Advertisement

Applying Distributed Cognition Theory to Agile Requirements Engineering

  • Jim BuchanEmail author
  • Didar Zowghi
  • Muneera Bano
Conference paper
  • 29 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12045)

Abstract

[Context & Motivation] Agile Requirements Engineering (ARE) is a collaborative, team-based process based on frequent elicitation, elaboration, estimation and prioritization of the user requirements, typically represented as user stories. While it is claimed that this Agile approach and the associated RE activities are effective, there is sparse empirical evidence and limited theoretical foundation to explain this efficacy. [Question/problem] We aim to understand and explain aspects of the ARE process by focusing on a cognitive perspective. We appropriate ideas and techniques from Distributed Cognition (DC) theory to analyze the cognitive roles of people, artefacts and the physical work environment in a successful collaborative ARE activity, namely requirement prioritization. [Principal idea/results] This paper presents a field study of two early requirements related meetings in an Agile product development project. Observation data, field notes and transcripts were collected and qualitatively analyzed. We have used DiCoT, a framework for systematically applying DC as a methodological contribution, to analyze the ARE process and explain its efficacy from a cognitive perspective. The analysis identified three main areas of cognitive effort in the ARE process as well as the significant information flows and artefacts. Analysis of these have identified that the use of physical user story cards, specific facilitator skills, and development of shared understanding of the user stories, were all key to the effectiveness of the ARE activity observed. [Contribution] The deeper understanding of cognition involved in ARE provides an empirically evidenced explanation, based on DC theory, of why this way of collaboratively prioritizing requirements was effective. Our result provides a basis for designing other ARE activities.

Keywords

Distributed Cognition Agile Requirements prioritization 

References

  1. 1.
    Bakalova, Z., Daneva, M., Herrmann, A., Wieringa, R.: Agile requirements prioritization: what happens in practice and what is described in literature. In: Berry, D., Franch, X. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 6606, pp. 181–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19858-8_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Inayat, I., Salim, S.S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., Shamshirband, S.: A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 915–929 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers, Y., Ellis, J.: Distributed cognition: an alternative framework for analyzing and explaining collaborative working. J. Inf. Technol. 9(2), 119–128 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nguyen, L., Shanks, G.: A framework for understanding creativity in requirements engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(3), 655–662 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blackburn, T., Swatman, P., Vernik, R.: Cognitive dust: linking CSCW theories to creative design processes. In: 2006 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    White, S.M.: Application of cognitive theories and knowledge management to requirements engineering. In: 2010 IEEE International Systems Conference, pp. 137–142. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen, S.W., Robinson, W.N., Lyytinen, K.J.: Computing requirements: cognitive approaches to distributed requirements engineering. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 5224–5233. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hundal, K.S., Mussbacher, G.: Model-based development with distributed cognition. In: 2018 IEEE 8th International Model-Driven Requirements Engineering Workshop (MoDRE), pp. 26–35. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gopal, D., Lindberg, A., Lyytinen, K.: Attributes of open source software requirements–the effect of the external environment and internal social structure. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 4982–4991. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thummadi, B.V., Lyytinen, K., Hansen, S.: Quality in requirements engineering (RE) explained using distributed cognition: a case of open source development. In: Proceedings of JAIS Theory Development Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharp, H., Robinson, H.: A distributed cognition account of mature XP teams. In: Abrahamsson, P., Marchesi, M., Succi, G. (eds.) XP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4044, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11774129_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharp, H., Robinson, H., Segal, J., Furniss, D.: The role of story cards and the wall in XP teams: a distributed cognition perspective. In: AGILE 2006 (AGILE 2006), pp. 11–75. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharp, H., Robinson, H.: Collaboration and co-ordination in mature eXtreme programming teams. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 66(7), 506–518 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halverson, C.A.: Activity theory and distributed cognition: or what does CSCW need to DO with theories? Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 11(1–2), 243–267 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015298005381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, P.H., Chisalita, C.: Cognition and collaboration: analyzing distributed community practices for design. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2005, p. 2120. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoadley, C.M., Kilner, P.G.: Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities. ACM SIGGROUP Bull. 25(1), 31–40 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blandford, A., Furniss, D.: DiCoT: a methodology for applying distributed cognition to the design of teamworking systems. In: Gilroy, S.W., Harrison, M.D. (eds.) DSV-IS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3941, pp. 26–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11752707_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., Kirsh, D.: Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 7(2), 174–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright, P.C., Fields, R.E., Harrison, M.D.: Analyzing human-computer interaction as distributed cognition: the resources model. Hum. Comput. Interact. 15(1), 1–41 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Racheva, Z., Daneva, M., Buglione, L.: Supporting the dynamic reprioritization of requirements in agile development of software products. In: 2008 Second International Workshop on Software Product Management, pp. 49–58. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R., Mahrin, M.N.: A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization research. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(6), 568–585 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riegel, N., Doerr, J.: A systematic literature review of requirements prioritization criteria. In: Fricker, S.A., Schneider, K. (eds.) REFSQ 2015. LNCS, vol. 9013, pp. 300–317. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16101-3_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995). (no. 1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hutchins, E.: How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cogn. Sci. 19(3), 265–288 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vaesen, K.: Giere’s (in)appropriation of distributed cognition. Soc. Epistemol. 25(4), 379–391 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Racheva, Z., Daneva, M., Herrmann, A., Wieringa, R.J.: A conceptual model and process for client-driven agile requirements prioritization. In: 2010 Fourth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), Nice, pp. 287–298 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/rcis.2010.5507388
  27. 27.
    Al-Ta’ani, R.H., Razali, R.: A framework for requirements prioritisation process in an agile software development environment: empirical study. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 6(6), 846–856 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hall, D.J., Davis, R.A.: Engaging multiple perspectives: a value-based decision-making model. Decis. Support Syst. 43(4), 1588–1604 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Auckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations