CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND
ELICITATION TECHNIQUES
ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS’ FEATURES
Gabriela N. Aranda
Departamento de Ciencias de la Computación, Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Buenos Aires 1400, Neuquén, Argentina
Aurora Vizcaíno
Departamento de Informática – Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Paseo de la Universidad 4, Ciudad Real, España
Alejandra Cechich
Departamento de Ciencias de la Computación, Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Buenos Aires 1400, Neuquén, Argentina
Mario Piattini
Departamento de Informática – Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Paseo de la Universidad 4, Ciudad Real, España
Keywords: Groupware, Distributed Cooperative Work, Distributed Requirements Elicitation, Cognitive Informatics.
Abstract: The set of groupware tools used during a distributed development process is usually chosen by taking into
account predetermined business politics, managers’ personal preferences, or people in charge of the project.
However, perhaps the chosen groupware tools are not the most appropriate for all the group members and it
is possible that some of them would not be completely comfortable with them.
To avoid this situation we have built a model and its supporting prototype tool which, based on techniques
from psychology, suggests an appropriate set of groupware tools and elicitation techniques according to
stakeholders’ preferences.
1 INTRODUCTION
Software development in scenarios where
stakeholders are in many geographically distributed
sites, seems to be more common every day. The
multi-site development is a current matter of study
and discussion, especially about people who are
involved in those virtual teams. It is a fact that
during a traditional requirement elicitation process,
stakeholders must face many problems that have
been detected and analysed for decades (Brooks,
1987; Davis, 1993; Loucopoulos, 1995). When
participants are distributed distance affects processes
of communication, coordination and control and has
consequences along all the software development
process
(Damian, 2004), specially during the
requirement elicitation process which is critically
based on communication between stakeholders
(SWEBOK, 2004). In addition to barriers in
communication, other obstacles appear, like
problems in knowledge management, stakeholders’
cultural diversity and time differences between
different sites (Damian, 2002).
There are some areas of research that try to
minimize the impact of these problems. One of them
is the CSCW (Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work), which takes into account both human
68
N. Aranda G., Vizcaíno A., Cechich A. and Piattini M. (2005).
CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS’ FEATURES.
In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 68-75
DOI: 10.5220/0002522900680075
Copyright
c
SciTePress
behaviour and the technical support people need to
work as a group in a more productive way. This
technical support is called groupware and is one of
the main subjects of our study. On the other hand, as
another approach to solve same problems of
distributed requirements elicitation, the use of
Cognitive Informatics is increasing day by day.
Cognitive Informatics (Chiew, 2003; Wang,
2002) is a profound interdisciplinary research area
that tackles the common root problems of modern
informatics, computation, software engineering,
artificial intelligence (AI), neural psychology, and
cognitive science. One of the most interesting things
found in cognitive informatics is that it embodies
many science and engineering disciplines, such as
informatics, computing, software engineering, and
cognitive sciences, which share a common root
problem: how natural intelligence processes
information.
Considering that the quality of the requirements
is influenced by the techniques employed during
requirement elicitation (Hickey, 2003) and the role
that groupware tools play when communicating in
virtual teams (Damian, 2002), we aim at improving
virtual teams performance by applying concepts
from cognitive informatics. We are particularly
interested in some techniques from the field of
psychology, which are called Learning Style Models
(LSM). LSM classify people according to the way in
which they perceive and process information, and
analyse relationships between students and
instructors. Considering that during requirement
elicitation a person acts like student and instructor
alternatively; we propose using LSM as a base for
improving the requirements elicitation process. In
doing so, we propose choosing a set of groupware
tools and elicitación techniques that support not only
the communication itself but also the stakeholders’
preferences.
With this in mind, in the following sections we
present some basic concepts about groupware tools,
and learning style models. In section four, we
describe a model that supports stakeholders’
personal preferences in geographically distributed
processes, and an automatic tool that uses the
previous model. In section five we present some
related works. Conclusions are addressed in the final
section of the paper.
2 CSCW AND GROUPWARE
CSCW is an acronym that refers to research into
experimental systems and the nature of
organizations, while groupware focuses on
technologies (Grudin, 1994).
