See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326688869

Information Gathering Methods and Tools: A Comparative Study

Preprint · December 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16717.33765

CITATIONS READS

0 26,591

2 authors:

Emoghene Ogidiaka Francisca Ogwueleka

Nigerian Defence Academy Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna, Nigeria
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   278 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Data Security View project

Comparative Study and Evaluation of System Analysis and design (SAD) Methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emoghene Ogidiaka on 30 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author pl
Information Gathering Methods and
note the change Tools: A Comparative Study

Ogidiaka Emoghene* and Ogwueleka Francisa Nonyelum**

There is an immense need to aid the system analyst in the use of appropriate techniques/tools
for specific situations under certain conditions during Requirements Elicitation (RE).
RE techniques, also known as information gathering methods/tools, are methods used by
analysts to determine the needs of customers and users. Techniques that provide safety, utility,
usability, learnability etc. for stakeholders result in their cooperation, commitment and sincerity.
This leads to important requirements being discovered and subsequent project success. This
paper has assessed the most commonly used RE techniques/tools, including interview, Joint
Application Development (JAD), questionnaire, observation, document analysis, prototyping,
introspection, user scenario, card sorting and laddering with emphasis on stakeholders’ perception
rather than the work to be done or the Information Technology (IT) that is involved. The
result shows each technique has its strengths and weaknesses when evaluated against
stakeholders’ perception of safety, utility, usability and learnability. These factors form a guide
that could help analysts to determine the appropriate RE techniques/tools for a given project.

Keywords: Software engineering, Requirements Elicitation (RE), Stakeholders, System analyst,

Information gathering method, System development

Introduction
System development is a crucial task, especially understanding the requirements for
the system to be developed (Tariq et al., 2015). Much of business or technical
requirements are not documented anywhere—it resides in the minds of stakeholders,
in feedback that has yet to be obtained from end users, and from a study of flowcharts
and surveys that have yet to be created (Masters, 2010). The process of understanding
stakeholders’ needs of a system is called Requirements Elicitation (RE) (Al Mrayat et
al., 2013).
RE is also called information gathering (Abbasi et al., 2015). This process is one of the
important phases in system development and relies on the use of appropriate techniques/
tools, which are the means by which system analysts determine the problems,
opportunities and needs of the customers (Khan et al., 2014; and Nisar et al., 2015).
Whenever the analyst lacks the knowledge of the different RE techniques/tools and
characteristics for improved stakeholders’ participation, the activity related to
Author pls provide
designation and * xxxxxxxxxx, Department of Computer Science, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna, Nigeria. E-mail: xxxxx
e-mail id
Information
© 2017 IUP.Gathering
All RightsMethods
Reserved.and Tools: A Comparative Study 1
requirements will fail (Anwar and Razali, 2012). This failure may result in the system
being delivered late, unreliable, costlier than the original estimation and not meeting
user’s expectation (Mulla and Girase, 2012a and 2012b).
As the selection of suitable RE technique/tool is a challenging task, a number of
researchers have proposed several selection guidelines to aid the system analyst during
RE. However, the limitation of these studies is that they do not provide guidance as
presented in this paper. This study provides a detailed review of commonly used RE
techniques/tools, including interviews, questionnaires, observation, Joint Application
Development (JAD), document analysis, prototyping, introspection, user scenario, card
sorting and laddering with emphasis on stakeholders’ perception on safety, utility,
usability and learnability rather than the work to be done or the information technology
(IT) that is involved.
This paper is structured into six sections: Section 1 introduces the study, section 2
offers a review of related studies, followed by discussion on RE techniques/tools in
section 3, and its evaluation in section 4. The results of the study are discussed in
Section 5. Finally, the paper ends with conclusion.

