IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v4y2001i4p272-286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An investigation of facilitator‐assisted and CONOPS‐based requirements elicitation methods using a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design

Author

Listed:
  • S. Gulu Gambhir

Abstract

System developments are frequently unsuccessful as measured in performance, cost, and schedule dimensions. Previous research has traced many development problems to poor system requirements. A method called Facilitator‐Assisted Requirements Elicitation (FARE), which employs a technical facilitator for discussion of requirements based on a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Matrix, is developed and tested. A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to examine the effects of two independent variables on the FARE method: (1) facilitator presence or absence and (2) CONOPS Matrix or free‐form development. Twenty‐four subjects were randomly divided into four groups. Each group was given the task of developing a set of requirements and recording both a priority and rationale for the inclusion of each requirement. The three dependent variables are Communications, measured by responses to a post‐experiment survey; Requirements Scope, measured by subjective evaluation of requirements sets by an independent panel; and Requirements Quality, also measured by the independent panel. Results indicate a significant improvement in Communications when a facilitator was present. Requirements Scope showed a significant improvement when either a facilitator or the CONOPS Matrix was used, but was degraded when both elicitation techniques were used in combination. A significant improvement in Requirements Quality was observed when the groups were facilitated versus when they were not facilitated. Overall, both the presence of the facilitator and the use of the CONOPS Matrix showed benefits. Degradation in Requirements Scope, observed when both techniques were used in combination, is believed to be the result of the time constraints imposed on the subjects. The results of the experimentation support the use of FARE as an effective approach for capturing requirements early in the development lifecycle, thereby avoiding costly requirements changes. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Syst Eng 4: 272–286, 2001

Suggested Citation

  • S. Gulu Gambhir, 2001. "An investigation of facilitator‐assisted and CONOPS‐based requirements elicitation methods using a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 272-286.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:4:y:2001:i:4:p:272-286
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.1023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.1023
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.1023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael W. Grenn & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2014. "The Requirements Entropy Framework in Systems Engineering," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 462-478, December.
    2. Christopher Durugbo, 2013. "Integrated product‐service analysis using SysML requirement diagrams," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 111-123, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:4:y:2001:i:4:p:272-286. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.