Generally speaking, groupware is software to
enable communication between cooperating people
who work on a common task. It may include
different communication technologies, from simple
plain-text chat to advanced videoconferencing
(Gralla, 1996). To avoid ambiguities we will refer to
every simple piece of communication technology as
a groupware tool, and to the systems that combine
them as groupware packages.
The most common groupware tools used during
multi-site developments are e-mails, newsgroups
and mailing lists, electronic discussion or forums,
electronic notice or bulletin boards, asynchronous
and synchronous shared whiteboards, document
sharing, chat, instant messaging, and
videoconferencing (Damian, 2002; Gralla, 1996;
Herlea, 1998).
At first glance, groupware tools can be divided
into synchronous and asynchronous; whether the
users have to work at the same time or not (Ellis,
1991). Synchronous tools are, for instance, chat and
videoconferencing, while e-mails, forums, and
document sharing are asynchronous.
Some authors note the importance of using both
types of tools in group work. Asynchronous
collaboration is important because it allows team
members to construct requirements individually and
contribute to the collective activity of the group for a
later discussion. This is significant when groups are
distributed across time zones because of the
difficulty in scheduling real time meetings. Also,
real time collaboration and discussions seem to be
necessary components of group requirements
elicitation sessions, in such a way that, by means of
synchronous tools, stakeholders have the chance of
getting instant feedback (Herlea, 1998).
A second classification of groupware tools can
be made according to the way in which they show
the information. Some of them are based primarily
on images, figures, diagrams, etc., like shared
whiteboards, videoconferencing; while others do it
by predominantly using words, for instance, chat, e-
mails, newsgroups, mailing lists, forums, etc.
3 LEARNING STYLE MODELS
A learning process involves two steps: reception and
processing of information.
During the first step, people receive external
information –which is observable through senses–
and internal information –which emerges from
introspection–, then they select a part to process and
ignore the rest. Processing involves memorization or
reasoning (inductive or deductive), reflection or
action, and introspection or interaction with others
CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'
FEATURES
69
(Felder, 1996; Felder, 1988).
Learning Style Models (LMS) classify people
according to a set of behavioural characteristics
pertaining to the ways they receive and process
information and this classification is used to improve
the way people learn a given task.
These models have been discussed in the context
of analysing relationships between instructors and
students. We have tried to take advantage of this
model and discussions by adapting their application
to a virtual team that deals with a distributed
elicitation process. To do so, we consider an analogy
between stakeholders and roles in LSM since during
the elicitation process everybody “learns” from
others. In this way stakeholders play the role of
student or instructor alternatively, depending on the
moment or the task they are carrying out (Martin,
2003).
After analysing five LSM in (Martin, 2003) we
found out that every item in the other models was
included in the model proposed by Felder-Silverman
(Felder, 1988), so that we may build a complete
reference framework choosing this as a foundation.
The Felder-Silverman (F-S) Model classifies
people into four categories, each of them further
decomposed into two subcategories as follows:
Sensing/Intuitive; Visual/Verbal; Active/Reflective;
Sequential/Global. Each subcategory has the
following significant characteristics:
Sensing people prefer learning facts. They like
solving problems by well-established methods and
dislike complications and surprises. Sensors tend to
be patient with details and good at memorising facts
and doing hands-on (laboratory) work. On the
contrary, intuitive people often prefer discovering
possibilities and relationships. They like innovation
and dislike repetition. They tend to work faster and
to be more innovative than sensors. Intuitors do not
like work that involves a lot of memorisation and
routine calculations.
Visual people remember best what they see (such
as pictures, diagrams, flow charts, time lines, films,
and demonstrations). They prefer visually presented
information. On the other hand, verbal people get
more out of words, and written and spoken
explanations. They prefer verbally presented
information.
Active people tend to retain and understand
information by doing something active with it
(discussing or applying it or explaining it to others).
“Let’s try it out and see how it works” is an Active
´s phrase. In contrast, reflective people prefer to
think about information quietly first. “Let’s think it
through first” is the Reflective’s response.
Sequential people tend to gain understanding in
linear steps, with each step following logically from
the previous one. They tend to follow logical
stepwise paths in finding solutions. They may not
fully understand the material but they can
nevertheless do something with it (like solve
homework problems or pass a test) since the pieces
are logically connected. Contrarily, global people
tend to work in large jumps, absorbing material
almost randomly without seeing connections, and
then suddenly "getting it". They may be able to solve
complex problems quickly or put things together in
novel ways once they have grasped the big picture,
but they may have difficulty explaining how they
did it.
