Promoting and supporting requirements engineering creativity

Requirements Engineering (RE) is a commencing phase in the systems development life cycle and concerned with understanding and specifying the customer's requirements. RE has been recognized as a complex cognitive problem solving process which takes place in an unstructured and poorly understood problem .context. A recent understanding describes the RE process as inherently creative, involving cycles of incremental building followed by insight-driven econceptualization .of the problem space. This chapter relates this new understanding to various creative process models described in the creativity and psychology of problem solving literature.

A review of current attempts to support problem solving in RE using
various design rationale approaches suggests., that their common major
wealmess lies in the lack of support for the creative and insight-driven problem solving process in RE. In addressing this weakness, the chapter suggests a new approach to promoting and supporting RE creativity using design rationale. The suggested approach involves the ad hoc recording of rationale to support the creative exploration complemented by a post hoc conceptual characterization of the problem space to support insight driven reconceptualization.

Understanding problem solving in requirements engineering : debating creativity with IS practitioners

RE is well-recognised as a creative problem solving activity by the systems development community. However, while substantial research has been conducted and knowledge gained about creativity in the general psychology of problem solving, creativity as it applies to RE remains a relatively unexplored area - one that has neither been comprehensively studied, nor highly recognised, as a research topic of importance. This paper attempts to address the above mentioned gap by presenting findings from a recent focus group study of creativity in RE as perceived by a group of RE practitioners. We provide a conceptual framework for understanding creativity in RE, which may be of use to requirements engineers attempting to enable more creative approaches and results, as well as adding to the existing, limited body of research in this area.

Contextual factors which influence creativity in requirements engineering

In many disciplines, creativity has been recognised as an important part of problem solving. In business, creativity enables the generation of better solutions and provides an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage. In Information Systems (IS) creativity assists developers in finding solutions to difficult problems by helping to efficiently utilise available resources and allows the more effective planning and running of complex projects. One of the most important aspects of IS development is Requirements Engineering (RE), the development activity aimed at understanding the needs and wants of IS customers. While previous RE researchers suggested that creativity is crucial in building high quality information systems, fostering creative outcomes in RE is difficult as it is affected by the multifaceted socioorganisational context within which IS development commonly takes place. This paper reports findings from an empirical study into creativity in RE. Specifically, it reports various contextual factors which were found to influence the creativity of individuals and their teams

Investigating factors influencing the perception of creativity in web design

In many disciplines, creativity has been recognised as an important part of problem solving. In business, creativity enables the generation of better solutions and provides an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage. In Information Systems (IS) creativity assists developers in finding solutions to difficult problems by helping to efficiently utilise available resources and allows the more effective planning and running of complex projects. One of the most important aspects of IS development is Requirements Engineering (RE), the development activity aimed at understanding the needs and wants of IS customers. While previous RE researchers suggested that creativity is crucial in building high quality information systems, fostering creative outcomes in RE is difficult as it is affected by the multifaceted socioorganisational context within which IS development commonly takes place. This paper reports findings from an empirical study into creativity in RE. Specifically, it reports various contextual factors which were found to influence the creativity of individuals and their teams.

Creativity, requirements and perspectives

Is there room for more creativity in information systems? This article grew out of an AWRE'04 panel discussion on creativity in requirements engineering, and the impact of requirements engineering on creativity in systems engineering and systems use. Both panel and article were motivated by the goal of identifying a framework for understanding creativity in a larger context and thus establishing a potential structure for future research. The authors' research backgrounds differ widely and, at times, our views conflict occasionally, quite sharply. We make underlying world views - our own and those of relevant disciplines - explicit; identify the paradox caused by the need to be functionally creative while leaving room for creativity in successive stages; and argue for a multi paradigm framework for resolving this paradox.

Framework for understanding creativity in requirements engineering

Creativity is important in the discovery and analysis of user and business requirements to achieve innovative uses of information and communication technologies. This paper builds a theoretical framework for understanding creativity in requirements engineering. The framework provides a systematic means of understanding creativity in requirements engineering and comprises five elements (product, process, domain, people and socio-organisational context). The framework provides researchers with a sound basis for exploring how the five elements of creativity can be incorporated within RE methods and techniques to support creative requirements engineering. It provides practitioners with a systematic means of creating environments that nurture and develop creative people, cognitive and collaborative processes and products.

A framework for understanding collaborative creativity in requirements engineering: Empirical validation

Requirements engineering (RE) often needs creativity in a form where interactions among stakeholders are particularly important: collaborative creativity. However, few studies have explicitly concentrated on understanding collaborative creativity in RE, resulting in a lack of well-founded advice for practitioners on how to support this aspect of RE. Through an online survey, this paper seeks empirical validation for a framework of factors characterising collaborative creative processes in RE. Within the limits of the validity of the study, the results show support for the utility of the framework: collaborative creativity seems to be a linear function of the mean score to all factors in the framework. Factors can be grouped, and the specific impact of each group on collaboration, value and novelty can be assessed.