2. Literature Review
The literature review proves that many RE techniques/tools are available and
understanding them is crucial as it helps to identify the appropriate ones to be selected
for a particular project. Yousuf and Asger (2015) categorized the various RE techniques
to include traditional techniques (interview, document analysis, questionnaire and
introspection), contextual techniques (observation and ethnography), collaborative
techniques (prototyping, JAD, brainstorming, requirement workshop, group work and
user scenario) and cognitive techniques (laddering, card sorting, repertory grids, Class
Responsibility Collaboration (CRC) and protocol analysis). These RE techniques/tools
were evaluated by considering their pros and cons as discussed by the authors.
Similarly, Tariq et al. (2015) adopted the same categorization and evaluation of
RE techniques/tools as mentioned by Yousuf and Asger (2015). However, the authors
extended the comparison of RE techniques/tools to include key characteristics that
include physical location, temporal, record keeper, analyst role, convergent/divergent,
anonymity, stakeholder count, tool-based and direct/indirect. In addition, they
introduced a general guideline for selecting RE techniques/tools based on the
situational characteristics (characteristics of participants, characteristics of problem
domain, characteristics of elicitation and process scope of the system) and
communication perspective (conversational or verbal, observational, analytical, and
synthetic) of the various RE techniques. The results of the study showed the strengths
and weaknesses of each of the RE techniques/tools considered.

2 The IUP Journal of Information Technology, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 2017

 Al Mrayat et al. (2013) categorized RE techniques/tools on the communication
perspective of conversational (interview, workshop, focus groups and brainstorming),
observational (social analysis and ethnographic study, observation and protocol analysis),
analytical (requirement reuse, documentation studies/content, analysis laddering and
card sorting) and synthetic (scenarios, passive storyboards, prototyping, interactive
storyboards, JAD/Rapid Application Development (RAD), contextual inquiry and
Appreciative Inquiry (AI)) as adopted by Yousuf and Asger (2015) and Tariq et al.
(2015). However, the study identified six perspectives that influence the selection of
RE techniques/tools, which are stakeholder participation, observable phenomena,
future system knowledge, understanding the domain, identifying sources of
requirements and predictive ability of unique attributes elicited.
Abbasi et al. (2015) took a slightly different approach in the categorization of
RE techniques/tools. They categorized RE techniques/tools into classic/traditional
(interview, survey and questionnaire), cognitive/analytical (card sorting, laddering
and repertory grid), modern and group (brain storming, JAD and prototyping), social
analysis (ethnography, direct observation and passive observation). Similarly, the
comparison of these techniques was based on the type of the elicitation technique
(direct or indirect), type of the data (quantitative or qualitative data), communication
and understanding of the domain.
Kendall and Kendall (2006) categorized RE techniques/tools into two: interactive
methods (interviewing, JAD and surveying people through questionnaires) and the
unobtrusive methods (sampling, investigation, and observing a decision maker’s behavior
and physical environment). Parameters for RE techniques/tools comparison were based
on time/cost consumption, error to data misinterpretation, spread of people in the
organization, number of people involve with system project need for exploratory work
(problem sensing). However, they agreed with the previous studies on the need to
adopt a multimethod approach, where both interactive and unobtrusive methods are
used to approach the organization for a more complete picture of human information
requirements.
Dennis et al. (2012) avoided the categorization of RE techniques/tools. However,
the study observed that the most commonly used RE techniques/tools were interviews,
JAD sessions, questionnaires, document analysis and observation. Similarly, RE
techniques/tools were assessed based on type of information, depth of information,
breadth of information, integration of information, user involvement and cost. Earlier,
the authors noted that no one technique is always better than the others, and in
practice, most projects benefit from a combination of techniques.
Sommerville (2011) described the RE techniques/tools to include interview, scenario,
use-case and ethnography. The study, however, observed domain knowledge is a vital
parameter for RE techniques/tools.