Classification into the different categories is
made by a multiple-choice test proposed by
Soloman-Felder. As a result, each person gets a rank
for each category that suggests his or her preference.
People may fit into one category or the other
depending on the circumstances: people may be
“sometimes” active and “sometimes” reflective. The
preference for one category may be strong,
moderate, or mild. Only when there is a strong
preference, can people be catalogued as a member of
a certain group.
4 OUR PROPOSAL
4.1 The Model
Before proposing a methodology for supporting
distributed elicitation we think it is necessary to
determine the aspects that have to be considered and
the way in which they relate to each other.
With the aim of recommending a set of suitable
groupware tools and elicitation techniques during a
particular elicitation process, we have defined a
model, which is depicted in Figure 1, and whose
primary concepts and relationships are now
described:
Virtual Team
Virtual team (Peters, 2003) virtual community
(Geib, 2004), distributed group (Lloyd, 2002) are
terms used to refer to a group of people who work
together on a project. Their main characteristic is
their distribution over many sites, and the use of
information technology to communicate and
coordinate efforts.
In our model the common project or task which
they carry out is the elicitation process, which is
the process of “extract and inventory the
requirements from a combination of human
stakeholders” (SWEBOK, 2004).
ICEIS 2005 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
70
Stakeholder
A stakeholder is defined as “a person, such as an
employee, […], who is involved with an
organization, […] and therefore has
responsibilities towards it and an interest in its
success” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2004).
Typical stakeholders are users (those who will
operate the system), customers (those who have
commissioned the system), system developers,
etc. (SWEBOK, 2004).
Each person in a virtual team is supposed to play
(at least) one Role during the elicitation process,
and, as it is a person, he or she has some
Personal Characteristics that tell us about his or
her preferences when he/she perceives and
process information.
Groupware Tools
As we have mentioned before, groupware is
software to enable communication. According to
the way in which they show the information,
groupware tools have different Representation
Modes (based on figures or diagrams, or based on
spoken or written words) and different
Interaction Modes (for instance, synchronous or
asynchronous).
Elicitation Techniques
Elicitation is fundamentally a human activity
where communication plays a transcendental role
(SWEBOK, 2004).
Requirement engineers may face some
difficulties, usually because users cannot clearly
describe their tasks, or because they are not
completely disposed to cooperate.
The election of elicitation techniques plays a very
important role in distributed teams. Since face-to-
face interaction is not possible, techniques have to
be adapted to be used in combination with
groupware. Some techniques that seem to be
adaptable to the distributed elicitation process are
question and answer methods, customer
interviews, brainstorming, idea reduction,
storyboards, prototyping, questionnaires, and use
cases (Lloyd, 2002).
Like groupware tools, elicitation techniques have
different Representation Modes (based on
images or based on words).
Relationships between these concepts can be
expressed generally as:
A Virtual Team represents a group of
Stakeholders that work cooperatively on a
common task (which in our case is the Elicitation
Process).
Stakeholders play Roles that imply rights and
responsibilities that have to do with their job.
In our case the roles involved in the elicitation
process are: users, clients, managers, analysts,
project managers, etc.
Stakeholders communicate with each other using
some Groupware Tools and build different
models of a problem using a set of Elicitation
Techniques.
Stakeholder
Role
Personal
Characteristic
Groupware
Tool
Interaction
Mode
Representation
Mode
Elicitation
Technique
1
2..n
1..n
1..n
1..n
1..n
1
1
1
plays
has
has
has
has
Virtual team
uses
uses
a
ccording to
according to
Figure 1: A model to support personal preferences in a virtual community
CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'
FEATURES
71
Groupware Tools, as well as Elicitation
Techniques, are supposed to be chosen according
to the stakeholders Personal Characteristics, in
order to make them feel comfortable and improve
their performance.
Each Groupware Tool has a Representation
Mode (verbal or visual) and an Interaction
Mode (synchronous or asynchronous), which are
important in deciding the suitability for a
stakeholder’s personal preferences.
In a similar way, each Elicitation Technique has
a predominant Representation Mode (verbal,
visual, or a possible good combination of both)
that we will take into account to suggest their use
or non-use.
