On the usage of context for requirements elicitation: End-user involvement in IT ecosystems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today's systems are faced with the need of constant evolution to remain competitive, especially when looking at IT Ecosystems and their growing number of subsystems. As a prerequisite for these to stay competitive, system providers need a clear understanding of their stakeholder's needs. As systems tend to be increasingly complex nowadays, support an increasingly number of stakeholders, have a shorter release cycles to evolve and need to adapt to the environment and the users, some of the standard requirements elicitation techniques tend not to be suitable any more. Especially when adaptivity is necessary, system providers need to understand the context, in which the systems are used, but also the context of users for the adaptation. In this paper I concentrate on the largest stakeholder group, namely the end-users for requirements elicitation. Evaluation criteria include (i) support of context, (ii) scalability to large numbers of end-users, and (iii) scalability to large numbers of end-user's needs and problems that lead to new requirements. My literature review suggests that this important field is currently underrepresented in Requirements Engineering research. This research proposes to develop a framework that explains the different context types and their role for requirements elicitation. The framework is then used to investigate existing requirements elicitation techniques and their potential for considering context. It is also used to show how emerging techniques can further support requirements elicitation with context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it