Information Gathering Methods and Tools: A Comparative Study 3

 Ejaz et al. (2016) evaluated 11 RE techniques/tools including requirements reuse,
interviews, brainstorming, role playing, requirement workshop, story boarding,
prototyping, social analysis, introspection, background reading and questionnaire
against time, cost and quality constrains to help the analyst pick the right technique
in a given scenario. The result showed that requirement reuse, interview and
brainstorming perform well if the time is limited. For cost-effective techniques, the
study favored interviews, requirement reuse and brainstorming. Similarly, for
performance constraint techniques, the study favored interviews and requirement
reuse. Role playing and requirement reuse proved to be the most user-friendly techniques
for requirement gathering. Finally, interviews, brainstorming and role playing should
be used if the project is large and complex.
However, all studies reviewed were not comprehensive in the use of pure Human-
Computer Interaction (HCI) metrics for the various RE techniques/tools assessed.
HCI approach lays emphasis on people rather than the work to be done or the IT that
is involved (Sharp et al., 2007). Therefore, this study evaluates different elicitation
techniques/tools based on stakeholders’ perception of safety, utility, usability and
learnability.

3. Requirement Methods/Techniques
The requirement methods or techniques are:
• Interview: An information-gathering interview is a directed conversation with
a specific purpose that uses a question-and-answer format (Kendall and Kendall,
2006). Interview questions can be either closed-ended questions, or open-ended
questions (Sharmila and Umarani, 2011). In closed-ended question, a specific
answer is required. Open-ended question allows for much elaborate answer.
Interview could be structured, semi structured and unstructured (Yousuf and
Asger, 2015). Interview is considered as easy and effective for data sharing and
expressing needs between analysts and stakeholder. However, this technique
could be effortful and cost and time-consuming.
• Joint Application Design: This information gathering technique allows available
stakeholders (project team, users and management) to work together to identify
requirements for the system (Sharmila and Umarani, 2011). In JAD, formal
session with stakeholders could last for days. This technique helps to gather a
lot of information in a shorter period of time. However, too many participants
may slow down the process.
• Questionnaire: A questionnaire is a set of written questions for obtaining
information from a large audience leading to large data (Sharmila and Umarani,
2011). As with interview, question could be open-ended or closed-ended.
If well designed, this technique gathers quality information and saves cost and
time (Shams-Ul-Arif and Gahyyur, 2009). However, this technique could lead
to questions being misinterpreted by respondents.

4 The IUP Journal of Information Technology, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 2017

 • Observation: This refers to the act of watching processes being performed.
Observation is a good way to check the validity of information gathered from
other sources such as interviews and questionnaires (Dennis et al., 2012).
Observation can be done actively or passively (Yousuf and Asger, 2015). Passive
observation is when analyst does not interact with the user while observing.
However, active observation is when the user is interrupted for questions during
observation. Nevertheless, this technique requires the analyst to have knowledge
of observation domain, is time-consuming and users can behave indifferently
when interrupted as in active observation.
• Document Analysis: This technique involves analyzing and gathering information
from existing documents and other related information (Khan et al., 2014). It
rarely involves interaction with a human expert to confirm or add to this
information (Yousuf and Asger, 2015). This technique is adapted when the
existing system needs to be replaced or enhanced (Yousuf and Asger, 2015).
However, this needs a lot of patience from requirement engineers and more
time would be needed to carefully read all these and take into account only
which is necessary (Sharmila and Umarani, 2011).
• Introspection: This is observing one’s own thoughts and inner self (Yousuf and
Asger, 2015). An analyst could develop requirement based on his experience,
what he/she believes to be useful for the user or other stakeholders. There is
almost no cost for implementing this technique (Shams-Ul-Arif and Gahyyur,
2009). However, the technique has the problem that the introspection of an
expert in a different field, such as requirement engineering, is unlikely to reflect
the experience of actual users (Sharmila and Umarani, 2011).
• Prototyping: It is initial product version which is prepared for getting feedback
from stakeholder and make sure changes are incorporated in the next version
(Abbasi et al., 2015). This technique allows users and analysts to get better
understanding of the system. However, in many cases, prototypes are expensive
to produce in terms of time and cost, and this technique is not useful for big
projects (Shams-Ul-Arif and Gahyyur, 2009).
• User Scenario: Scenarios are representation of user’s interaction with the system
(Yousuf and Asger, 2015). It includes whole description of all the processes, i.e.,
starting state, flow of events, concurrent activities, end state, etc. (Yousuf and
Asger, 2015). This technique is useful when the system needs to be described
from the user view point.
• Card Sorting: Card sorting is a technique in which cards are provided to the client
according to the name of domains entity (Abbasi et al., 2015). Card sorting provides
an in-depth understanding of user’s mental model, explaining the way users often
use to tacitly group, sort and label assignments and content within their own mind
(Yousuf and Asger, 2015). However, it requires that the domain is well understood
by the analyst and participants (Tariq et al., 2015).
Information Gathering Methods and Tools: A Comparative Study 5
 • Laddering: In laddering technique, a series of simple questions are asked from
the stakeholders which are answered in a clear way by the stakeholders (Shams-
Ul-Arif and Gahyyur, 2009). They are further required to arrange these questions
in hierarchical structure according to their preferences and understanding (Tariq
et al., 2015). To get good result from this technique, the stakeholders must be
able to express their knowledge and arrange it in a logical way (Tariq et al.,
2015).

