. 3, pp. 51–60, 2012.
[28] E. Engineering, “A New Proposal for The
Integration of Key Performance Indicators to
Requirements Elicitation Process Originating from
Organization Goals,” 2014.
[29] S. Keele, “Guidelines for performing systematic
literature reviews in software engineering,” in Technical
report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE, 2007.
[30] C. Chen, L. P. Khoo, and W. Yan, “A strategy
for acquiring customer requirement patterns using
laddering technique and ART2 neural network,” vol. 16,
no. 2002, pp. 229–240, 2003.
[31] F. Maria, M. R. S. Borges, and J. A. Pino,
“Advanced Engineering Informatics Acquiring knowledge
on business processes from stakeholders ’ stories,” Adv.
Eng. Informatics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 138–148, 2010.
[32] F. Pérez and P. Valderas, “Allowing End-users to
Actively Participate within the Elicitation of Pervasive
System Requirements through Immediate Visualization,”
2010.
[33] F. Perez and P. Valderas, “Allowing end-users to
actively participate within the elicitation of pervasive
system requirements through immediate visualization,” in
Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV), 2009
Fourth International Workshop on, 2009, pp. 31–40.
[34] A. M. Sen and S. K. Jain, “An agile technique
for agent based goal refinement to elicit soft goals in goal
oriented requirements engineering,” in Advanced
Computing and Communications, 2007. ADCOM 2007.
International Conference on, 2007, pp. 41–47.
[35] J. Zapata, B. M. Losada, and G. Gonzalez-
Calderon, “An approach for using procedure manuals as a
source for Requirements Elicitation,” in Informatica
(CLEI), 2012 XXXVIII Conferencia Latinoamericana En ,
2012, pp. 1–8.
[36] P. Nistala, S. Kummamuru, and M. Narayana,
“An approach to understand and elicit requirements usin g
systemic models : Ensuring a connect from problem
context to requirements,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 16,
pp. 786–795, 2013.
18 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
[37] N. Latheef and A. A. Nithya, “An Automated
Approach to Requirement Elicitation using Stakeholder
Recommendation and Prediction Analysis,” pp. 77–81,
2013.
[38] X. Zhang, S. Lv, M. Xu, and W. Mu, “Applying
evolutionary prototyping model for eliciting system
requirement of meat traceability at agribusiness level,”
Food Control, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1556–1562, 2010.
[39] V. Laporti, M. R. S. Borges, and V. Braganholo,
“Computers in Industry Athena : A collaborative approach
to requirements elicitation,” vol. 60, pp. 367–380, 2009.
[40] N. A. Z. Adem, “Automating Function Points
Analysis Based on Functional and non Functional
Requirements Text,” vol. 5, pp. 664–669, 2010.
[41] D. Duarte, C. Farinha, M. M. Da Silva, and A. R.
Da Silva, “Collaborative requirements elicitation with
visualization techniques,” Proc. Work. Enabling Technol.
Infrastruct. Collab. Enterp. WETICE, pp. 343–348, 2012.
[42] S. Miyazaki, N. Mead, and J. Zhan, “Computer-
aided privacy requirements elicitation technique,” Proc.
3rd IEEE Asia-Pacific Serv. Comput. Conf. APSCC 2008,
pp. 367–372, 2008.
[43] C. Sol, E. Carlossolisleroie, and N. Ali,
“Distributed Requirements Elicitation Using A Spatial
Hypertext Wiki,” 2010.
[44] C. Solí and N. Ali, “Distributed requirements
elicitation using a spatial hypertext wiki,” in Global