Collaborative creativity in requirements engineering: analysis and practical advice

Requirements engineering (RE) often entails interdisciplinary groups of people working together to find novel and valuable solutions to a complex design problem. In such situations RE requires creativity in a form where interactions among stakeholders are particularly important: collaborative creativity. However, few studies have explicitly concentrated on understanding collaborative creativity in RE, resulting in limited advice for practitioners on how to support this aspect of RE. This paper provides a framework of factors characterising collaborative creative processes in RE. These factors enable a systematic investigation of the collaboratively creative nature of RE. They can potentially guide practitioners when facilitating RE efforts, and also provide researchers with ideas on where to focus when developing methods and tools for RE. © 2013 IEEE.

Managing the requirements engineering process

Process management is a crucial issue in developing information or computer systems. Theories of software development process management suggest that the process should be supported and managed based on what the process really is. However, our learning from an action research study reveals that the requirements engineering (RE) process differs significantly from that which the current literature tends to describe. The process is not a systematic, smooth and incremental evolution of the requirements model, but involves occasional simplification and restructuring of the requirements model. This revised understanding of the RE process suggests a new challenge to both the academic and industrial communities, demanding new process management approaches. In this paper, we present our understanding of the RE process and its implications for process management.

Understanding requirements engineering process: a challenge for practice and education

Reviews of the state of the professional practice in Requirements Engineering (RE) stress that the RE process is both complex and hard to describe, and suggest there is a significant difference between competent and "approved" practice. "Approved" practice is reflected by (in all likelihood, in fact, has its genesis in) RE education, so that the knowledge and skills taught to students do not match the knowledge and skills required and applied by competent practitioners.

A new understanding of the RE process has emerged from our recent study. RE is revealed as inherently creative, involving cycles of building and major reconstruction of the models developed, significantly different from the systematic and smoothly incremental process generally described in the literature. The process is better characterised as highly creative, opportunistic and insight driven. This mismatch between approved and actual practice provides a challenge to RE education - RE requires insight and creativity as well as technical knowledge. Traditional learning models applied to RE focus, however, on notation and prescribed processes acquired through repetition. We argue that traditional learning models fail to support the learning required for RE and propose both a new model based on cognitive flexibility and a framework for RE education to support this model.

`Future is old': immersive learning with generation Y engineering students

This paper explores the application of four elements deemed to be essential to immersive learning; immersion, engagement, risk/creativity and agency. The authors discuss the implementation of these four elements within two very different classroom environments, one secondary and one tertiary, to illustrate the importance of students' active participation in the planning, design and development processes of their own learning environments. By transforming both the conceptual and operational environments of both cohorts the authors illustrate the benefits of the development of immersive learning environments. Importantly, such environments must reflect the choices and preferences of the learner as they negotiate their way through the learning journey that best suits their needs. Rather than the imposition of a learning regime considered to be irrelevant, but more importantly 'boring' to the student cohort, the authors argue that immersive learning environments are successful because they are reliant on the students' enthusiastic creation of their own knowledge in collaboration with adults and student colleagues. This study can be applied in all spectrums of education (primary, secondary and tertiary), and in this case, specifically engineering education.

Comparative evaluation of PBL and traditional lecturebased teaching in undergraduate engineering courses : evidence from controlled learning environment

Project and problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely recognised as an active, collaborative, cumulative and integrative learning approach that engages learners, motivates team creativity and centres on practical education. On the other hand, traditional lecture-tutorial teaching is often criticised for being a passive, surface learning and exam-focused approach. In spite of these evidence-based observations and claims over the years, the traditional lecture-tutorial teaching approach still dominates as the preferred teaching approach at Australian universities. This study sets up a control environment to compare these two teaching and learning approaches by analysing data from students' actual performance, course evaluation and expectation in two large undergraduate engineering courses in 2009 and 2010. The evidence reported in this study is broadly interesting in that both courses were taught by the same teaching staff using two entirely different learning and teaching approaches to the same cohort of students in the same semester within the same degree program. The analysis shows that there are significant differences between the students' actual performance, course evaluation and their expectation. Such conflicting differences may be some of the reasons that may negatively impact teaching staff deterring them from switching to PBL from traditional lecture-tutorial teaching.

Best assessment practices of final year engineering projects in Australia

Evaluation of student learning outcomes in fourth year engineering mechatronics through design based learning curriculum

This paper focuses on evaluation of student learning outcomes in fourth year engineering mechatronics through design based learning curriculum. The purpose of all engineering degrees is to provide strong grounding with principles of engineering science and technology. By learning engineering methods and approaches in an academic environment, graduates can enter the world of work and tackle real world problems with innovation and creativity. In many cases, academic staff are responsible for driving and setting high expectations in their classrooms. Sometimes staff are expected to teach subjects outside their expertise. This research paper is concerned with evaluating student learning outcomes through feedback sought from students on design-based learning approach.