4. Comparison of Elicitation Techniques/Tools

Table 1 shows the results of the literature searching on elicitation techniques/tools
based on HCI metrics of safety, utility, usability and learnability. These influential
attributes affect the suitability of RE techniques/tools. Safety means whether the RE

Table 1: Comparison Among Various Elicitation Techniques/Tools

S. Elicitation Literature Support

No. Techniques Safety Utility Usability Learnability
1 Interview
Structured High Low Poor Poor
(Kendall (Kendall and (Kendall (Kendall
and Kendall, 2006; Kendall, 2006; and Kendall, and Kendall,
and Carrizo et al., Sommerville, 2011; 2006; and 2006; Shams-
2014) and Yousuf and Yousuf and Ul-Arif and
Asger, 2015) Asger, 2015) Gahyyur, 2009;
and Yousuf and
Asger, 2015)
Semi- High High Excellent Excellent
Structured (Kendall and (Kendall and (Kendall and (Kendall
Kendall, 2006; and and Kendall, 2006; Kendall, 2006; and Kendall,
Carrizo et al., 2014) Sharmila and and Sommerville 2006; Shams-
Umarani, 2011; 2011; and Ejaz Ul-Arif and
and Yousuf and et al. 2016) Gahyyur, 2009;
Asger, 2015) and Yousuf
and Asger, 2015)
Unstructured High High Excellent Excellent
(Kendall (Kendall and (Kendall and (Kendall and
and Kendall, 2006; and Kendall, 2006; Kendall, 2006; Kendall, 2006;
and Carrizo et al., Sharmila and Shams-Ul-Arif Shams-Ul-Arif
2014) Umarani, 2011; and Gahyyur, and Gahyyur,
and Yousuf and 2009; 2009; and
Asger, 2015) Sommerville, Yousuf and
2011; Yousuf Asger, 2015)
and Asger,
2015; and Ejaz
et al. 2016)

6 The IUP Journal of Information Technology, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 2017

 Table 1 (Cont.)

S. Elicitation Literature Support

No. Techniques
Safety Utility Usability Learnability

2 JAD Low High Excellent Excellent

(Kendall and (Sharmila and (Yousuf and (Al Mrayat
Kendall, 2006; and Umarani, 2011; Asger, 2015) et al., 2013; and
Dennis et al., 2012) and Al Mrayat Yousuf and
et al., 2013) Asger, 2015)

3 Questionnaire High Low Poor Poor

(Kendall and (Yousuf and (Tariq et al., (Shams-Ul-
Kendall, 2006; Asger, 2015) 2015; and Arif and
and Carrizo et al., Ejaz et al., Gahyyur, 2009;
2014) 2016) Tariq et al.,
2015; and
Yousuf and
Asger, 2015)

4 Observation

Active Low Low Poor Poor

(Shams-Ul-Arif (Yousuf and (Yousuf and (Yousuf and
and Gahyyur, 2009; Asger, 2015) Asger, 2015) Asger, 2015)
Dennis et al., 2012;
and Yousuf and
Asger, 2015)

