Among the software development activities, requirements engineering is one of the most communication-intensive and then, its effectiveness is greatly constrained by the geographical distance between stakeholders. For this reason, the need to identify the appropriate task/technology fits to support teams of geographically dispersed stakeholders plays a key role for coping with the lack of physical proximity when developing requirements. In this paper we report on an empirical study that assessed the use of synchronous text-based communication in distributed requirements workshops, as compared to face-to-face (F2F), and the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC), with respects to the different tasks of distributed requirements elicitation and negotiation. First results show that, in terms of satisfaction with performance, CMC elicitation is a better task/technology fit than CMC negotiation. Furthermore, the general preference for F2F over CMC is due to the strong preference for the F2F negotiation fit over the CMC counterpart.
An Empirical Investigation on Text-Based Communication in Distributed Requirements Engineering
CALEFATO, FABIO;LANUBILE, Filippo
2007-01-01
Abstract
Among the software development activities, requirements engineering is one of the most communication-intensive and then, its effectiveness is greatly constrained by the geographical distance between stakeholders. For this reason, the need to identify the appropriate task/technology fits to support teams of geographically dispersed stakeholders plays a key role for coping with the lack of physical proximity when developing requirements. In this paper we report on an empirical study that assessed the use of synchronous text-based communication in distributed requirements workshops, as compared to face-to-face (F2F), and the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC), with respects to the different tasks of distributed requirements elicitation and negotiation. First results show that, in terms of satisfaction with performance, CMC elicitation is a better task/technology fit than CMC negotiation. Furthermore, the general preference for F2F over CMC is due to the strong preference for the F2F negotiation fit over the CMC counterpart.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.