Software Engineering (ICGSE), 2010 5th IEEE
International Conference on, 2010, pp. 237–246.
[45] M. De Oliveira, D. Viana, T. Conte, and S.
Marczak, “Evaluating the REMO-EKD Technique : A
Technique for the Elicitation of Software Requirements
Based on EKD Organizational Models,” pp. 9–16, 2013.
[46] Z. M. Kasirun and S. S. Salim, “Focus Group
Discussion Model for Requirements Elicitation Activity,”
pp. 101–105, 2008.
[47] C. Ribeiro, C. Farinha, J. Pereira, and M. Mira da
Silva, “Gamifying requirement elicitation: Practical
implications and outcomes in improving stakeholders
collaboration,” Entertain. Comput., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 335–
345, 2014.
[48] M. Shibaoka, H. Kaiya, and M. Saeki,
“GOORE : Goal-Oriented and Ontology Driven
Requirements Elicitation Method,” pp. 225–234, 2007.
[49] S. M. Butt and W. F. W. Ahmad, “Handling
requirements using FlexREQ model,” ICSESS 2012 -
Proc. 2012 IEEE 3rd Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. Serv. Sci., pp.
661–664, 2012.
[50] J. Kim, S. Park, and V. Sugumaran, “Improving
use case driven analysis using goal and scenario
www.thesai.org
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019
authoring : A linguistics -based approach,” vol. 58, pp. 21–
46, 2006.
[51] K. Ohshiro, K. Watahiki, and M. Saeki,
“Integrating an Idea Generation Method into a Goal-
Oriented Analysis Method for Requirements Elicitation,”
2005.
[52] K. Ohshiro, K. Watahiki, and M. Saeki,
“Integrating an idea generation method into a goal-
oriented analysis method for requirements elicitation,” in
Software Engineering Conference, 2005. APSEC’05. 12th
Asia-Pacific, 2005, p. 9–pp.
[53] M. Mira, “iThink : A game-based approach
towards improving collaboration and participation in
requirement elicitation,” vol. 15, pp. 66–77, 2012.
[54] L. Taheri, N. C. Pa, R. Abdullah, S. Abdullah,
and A. K. Audit, “Knowledge Audit Model for
Requirement Elicitation Process,” vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 452–
456, 2014.
[55] J. Huang and H. Yang, “Reconciling
Requirements and Implementation via Reengineering for
Context-Aware Service Evolution,” 2011.
[56] J. Huang, H. Yang, and L. Liu, “Reconciling
Requirements and Implementation via Reengineering for
Context-Aware Service Evolution,” in Computer Software
and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW),
2011 IEEE 35th Annual, 2011, pp. 464–469.
[57] L. Chung and N. F. Rd, “Requirements
Elicitation through Model-Driven Evaluation of Software
Components The University of Texas at Dallas,” no.
Iccbss, 2006.
[58] J. M. Moore and F. M. S. I, “Requirements
Elicitation using Visual and Textual Information,” no.
Figure I, pp. 308–309, 2001.
[59] P. G. Scholar, “Security Requirements Elicitation
Using View Points for Online System Ashish Agarwal
Dept . of Computer Science,” pp. 1238–1243, 2008.
[60] S. Tiwari, S. S. Rathore, and A. Gupta,
“Selecting Requirement Elicitation Techniques for
Software Projects,” 2012.
[61] M. Geisser and T. Hildenbrand, “A Method for
Collaborative Requirements Elicitation and Decision-
Supported Requirements Analysis,” vol. 219, pp. 108–
122, 2006.
[62] K. Oshiro, “Goal-Oriented Idea Generation
Method for Requirements Elicitation,” pp. 3–4, 2003.
[63] L. Singer and K. Schneider, “Utilizing Rule
Deviations in IT Ecosystems for Implicit Requirements
Elicitation,” 2010.
19 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