Passive Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

(Masters, 2010; (Masters, 2010; (Masters, 2010; (Masters, 2010;
Al Mrayat et al., Al Mrayat et al., Al Mrayat et al., Al Mrayat et al.,
2013; Abbasi et al., 2013; Abbasi et al., 2013; Abbasi 2013; Abbasi
2015; Tariq et al., 2015; Tariq et al., et al., 2015; et al., 2015;
2015; and Yousuf 2015; and Yousuf Tariq et al., Tariq et al.,
and Asger, 2015) and Asger, 2015) 2015; and 2015; and
Yousuf and Yousuf and
Asger, 2015) Asger, 2015)

5 Document Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Analysis (Yousuf and Asger, (Yousuf and (Yousuf and (Yousuf and
2015) Asger, 2015) Asger, 2015) Asger, 2015)

Information Gathering Methods and Tools: A Comparative Study 7

 Table 1 (Cont.)

S. Elicitation Literature Support

No. Techniques Safety Utility Usability Learnability

6 Introspection Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

(Shams-Ul- (Shams-Ul- (Shams-Ul- (Shams-Ul-
Arif and Gahyyur, Arif and Gahyyur, Arif and Arif and
2009; Al Mrayat 2009; Al Mrayat Gahyyur, 2009; Gahyyur, 2009;
et al., 2013; and et al., 2013; and Al Mrayat Al Mrayat
Yousuf and Asger, Yousuf and Asger, et al., 2013; and et al., 2013; and
2015) 2015) Yousuf and Yousuf and
Asger, 2015) Asger, 2015)

7 Prototyping High High Excellent Excellent

(Carrizo et al., (Shams-Ul-Arif (Shams-Ul-Arif (Shams-Ul-Arif
2014) and Gahyyur, 2009; and Gahyyur, and Gahyyur,
Mulla and Girase, 2009; and 2009; Masters,
2012a; Al Mrayat Ejaz et al., 2010; Mulla
et al., 2013; and 2016) and Girase,
Tariq et al., 2015) 2012a; Khan
et al., 2014;
Tariq et al.,
2015; and
Yousuf and
Asger, 2015)

8 User Scenario High High Good Good

(Carrizo et al., (Shams-Ul- (Sommerville, (Sommerville,
2014) Arif and Gahyyur, 2011) 2011; and Al
2009; and Yousuf Mrayat et al.,
and Asger, 2015) 2013)

9 Card Sorting High High Good Good

(Carrizo et al., (Shams-Ul-Arif (Yousuf and (Shams-Ul-Arif
2014) and Gahyyur, 2009; Asger, 2015) and Gahyyur,
Al Mrayat et al., 2009; and Al
2013; Tariq et al., Mrayat
2015; and Yousuf et al., 2013)
and Asger, 2015)

10 Laddering High (Carrizo et al., High Good Good

2014) (Shams-Ul-Arif (Yousuf and (Shams-Ul-Arif
and Gahyyur, Asger, 2015) and Gahyyur,
2009; Al Mrayat 2009; and
et al., 2013; and Al Mrayat
Tariq et al., 2015) et al., 2013)

8 The IUP Journal of Information Technology, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 2017

technique/tool exposes the stakeholders to dangerous conditions or undesirable
situations. The values for this attribute are “high”, “low”, “medium” and “not applicable”.
Utility indicates how useful an RE technique/tool is in eliciting requirement from
participants’ point of view. The possible values for this attribute can be “high”, “low”,
“medium” or “not applicable”. Usability refers to users’ experience during RE. This
attribute value can be “excellent”, “good”, “poor” and “not applicable”. Learnability
refers to the RE technique/tool that advances stakeholders’ knowledge gain or transfer.
The possible values for this attribute can be “excellent”, “good”, “poor” or “not
applicable”.

