Choosing a Creativity Technique for Requirements Elicitation Luisa Mich University of Trento, Via Sommarive 14, 38123 Povo (TN), Italy Abstract Creativity and creativity techniques are relevant for requirements elicitation. There are many different creativity techniques, but these techniques are not used as widely as expected. To investigate the reasons for this situation, we assumed the viewpoint of a requirements engineer looking for decision-making guidelines to facilitate the choice among the considerable number of available creativity techniques. The results of the search highlighted the gap between existing information and what is needed. To this end, we propose a logical framework based on two matrices for choosing creativity techniques and methods in view of their application in requirements elicitation. Keywords1 Creativity technique, creativity method, creativity process, requirements elicitation, classification framework 1. Introduction Creativity plays an important role in requirements elicitation. This fact is confirmed by the large number of papers, books – textbooks, handbooks, proceedings, scientific books – illustrating the need for creativity to support requirements elicitation. The CreaRE workshop itself – dedicated to creativity in requirements engineering – celebrates its 10th edition (https://creare.iese.de); in addition to this there are many other conferences covering requirements elicitation topics (among them, Requirements engineering https://requirements-engineering.org). Literature illustrates the large variety of creativity techniques in general [1], [2], [3], and their application in software engineering [4], in requirements engineering [5], and in requirements elicitation, in particular (e.g., [6]; see also the proceedings of the above cited workshop and conference). In such a context, one would expect that companies would adopt creativity techniques and tools for requirements elicitation in their software and information system projects. However, that is not always the case [7]. Even the most well-known creativity technique, i. e. brainstorming, is used in group requirements elicitation sessions in less than 50% of the projects; and, though it may seem counterintuitive, other creativity techniques altogether are used even less [8]. Subsequently the question arises as to: “Why companies do not apply creativity techniques in their requirements elicitation activities?” and also: “How can we promote creativity techniques in requirements elicitations”? Answering these questions in full requires systematic investigations and surveys. As a first contribution towards that goal, this paper aims to address the following sub-question: “If a requirements engineer (or analyst, or systems engineer or project manager), wants to adopt a creativity technique for requirements elicitation activities, are there recommendations or guidelines to support the choice among the different possibilities”. The paper goes on to offer a preliminary answer to that sub-question. Then, to solve the paradox between theory and practice of the use of creativity techniques in requirements elicitation, we propose In: F.B. Aydemir, C. Gralha, S. Abualhaija, T. Breaux, M. Daneva, N. Ernst, A. Ferrari, X. Franch, S. Ghanavati, E. Groen, R. Guizzardi, J. Guo, A. Herrmann, J. Horkoff, P. Mennig, E. Paja, A. Perini, N. Seyff, A. Susi, A. Vogelsang (eds.): Joint Proceedings of REFSQ-2021 Workshops, OpenRE, Posters and Tools Track, and Doctoral Symposium, Essen, Germany, 12-04-2021 EMAIL: luisa.mich@unitn.it © 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). CEUR Wor Pr ks hop oceedi ngs ht I tp: // ceur - SSN1613- ws .or 0073 g CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org) a logical framework for describing existing creativity techniques. The framework elaborates a preliminary classification (technique vs. method) described in a technical report [9] which I co-authored and that has been read approximately 6,000 times since being uploaded on ResearchGate in 2017. The classification proposed in this paper is grounded in two matrices – including information at different levels of detail – whose content is suggested by requirements elicitation and project management practices. The goal is to help a requirements engineer in identifying the most suitable technique for a given project. 2. Towards a framework for choosing a creativity technique 2.1. Looking for creativity techniques Searching in the literature, a requirements engineer will find a considerable number of books focusing on the origin and the factors of creativity (a well-known handbook is [1]), or on creativity as a driver for innovation in companies [10], [11]. There are also handbooks [12], [13] and websites (e.g., http://creatingminds.org/tools/tools_all.htm) listing a number of creativity techniques (in some cases up to 100!). Focusing on requirement engineering activities, many papers illustrate a specific creativity technique, but there are also papers describing general issues. For example, [14], [15] investigate how creativity is perceived by software engineers. Surveys or review papers are probably more useful for choosing a creativity technique to be adopted in a software or information system project. Among these surveys and reviews, [16], [17] describe a systematic literature review, however the given results cannot be directly applied in a real project. The first review focuses on approaches leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development. The second one investigates the role of creativity techniques in requirements engineering and does not aim to identify nor to describe such techniques. A schema to classify creativity techniques