4.2 Applying LSM to choose
Groupware Tools
In order to support personal preferences, in (Martin,
2003) we have proposed a classification of
groupware tools focusing on Visual/Verbal and
Active/Reflective categories of the F-S model. The
classification is based on the description and the
strategies suggested by Felder and Silverman for
each subcategory. The results of such classifications
are shown in Figure 2. The sign “++” is used to
indicate those groupware tools which are more
suitable for people with a strong preference for a
given subcategory. The sign “+” indicates that a
groupware tool would be mildly preferred by a
stakeholder with those characteristics. Finally, the
sign “-“ suggests that a particular groupware tool
would be “not suitable” for that particular
subcategory.
Also, we have proposed a way of choosing a set
of groupware tools for a given group of
stakeholders. To do so we suggest representing the
information we know about each participant in a
two-way matrix that collects their preferences for
categories Visual/Verbal and Active/Reflective. By
doing so, we can have a view of stakeholders’
preferences in general and, according to the quadrant
that contains more instances, choose those
groupware tools that adapt to most people in the
group. Figure 3 shows an example of such a matrix.
In (Aranda, 2004), we have presented a model
based on fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets, which aims to
obtain rules, given a set of representative examples,
that tell us about the stakeholders’ preferences in
their daily use of groupware tools.
The model takes four inputs (X
1
, X
2
, X
3
, X
4
),
which are the preferences for each category of the F-
S Model, and an output variable (Y) that is the
preference for one of a given set of groupware tools.
For each input variable we have defined a
domain using the adverbs (and their correspondent
abbreviations): Very (V), Moderate (M) and Slight
(S). These adverbs correspond to strong, moderate
and mild, respectively, in the F-S model, but we
have changed their names to avoid confusion with
respect to the use of the first letter.
For instance, the definition domain for the
category Reflective-Active would be: Very
reflective (VRe), Moderately reflective (MRe),
Slightly reflective (SRe), Slightly active (SAc),
Moderately active (MAc), Very active (VAc).
Using a machine learning algorithm it is possible
to obtain rules such as “R
o
: if X
1
is VAc and X
3
is
VVi then y is IM”, which is interpreted as: “If a
user has a strong preference for the Active
subcategory and a strong preference for the Visual
subcategory, the tool that this person would prefer is
Instant Messaging”
In a similar way it is possible to find a suitable
set of elicitation techniques according to the
preferences for each category of the F-S model.
Visual
Verbal
Active
Reflective
Asynchronous
Tools
E-mails
+ ++ - ++
Mailing lists, Newsgroups - ++ - ++
Asynch. shared whiteboards
++
-
-
++
Forums - ++ - ++
Synchronous
Tools
Instant messaging
+
++
++
-
Synch. shared whiteboards
++
-
++
-
Chat - ++ ++ -
Videoconferencing ++ ++ ++ -
Figure 2: Classification of groupware tools according to category’ descriptions of the F-S model
ICEIS 2005 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
72
4.3 A tool to automate the selection
process
As we have previously explained we aim to find a
set of groupware tools and elicitation techniques that
are suitable for a given group of stakeholders. By
trying to do this in an automatic way we have
designed a prototype tool.
By means of our tool, stakeholders are asked to
fill in a multiple-choice test so as to know their
preferences. This information is maintained
throughout the cooperative process.
Once a group of stakeholders is defined and their
preferences detected, our tool analyses them, using
the sets of rules previously generated. As a result it
returns the most suitable groupware tools and
elicitation techniques for that group of people.
The tool’s architecture has been designed
basically on three layers:
Lower Layer – Persistent Data
It keeps the information concerning personal
preferences of stakeholders, rules of suitability
preferences-groupware tools and rules of
suitability preferences-elicitation techniques.
Middle Layer – Application logic
It contains those components that interact with
the database and interface layers in order to find
information and, by applying the appropriate
algorithms, analyses it and produces a suitable
answer.
Upper Layer – User Interface
It is the layer that contains all those components
with which users of the tool interact.
Figure 4 shows a screen of our prototype tool
where three stakeholders (Mary, Tom and Pam) are
interacting.
Information about their predominant personal
characteristics is shown on the upper right hand side
of the screen. On the bottom there are two lists of
suggested groupware tools and elicitation techniques
that would be most suitable for them.