5. Results and Discussion

The results showed introspection, document analysis and observation (passive) RE
techniques/tools are not applicable in all four criteria of safety, utility, learnability and
usability. These techniques/tools distance stakeholders from the RE process. However,
when safety is of concern to stakeholder, the analyst should avoid the use of JAD
session as studies have shown that people are more likely to be careful in such a group
technique so as not to upset superior colleagues, and hence is bad for managing
stakeholders’ cooperation and getting an overall understanding of stakeholders’ needs.
In addition, most people generally feel unsafe when actively observed and consequently
behave in an extremely careful manner that could hamper RE process. At the other
extreme, however, interview, questionnaire, user scenario, card sorting, laddering and
prototyping are least likely to create safety concerns for participants because these
techniques are commonly conducted as a series of individual exercises.
Similarly, card sorting, laddering and user scenario techniques provide the best
utility for stakeholders. These techniques have been developed with the aim of
knowledge elicitation and analyze the problem and what is the solution domain
according to stakeholder’s point of view. By keeping stakeholders’ utility high, it is
highly likely that the stakeholders will cooperate and enhance the RE process. Also,
interview (unstructured and semi-structured), prototyping and JAD session provide
best utility as it gives an opportunity to discuss in depth a stakeholder’s thoughts and
get his or her perspective on the business need and the feasibility of potential solutions.
In contrast, structured interview and questionnaire provide the least utility since the
interviewer/analyst supplies the frame of reference for the interviewee/respondents
and are therefore limited in the depth of knowledge they are able to elicit. Also,
observation (active) is not so helpful in understanding the requirements from the
stakeholder’s point of view.
Interview (unstructured and semi-structured), prototyping and JAD session proved
to be the most fun, engaging and user-friendly RE techniques. Building an initial
prototype for the candidate requirements is useful for the customer’s satisfaction and

Information Gathering Methods and Tools: A Comparative Study 9

for maintaining their feedback about analyzing the current work. This process helps
in many ways for updating, modifying or even getting new requirements that the
customer needs. Also, the informal approaches of unstructured and semi-structured
interview and the very interactive exercise of JAD ensure a friendly, engaging
atmosphere for the stakeholders to be at ease during the RE process. However, users
are likely to feel uncomfortable when actively observed by analyst, which consequently
will result in a negative behavioral change and non-cooperativeness in RE process.
Further, the formal approach of structured interview makes the technique boring for
the interviewee. Also, questionnaire lacks real-time user interaction. Card sorting,
laddering and user scenario techniques fall in the middle. People find it easier and
fun to relate to real-life examples via user scenario, while the use of visual aids in card
sorting and laddering make the session engaging and satisfying for participants.
Lastly, for learnability, prototyping technique is the most suitable technique. Since
a working model of the system is displayed, the users get a better understanding of the
system being developed; thus it ensures excellent stakeholders’ learnability. This is
important for generating complete and precise requirements. Other helpful techniques
are interview (semi-structured and unstructured), user scenario, card sorting, laddering
and JAD. Interview (semi-structured and unstructured) and JAD allow for two-way
communication and in-depth discussions that support generation of new ideas and
opinions. Other helpful techniques for learnability are user scenario, card sorting and
laddering. User scenario makes it easier for stakeholders to learn, understand and
criticize a user scenario of how they might interact with a software system. Also, card
sorting and laddering encourage stakeholders to express knowledge in a way that
supports learning. However, the use of structured interview should be avoided since
respondents are not allowed to speak beyond the context and scope of the project.
Rather, in this technique, the interviewer supplies the frame of reference for the
interviewee. Lastly, it is difficult for the participant in questionnaire to delve further
on a topic or expand on new ideas. In the same way, they provide no mechanism for
the participants to request clarification or correct misunderstandings.