is proposed in [18] and some of the classification criteria are included in this paper’s proposals. In [7] design patterns have been used to describe creativity techniques in order to promote their adoption in requirements engineering. The difference with the framework proposed in this paper is that our framework is based on a two-step description: the first one very light, to maximize the number of creativity techniques in a to-build comprehensive knowledge base; the second, more detailed, to offer a requirements engineer an effective schema to choose among a sub-set of candidate techniques for the given project. Other studies compare a (usually) limited number of creativity techniques; for example, [19] illustrates 4 creativity techniques; finally, some papers compare a creativity technique and a traditional requirements elicitation technique, e. g., brainstorming versus a scenario-based approach [20]. The ‘creative engine’, available at https://becreative.city.ac.uk, includes 23 problem solving techniques. The engine enables techniques to be looked for (a) to be applied in a given step of the creative process, or (b) based on different problem- solving approaches (exploratory, combinational, transformational). Some of the parameters used to describe the techniques are also included in our framework, namely stages (steps) and the indication of the number of participants in a problem-solving session. As regards requirements engineering textbooks and professional books, often they describe a very limited number of existing creativity techniques from the plethora of possibilities, or just one, usually brainstorming. A schema for applying a creativity technique in requirements elicitation is given by Pohl in his textbook [21]; however, such a schema is of little help to choose among existing techniques. Expanding the scope of search, problem-solving approaches also propose creativity techniques (see for example [22], [23], [24]), but their descriptions are possibly (logically and practically) too distant to support requirements engineers in choosing one of them. On the whole, the search for, and in turn, the decision-making scenario for one or more creativity techniques to adopt in requirements elicitation is quite complex. 2.2. A framework to describe creativity techniques One of the reasons that could explain why creativity techniques are not a common practice in requirements elicitation is that available information is not adequate for choosing between different techniques. For a practical classification, we propose initially checking if a given creativity technique also suggests a creativity process. We then call such creativity techniques ‘methods’, to distinguish them from simpler ones. Examples of creativity methods are brainstorming [25], or the 6 Hats [26]. A classical process for a creativity method includes 4 steps: Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, Verification [27]. Most of the creativity enhancement techniques are focused on the illumination step only. Creativity methods cover, albeit in a different way, all the steps. Distinguishing creativity methods is relevant to understand if, and to what extent, the requirements elicitation process has to be adapted to adopt a given creativity technique. A common criterion used to classify creativity techniques is the individual vs group techniques [28], [29], [30]. In fact, there are many techniques that have been designed for group session use (e.g., brainstorming [25]), while others have been introduced for individual application (e.g., creativity pause [31]). However, this classification has been challenged by practical applications, as individual techniques can be applied also in group-work and vice-versa (see for example the experiment for individual brainstorming [32]; or for variations of the more recent EPMcreate [33], [34]). It is subsequently important to know if a creativity technique is an individual or group technique or if it can be applied in both ways. Furthermore, there are many different parameters and information that could be useful in selecting a creativity technique for requirements elicitation. Given the ample variety, the framework illustrates their main advantages and disadvantages as an effective and succinct description. Finally, references to scientific papers, documents and websites, useful for finding more information, have be added; other contacts could also be included, as for example for research groups that defined the technique, or consultants, or experts in its application. The result is a matrix with the fields given in Table 1, partially filled-in to give an idea of its use. The names of the columns define a logical record to create a knowledge base documenting all the available creativity techniques. Table 1 Matrix to describe creativity techniques for requirements elicitation Name Process Group vs Advantages Disadvantages Sources Individual Brainstorming yes both Well known Disregarded [25] High number principles [brainstorming.co.uk] of new ideas Creative no no Simple to Unstructured [31] pauses apply Six thinking yes yes Force to Requires high [debono.com] hats consider abstraction skills [25] available in 5 different languages moods and viewpoints (...) The knowledge base supports the selection of a subset of candidate techniques to be compared in a candidate techniques matrix, as illustrated in Table 2. The matrix includes parameters based on requirements elicitation and project management practices [35]. In the example, the parameters are listed in alphabetical order. Costs comprise all costs included in running the requirements elicitation session when applying the creativity technique; these costs depend on