5 RELATED WORK
Some related work concerning analysis of
groupware tools and elicitation techniques in
distributed teams is found in literature:
In (Damian, 2002) a case study is described of a
real multi-site organization that uses a mix of
synchronous and asynchronous tools, like
teleconferencing, a common repository of
documents, email, and other Internet technologies.
The authors collected data from inspecting
documents, observed requirements meetings, and
performed semi-structured interviews with
stakeholders. As a conclusion, some of the points
that stakeholders note as problems –which are
especially interesting for us– are the lack of informal
or face-to-face communication and the difficulty in
sharing drawings on a whiteboard during
spontaneous discussions.
Figure 3: Choosing a set of groupware tools according to F-S Model categories
Pam
Tom
Mary
Asynchronous tools
Synchronous tools
E-mails
Forums
Chat
Videoconferencing
Shared Whiteboards
Videoconferencing
E-mails
Instant Messaging
Strong
Mod
.
Mild
Mild
Strong
Mod
Strong
Mod
Mild
Mild
Strong
Mod
REFLECTIVE ACTIVE
VISUAL
VERBAL
CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'
FEATURES
73
Another example is reported in (Lloyd, 2002)
and shows the results of an exploratory empirical
study about effectiveness of requirement engineering
in a distributed setting. Students from different
graduate Software Engineering courses played the
role of customers or engineers in separate groups.
They used a previously selected set of groupware
tools: audio-conferencing and chat for synchronous
communication, and email for file sharing and
asynchronous discussions. They could do just four
planned audio-conferencing meetings, (no more than
19 minutes each), while the use of other
technologies was not restricted. They were able to
use a wide set of requirement elicitation techniques.
Participants playing the role of software engineers
wrote a Software Requirements Specification (SRS)
document using only the knowledge gained from
remote collaboration with customers. After SRS
documents were produced, a set of metrics was
applied to assess document quality. They concluded
that students who played the role of software
engineers chose the techniques according to
previous experience and instruction in the course.
Data collected suggested that groups producing high
quality SRS were those that had only used the
synchronous tools and did not need to use email and
asynchronous elicitation methods.
Both case studies have interesting points for us.
However, we think that different conclusions could
be reached if aspects relative to personal
characteristics had been applied. Why did students
who wrote the highest quality SRS documents not
need to use email to communicate with their
customers?: It may be because their personal
characteristics were suitable for synchronous tools,
while those who needed email interaction needed
more time to think and prepare questions or answers
so that synchronous communication was not the best
form for them; or it may be that they needed “to see”
the words written, and audio-conferencing was not
appropriate. With reference to the results obtained in
(Damian, 2002), the need to use a whiteboard to
draw during discussions indicates people with a
strong preference for visual tools.
In (Carrizo Moreno, 2004), a survey of works
where theories, empirical analysis and comparisons
between different elicitation techniques is presented.
It focuses on the fact that elicitation techniques are
chosen without having a valid guide to select the
best one.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Today, many organisations have adopted a
decentralised, team-based, distributed structure
where members communicate through groupware
tools. The selection of appropriate technology and
elicitation techniques in such environments is a
subject of study in current literature.
By means of improving communication during
the elicitation process, we think it is possible to
improve the elicitation process itself. When
stakeholders feel comfortable with the technology
and methodologies they use, information gathered
during elicitation is expected to be more accurate.
Figure 4: An interface that shows the suggestions for a particular group of stakeholders
ICEIS 2005 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
74
Stakeholders might feel more comfortable
expressing their ideas and describing facts by using
a tool closer to the way they perceive and reason
about the world.
In this paper, we have proposed a model and its
supporting tool to relate stakeholders' learning
preferences to communication tools and elicitation
techniques – more suitable according to those
preferences. However, an aspect that needs further
discussion is the possibility of solving conflicts
when stakeholders' preferences seem to be opposite.
We are working on that restriction.
Additionally, as a future work we are using this
tool in academic and industrial environments, in
order to evaluate how it behaves in real situations
and analyse its effectiveness in virtual teams.
REFERENCES
Aranda, G., Cechich, A., Vizcaíno, A. and Castro-Schez,
J. J. (2004). Using fuzzy sets to analyse personal
preferences on groupware tools. X Congreso
Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación, CACIC
2004, San Justo, Argentina, pp. 549-560.