Conclusion
Selecting the right RE techniques/tools has a pertinent influence on the quality of a
software system. This paper has assessed the most commonly used RE techniques/
tools, including interview, JAD, questionnaire, observation, document analysis,
prototyping, introspection, user scenario, card sorting and laddering based on
stakeholders’ perception on safety, utility, usability and learnability. Nevertheless, none
of these attributes are applicable to the introspection, document analysis and observation
(passive). The information in this study aids analysts to choose well-suited elicitation
techniques for the phase of RE. While interview, questionnaire, user scenario, card

10 The IUP Journal of Information Technology, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 2017

sorting, laddering and prototyping techniques possess the least safety concerns for the
stakeholders, card sorting, laddering, user scenario, interview (unstructured and semi-
structured), JAD session and prototyping techniques provide the best utility for them.
The results from the study also revealed observation (active), interview (structured),
and questionnaire are the least preferred RE techniques/tools when usability is the
goal. This study saves the analyst a lot of effort and time in selecting the right RE
techniques/tools in different circumstances.

References
1. Abbasi M A, Jabeen J, Hafeez Y, Batool D E B and Fareen N (2015), “Assessment
of Requirement Elicitation Tools and Techniques by Various Parameters”, Software
Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 7-11.
2. Al Mrayat O I, Norwawi N and Basir N (2013), “Requirements Elicitation
Techniques: Comparative Study”, International Journal of Recent Development in
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-10.
3. Anwar F and Razali R (2012), “A Practical Guide to Requirements Elicitation
Techniques Selection: An Empirical Study”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific
Research, Vol. 11, No. 8, pp. 1059-1067.
4. Carrizo D, Dieste O and Juristo N (2014), “Systematizing Requirements Elicitation
Technique Selection”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 56, No. 6,
pp. 644-669.
5. Dennis A, Wixom H and Roth M (2012), System Analysis and Design, pp. 101-
139, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States.
6. Ejaz A, Khalid A, Ahmed S and Cheema M (2016), “Effectiveness of
Requirements Elicitation Techniques in Software Engineering Process: A
Comparative Study Based on Time, Cost, Performance, Usability and Scalability
of Various Techniques”, International Journal of Management, Information Technology
and Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 23-28.
7. Khan S, Dulloo A B and Verma M (2014), “Systematic Review of Requirement
Elicitation Techniques”, International Journal of Information and Computation
Technology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 133-138.
8. Kendall E and Kendall E (2006), System Analysis and Design, pp. 103-150, Prentice
Hall, United States.
Author pls
9. Masters M (2010), “An Overview of Requirements Elicitation”, ModernAnalyst. provoide full ref
com, July, 7.

Information Gathering Methods and Tools: A Comparative Study 11

 10. Mulla N and Girase S (2012a), “A New Approach to Requirement Elicitation
Based on Stakeholder Recommendation and Collaborative Filtering”, International
Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 51.
11. Mulla N and Girase S (2012b), “Comparison of Various Elicitation Techniques
and Requirement Prioritisation Techniques”, International Journal of Engineering
Research and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-4.
12. Nisar S, Nawaz M and Sirshar M (2015), “Review Analysis on Requirement
Elicitation and Its Issues”, International Journal of Computer and Communication
System Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 484-489.
13. Sharmila P and Umarani R (2011), “A Walkthrough of Requirement Elicitation
Techniques”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications,
Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 1583-1586.
Author pls provide
Vol. and No. for
14th ref
14. Shams-Ul-Arif Q K and Gahyyur S A K (2009), “Requirements Engineering
Processes, Tools/Technologies, and Methodologies”, International Journal of Reviews
in Computing, pp. 41-56.
15. Sharp H, Rogers Y and Preece J (2007), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-
Computer Interaction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., United States, pp. 32-60.
16. Sommerville I (2011), Software Engineering, pp. 82-115, Addison-Wesley, United
States.
17. Tariq M, Farhan S, Tauseef H and Fahiem M A (2015), “A Comparative Analysis
of Elicitation Techniques for Design of Smart Requirements Using Situational
Characteristics”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering,
Vol. 6, No. 8, p. 1.
18. Yousuf M and Asger M (2015), “Comparison of Various Requirements Elicitation
Techniques”, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 116, No. 4, p. 1.

Reference # 35J-2017-12-xx-01

12 The IUP Journal of Information Technology, Vol. XIII, No. 4, 2017

View publication stats