[64] H. Ghanbari, J. Similä, and J. Markkula, “The [78] V. Dheepa, D. J. Aravindhar, and C.
Journal of Systems and Software Utilizing online serious Vijayalakshmi, “A Novel Method for Large Scale
games to facilitate distributed requirements elicitation,” Requirement Elicitation,” vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 375–379,
vol. 109, pp. 32–49, 2015. 2013.

[65] N. Hallberg and T. Timpka, “Using the critical [79] A. M. Sen and S. K. Jain, “An Agile Technique
incident technique to define a minimal data set for for Agent Based Goal Refinement to Elicit Soft Goals in
requirements elicitation in public health,” vol. 68, pp. Goal Oriented Requirements Engineering,” 2007.
165–174, 2002.
[80] M. Sadiq, “An Approach for Eliciting Software
[66] N. Boulila, A. Hoffmann, and A. Herrmann, Requirements and its Prioritization using Analytic
“Using Storytelling to record requirements: Elements for Hierarchy Process,” 2009.
an effective requirements elicitation approach,” 2011 4th
Int. Work. Multimed. Enjoyable Requir. Eng. - Beyond [81] C. M. Z. J and G. González-calderón, “An
Mere Descr. with More Fun Games, MERE’11 - Co- approach for using procedure manuals as a source for
located with 19th IEEE Int. Requir. Eng. Conf., RE'11, pp. requirements elicitation,” 2012.
9–16, 2011.
[82] H. Kaiya and M. Saeki, “Using domain ontology
[67] S. Shahidi and I. Technology, “Using as domain knowledge for requirements elicitation,” in
ethnography techniques in developing a mobile tool for Requirements Engineering, 14th IEEE International
requirements elicitation Department of Software Conference, 2006, pp. 189–198.
Engineering Information Technology , University
Malaya,” pp. 510–513, 2009. [83] B. Decker, E. Ras, J. Rech, P. Jaubert, and M.
Rieth, “Wiki-Based Stakeholder Participation in
[68] G. N. Aranda, A. Vizcaíno, A. Cechich, M. Requirements Engineering,” 2007.
Piattini, and U. Nacional, “Towards a Cognitive-Based
Approach to Distributed Requirement Elicitation [84] A. Sajid, A. Nayyar, and A. Mohsin, “Modern
Processes,” 2004. trends towards requirement elicitation,” in Proceedings of
the 2010 National Software Engineering Conference,
[69] D. Mishra, A. Mishra, and A. Yazici, 2010, p. 9.
“Successful requirement elicitation by combining
requirement engineering techniques,” 1st Int. Conf. Appl. [85] I. Widya, R. G. a Bults, B. J. F. Van Beijnum, L.
Digit. Inf. Web Technol. ICADIWT 2008, pp. 258–263, Sandsjö, L. Schaake, M. H. a Huis In’t Veld, V. Jones,
2008. and H. J. Hermens, “Requirements elicitation in a
telemedicine pain-treatment trial,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
[70] N. Seyff, F. Graf, and N. Maiden, “Using Mobile Requir. Eng., pp. 309–314, 2009.
RE Tools to Give End-Users their Own Voice,” 2010.
[86] M. Aoyama, “Persona-Scenario-Goal
[71] C. Farinha, I. S. T. Opensoft, and M. Mira, Methodology for User-Centered Requirements
“Web-Based Focus Groups for Requirements Elicitation,” Engineering Persona-Scenario-Goal,” pp. 185–194, 2007.
no. c, pp. 504–509, 2011.
[87] J. Portillo-rodríguez, A. Vizcaíno, M. Piattini,
[72] L. R. Elicitation, S. L. Lim, and A. Finkelstein, and S. Beecham, “Tools used in Global Software
“StakeRare : Using Social Networks and Collaborative Engineering : A systematic mapping review,” vol. 54, pp.
Filtering for,” vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 707–735, 2012. 663–685, 2012.

[73] A. Krishna and H. Lu, “Requirements elicitation [88] S. Sachdeva and M. Malhotra, “Requirement
using goal-based organizational model,” pp. 543–551, Elicitation Of Large Web Projects,” vol. 3, no. 7, pp.
2008. 6880–6887, 2014.

[74] F. Requirements, “Task Descriptions as
Functional Requirements,” pp. 225–240, 2003.
[75] N. Seyff, F. Graf, and N. Maiden, “Using Mobile
RE Tools to Give End-Users their Own Voice,” 2010.
[76] C. J. Neill and P. A. Laplante, “the state of the
practice Requirements Engineering : The State of the
Practice,” 2003.
[77] L. R. Elicitation, S. L. Lim, and A. Finkelstein,
“StakeRare : Using Social Networks and Collaborative
Filtering for,” vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 707–735, 2012.
www.thesai.org
[89] S. Kausar, S. Tariq, S. Riaz, and A. Khanum,
“Guidelines for the Selection of Elicitation Techniques,”
2010.
[90] L. Jiang, A. Eberlein, and B. H. Far, “A
methodology for the selection of requirements
engineering techniques,” pp. 303–328, 2008.
[91] D. Zowghi and C. Coulin, “2 Requirements
Elicitation : A Survey of Techniques , Approaches , and
Tools.”
20 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications
Vol. 10, No. 1, 2019

[92] T. Wehrmaker, G. Stefan, and K. Schneider,

“ConTexter Feedback System,” pp. 1459–1460, 2012.

[93] C. Castro-herrera, J. Cleland-huang, and B.

Mobasher, “Enhancing Stakeholder Profiles to Improve
Recommendations in Online Requirements Elicitation,”
2009.

[94] R. Beg and R. P. Verma, “Interview process

model for requirement elicitation Categories and Subject
Descriptors,” vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 109–113, 2008.

[95] H. Liao, “Requirement Elicitation of Enterprise

Informationization from view of VCA,” 2002.

[96] M. Palamalai, R. Ahmad, and M. H. Nizam,

“Story based Mobile Application for Requirements
Engineering Process,” 2008.

[97] D. Wilmann and L. Sterling, “Guiding agent-

oriented requirements elicitation : HOMER,” 2005.

[98] H. Zhao, L. Yi, W. Zhang, and H. Mei, “A Pr

oblem-dr iven Scenar io-based Appr oach to Collabor
ative Requir ement Elicitation,” p. 5, 2003.

[99] N. Seyff and N. Maiden, “End-User

Requirements Blogging with iRequire,” pp. 285–288,
2010.

21 | P a g e
www.thesai.org