the other parameters: for example, costs for an external expert to act as a facilitator for a group technique, for new equipment (e.g., an interactive whiteboard), software to support the activities included in the technique, training for the analysts, etc. Documentation is useful to know if there is adequate material for the creativity technique (content, languages). Domain is necessary to know if the technique is domain-independent and/or if it has to be adapted to be applied to a specific project domain. Equipment specifies if the candidate creativity technique requires furniture or spaces or instruments. Facilitator indicates the role that is foreseen by many group techniques to guide requirements elicitation sessions. Learning curve indicates the training effort required to be able to apply the creativity technique. Maturity is useful to evaluate the level of risk involved in the adoption of the candidate technique: some creativity techniques have been introduced more recently than others and could be more innovative, but also pose more risk; more importantly, a given technique may have never been applied to elicit requirements. Popularity helps to evaluate requirements engineering commitment in applying a creativity technique: renowned techniques should be more readily accepted, even though in some companies very new techniques could possibly challenge requirements engineering in a positive way. Steps allows specification of which activities may be supported by the candidate creativity techniques adding details relevant for its adoption. For example, a simple technique could be adopted in a pilot project in companies where creativity had never previously been considered; while a fully-fledged creativity method could be more suitable for challenging projects in which new requirements are a must (e.g., a software system for a highly competitive sector). Finally, tool indicates potential software systems supporting the creativity technique candidate’s application. Table 2 Candidate creativity techniques matrix A B C Costs High Medium Low Documentation Also in Italian Only in English Only offline Domain Similar Finance only Equipment Available Facilitator Yes Learning curve Medium Maturity Medium Popularity Low Steps Illumination All Tool No Yes No The candidate creativity techniques matrix can be used to attribute value of increasing precision to the listed parameters: Boolean (to specify if a candidate technique satisfy the attributes); using a Likert scale (giving a numerical score to each attribute in a defined range); giving a textual description of the specific characteristics for, e.g., a list of the equipment, the name of the tools available, number or types of projects where a candidate technique has been applied, etc. 3. Conclusion The goal of this paper is to propose a framework based on two matrices to describe available – although often unknown – creativity techniques and methods in order to promote their adoption in requirements engineering. It is a first contribution towards a description of creativity techniques suitable to support a requirements engineer in choosing between the large number of available techniques. The parameters in the matrices have been advocated by project management good practices and reflect a practical approach. Nevertheless, the two matrices have to be validated and refined. The first one should cover as many techniques as possible. Some of them are variants of the same technique, so that a hierarchical sub-classification could also be added [36]. Moreover, creativity techniques have to be described briefly to be of practical use. Subsequently, following an incremental process, the second matrix allows a requirements engineer to compare candidate techniques chosen from the first matrix, adding more information only for a limited sub-set of the existing techniques. More importantly, such information has to be ‘customized’ according to the project, the company, the sector, the process model, and any other aspect that could affect a successful application of creativity practices. Finally, as creativity techniques can be adopted to support many different activities in requirements engineering, the matrices could also be adapted to include criteria and parameters for those activities. The two matrices framework constitutes the conceptual core of a creativity techniques knowledge base, which in turn can be used to design and implement a knowledge-based decision support system (a KBDSS, [37]). The architecture and the interface of the KMDSS have to be designed (a) to effectively exploit the information in the two matrices, (b) to allow a requirements analyst to adapt them to satisfy a company’s customization and selection process requirements. 4. References [1] R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998. [2] M. Michalko, Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative-Thinking Techniques (2nd Ed), 2006. [3] C. W. Taylor, Creativity: progress and potential, Mc Graw Hill, New York, 1964. [4] A. Amin, S. Basri, M. F. Hassan, M. Rehman, A Snapshot of 26 Years of Research on Creativity in Software Engineering - A Systematic Literature Review. In: Kim K., Joukov N. (eds) Mobile and Wireless Technologies 2017. ICMWT 2017. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 425. Springer, Singapore, 2018. [5] S. K. Saha, M. Selvi, G. Büyükcan, M. Mohymen, A systematic review on creativity techniques for requirements engineering, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV), Dhaka, 2012, pp. 34-39. [6] F. Áldrin Jaramillo, S. Assar, “Leveraging creativity techniques in requirements elicitation: A literature review.” Requirements Engineering Magazine 2016.02 (2016). [7] E. R. Vieira, C. Alves, L. Duboc, Creativity patterns guide: support for the application of creativity techniques in requirements engineering, in: Proceeding International Conference on Human- Centred Software Engineering 2012 Oct 29 (pp. 283-290). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [8] L. Mich, V. Sakhnini, D.M. Berry, Requirements elicitation (ReqElic) in my company: Preliminary results of a questionnaire. Requirements Engineering Magazine 2015 (2015). URL: http://re- magazine.ireb.org/issues/2015-3-thinking-without-limits/requirements-elicitation. [9] C. Anesi, L. Mich, M. Franch, Creatività in azienda: metodi e tecniche per sviluppare la creatività (In Italian), Quaderni DISA, University of Trento, I, 84, 2004. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266197494_Creativita_in_azienda_metodi_e_tecniche_ per_sviluppare_la_creativita. [10] H. Collins, Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. Laussane: AVA Publishing SA. p. 30, 2017. [11] M. Meinel, K. I. Voigt, What do we really know about creativity techniques? A review of the empirical literature. The Role of Creativity in the Management of Innovation: State of the Art and Future Research Outlook. 2017:181-203. [12] G. Aznar, Idées-100 techniques de créativité pour les produire et les gérer. Editions Eyrolles, 2011. [13] K. D. Leopoldino, M. O. González, P. de Oliveira Ferreira, J. R. Pereira, M. E. Souto, “Creativity techniques: a systematic literature review”, Product: Management and Development. 2016 Nov 30; 14(2): 95-100. [14] R. Mohanani, P. Ram, A. Lasisi, P. Ralph, B. Turhan, “Perceptions of Creativity in Software Engineering Research and Practice,” in: Proceedings 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), Vienna, 2017, pp. 210-217. [15] M. Mahaux, A. Mavin, P. Heymans, Choose Your Creativity: Why and How Creativity in Requirements Engineering Means Different Things to Different People, in: Regnell B., Damian D. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7195. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. [16] A. Aldave, J. M. Vara, D. Granada, E. Marcos, Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: A systematic literature review, 2019. [17] S. K. Saha, M. Selvi, G. Büyükcan, M. Mohymen, A systematic review on creativity techniques for requirements engineering, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV), Dhaka, 2012, pp. 34-39. [18] P.P. Grube, K. Schmid, Selecting Creativity Techniques for Innovative Requirements Engineering, in: Proceedings 3rd International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering - Beyond Mere Descriptions and with More Fun and Games, 2008, 32-36. [19] R. B. Svensson, M. Taghavianfar, Selecting creativity techniques for creative requirements: An evaluation of four techniques using creativity workshops, in: Proceeding IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Ottawa, ON, 2015, pp. 66-75. [20] A. J. Franco, G. U. Giraldo, Brainstorming versus a Scenario-based Approach: Results of an Empirical Study, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software and Information Engineering, 2019, pp. 30-37. [21] K. Pohl, Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques (1st ed.), Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2010. [22] E. Mcfadzean, “The Creativity Continuum Towards a Classification of Creative Problem Solving_Techniques”, Creativity and Innovation Management, 2008, 7(3):131–139. [23] R. W. Weisberg, Problem solving and creativity, in Sternberg R. (Ed.) The nature of creativity, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1988, pp. 148-176. [24] S. J. Parnes, Source book for creative problem solving, Creative Foundation Press, Buffalo, 1992. [25] A. F. Osborn, Applied Imagination, Scribner, New York, 1953. [26] E. De Bono, Six thinking hats, Key Porter Books, Toronto, Ont., 1985 (revised and updated edition 2019). [27] G. Wallas, Art of Thought, Harcourt, Brace & Company, New York, 1926. [28] R. P. Bostrom, M. Nagasundaram, Research in creativity and GSS, in: Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kohala Coast, HI, USA, 1998, pp. 391-405 vol.6. [29] K. Wang, J. V. Nickerson, A literature review on individual creativity support systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 74 (2012) 139-151. [30] R. McAdam, J. McClelland, Individual and team‐based idea generation within innovation management: Organisational and research agendas, European Journal of Innovation Management, 2002 Jun 1. [31] L. Székely, “The creative pause.” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 48 (1967): 353-367. [32] S. M. Ritter, N. M. Mostert, How to facilitate a brainstorming session: The effect of idea generation techniques and of group brainstorm after individual brainstorm, Creative Industries Journal, 2018. doi: 10.1080/17510694.2018.1523662. [33] A. Herrmann, L. Mich, D. M. Berry, “Creativity Techniques for Requirements Elicitation: Comparing Four-Step EPMcreate-Based Processes,” in: Proceedings 7th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE), Banff, AB, 2018, pp. 1-7. [34] V. Sakhnini, L. Mich, D. M. Berry, The effectiveness of an optimized EPMcreate as a creativity enhancement technique for Web site requirements elicitation, Requirements Engineering 17, 171– 186, 2012. [35] D. I. Cleland, R. Gareis, Global Project Management Handbook, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2006. [36] K. Holt, Brainstorming - from classics to electronics, Journal of Engineering Design, 1996 Mar 1; 7(1): 77-82. [37] M. R. Klein, L. B. Methlie, Knowledge-based decision support systems with applications in business. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2000.