Brooks, F. P. (1987). No Silver Bullet: Essence and
accidents of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer
4(20), pp. 10-19.
Cambridge Dictionary (2004). Cambridge Advanced
Learner's Dictionary. Cambridge Dictionaries Online,
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/>. Cambridge
University Press 2004.
Carrizo Moreno, D. (2004). Selección de Técnicas de
Educción de Requisitos: Una Revisión Conjunta de la
Ingeniería de Software y la Ingeniería del
Conocimiento. IV Jornadas Iberoamericanas de
Ingeniería del Software e Ingeniería del
Conocimiento, JIISIC 2004, Madrid, Spain, pp. 159-
174.
Chiew, V. and Wang, Y. (2003). From Cognitive
Psychology to Cognitive Informatics. Second IEEE
International Conference on Cognitive Informatics,
ICCI’03, London, UK, pp. 114-120.
Damian, D., Lanubile, F., Hargreaves, E. and Chisan, J.
(2004). Workshop Introduction. 3rd International
Workshop on Global Software Development. Co-
located with ICSE 2004, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Damian, D. and Zowghi, D. (2002). The impact of
stakeholders geographical distribution on managing
requirements in a multi-site organization. IEEE Joint
International Conference on Requirements
Engineering, RE'02, Essen, Germany, pp. 319-328.
Davis, A. (1993). Software Requirements: Objects,
Functions and States. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Upper Saddle River.
Felder, R. (1996). Matters of Styles. ASEE Prism 6(4), pp.
18-23.
Felder, R. and Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and
Teaching Styles in Engineering Education.
Engineering Education 78(7), pp. 674-681.
Geib, M., Braun, C., Kolbe, L. and Brenner, W. (2004).
Measuring the Utilization of Collaboration
Technology for Knowledge Development and
Exchange in Virtual Communities. 37th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-
38, Big Island, Hawaii, pp. 1-10.
Gralla, P. (1996). How Intranets Work. Emeryville,
California, Ziff-Davis Press.
Grudin, J. (1994). Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work: History and Focus. IEEE Computer 27(5), pp.
19-26.
Herlea, D. and Greenberg, S. (1998). Using a Groupware
Space for Distributed Requirements Engineering. 7th
IEEE Int'l Workshop on Coordinating Distributed
Software Development Projects, Stanford, California,
USA, pp. 57-62.
Hickey, A. M. and Davis, A. M. (2003). Elicitation
Technique Selection: How do experts do it?
International Joint Conference on Requirements
Engineering (RE03), Los Alamitos, California, IEEE
Computer Society Press, pp. 169-178.
Ellis, C.A.; Gibbs, S.J. and Rein, G.L. (1991). Groupware:
Some Issues and Experiences. Comm. of ACM 34 (1),
pp. 38-58.
Lloyd, W., Rosson, M. B. and Arthur, J. (2002).
Effectiveness of Elicitation Techniques in Distributed
Requirements Engineering. 10th Anniversary IEEE
Joint International Conference on Requirements
Engineering, RE'02, Essen, Germany, pp. 311-318.
Loucopoulos, P. and Karakostas, V. (1995). System
Requirements Engineering. New York, NY, USA. Mc
Graw-Hill. International series in Software
Engineering.
Martin, A., Martinez, C., Martinez, N., Aranda, G. and
Cechich, A. (2003). Classifying Groupware Tools to
Improve Communication in Geographically
Distributed Elicitation. IX Congreso Argentino de
Ciencias de la Computación, CACIC 2003, La Plata,
Argentina, pp. 942-953.
Peters, L. (2003). The Virtual Environment: The “How-to”
of Studying Collaboration and Performance of
Geographically Dispersed Teams. Twelfth IEEE
International Workshops on Enabling Technologies:
Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises,
WETICE’03, Linz, Austria, pp. 137-141.
SWEBOK (2004). Guide to the Software Engineering
Body of Knowledge. Software Engineering
Coordinating Committee (IEEE-CS y ACM).
Wang, Y. (2002). On Cognitive Informatics. First IEEE
International Conference on Cognitive Informatics,
ICCI'02, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp. 34-42.
CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'
FEATURES
75