Model to Incorporate 'Power' Human Value

Abstract

Integrating human values into software development, particularly in Requirements Engineering (RE), is essential for ensuring systems' alignment with stakeholder concerns, yet this area has not received due attention in research. To bridge this gap,this study presents a model based on Schwartz's value framework, focusing on incorporating the human value of 'Power' into the RE process. This model addresses five sub-values: preserving public image, social power, social recognition, authority, and wealth. Leveraging two focus-group sessions, the model integrates the sub-values of Power using 53 RE practices, 48 identified through a literature review and five from a survey with practitioners. These practices operationalize the sub-values ensuring that critical aspects like public image, recognition, and authority are addressed within the RE process. Preliminary evaluations by an expert panel indicate that the model is comprehensive, practical, and efective. Further validation through real-world testing will assess its impact on RE practices and outcomes.

1. Introduction

The integration of human values into software systems is increasingly recognized as essential. However, Software Engineering (SE) has been slower to adopt this compared to fields such as human-computer interaction (HCI) [ 1 ]. Human values are defined as:

“human values are desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people's lives” [ 2–4 ].

According to Schwartz's theory, human values are standards used to judge the appropriateness of attitudes, traits, or virtues. So human values are “guiding principles of what people consider important in life”. In SE context, human values represent software characteristics considered essential for the stakeholders [ 5 ]. Ten basic human values defined in Schwartz's theory are, i) Power, ii) Achievement, iii) Hedonism, iv) Stimulation, v) Self- Direction, vi), Universalism vii) Benevolence, viii) Conformity, ix) Tradition, and x) Security [ 4 ]. These basic human values are diferentiated based on linked goals, motivations, value items, or sub-values such as authority, wealth, pleasure, equality, and politeness, which are 58 in total [ 1, 3 ]. In SE, these values represent critical software characteristics valued by stakeholders [ 5 ].

Requirements Engineering (RE) is one of the most humancentric activities in SE, involving the critical tasks of discovering, documenting, and maintaining system requirements [ 6 ]. As the most crucial phase of the software development life cycle, the success of a project heavily depends on the efectiveness of the RE process [ 7, 8 ]. There is no standard RE process that fits the context of all organizations [ 10 ]. This process varies depending on the type of system to be (S. U. R. Khan) process [ 9 ].

Existing System

Information Stakeholders'

Needs Organizational

Standards Regulations Domain Information

Requirements Engineering Process

Agreed Requirements

System Specifications System Models process

As can be observed from the figure, the needs of stakeholders are one of the significant inputs of the RE process that, together with the other inputs, necessitates the incorporation of human values in the RE process. Therefore, integrating human values into software development is vital to satisfy stakeholder needs. However, developing methodological approaches that allow systematic integration of human values throughout the software development life cycle is an open challenge [ 12 ].

Ignoring these values can lead to severe economic and reputational damage, as seen in the Volkswagen emissions scandal and the Cambridge Analytica case [ 1 ]. In SE research, limited attention has been given to addressing human values, especially, SE research has not thoroughly investigated all of the values in Schwartz's model, and only a limited number of human values have been investigated e.g., security and privacy [ 13, 14 ]. In a literature survey conducted on papers published between 2015 and 2018, the authors revealed that out of 1350 retrieved papers, only 216 (16%) were directly relevant to human values [ 14 ].

The demand for software that accounts for human values, such as social justice, privacy, and equality, is increasing. For example, following a strong objection from its employees, Google had to pledge that its AI will no longer be used CEUR Workshop Proceedings

ceur-ws.org ISSN1613-0073 in military equipment that violates international norms or goes against human rights [ 15 ].

It is clear from the RE literature that understanding user beliefs and values is vital to the success of software development. The London Ambulance service is an example of system failure caused partly by an inadequate understanding of ambulance crews' motivations, values of self-esteem and autonomy, and the emotional reaction to lack of involvement in the requirements process, leading to technology failure [ 20 ]. Incorporating human values into software development is crucial, but various challenges make it dificult. One of the biggest challenges is the lack of techniques to integrate these values into the development process [ 16–18 ]. This fact highlights the need for SE research to focus on ifnding ways to incorporate human values into software development. Taking human values into account during software development can increase technology acceptance and reduce negative social implications. However, critical human values often get ignored during requirements analysis and specification [ 19 ]. Detweiler and Harbers explain this ignorance as “thinking about values is not a common practice in RE” [ 21 ]. However, to address human values in software, it is necessary to capture them in the requirements during the RE activities [ 5 ].

This study proposes a RE practices-based model to enrich the RE process with 'Power' human value, one of the ten basic human values according to Schwartz's theory [ 1, 2 ]. The motivation for suggesting the model to incorporate 'Power' human value into the RE process is based on the verity that 'Power' provides Requirements Engineers and Project Managers essential control and authority over the people and resources that are involved in the RE process, as mentioned by Schwartz [ 4 ] “Power refers to social status, prestige, and control or dominance over the people and resources.” 'Power' human value is subdivided into five subvalues that are: i) Preserving public image, ii) Social power, iii) Social recognition, iv) Authority, and v) Wealth [ 3 ]. The proposed model recommends RE practices to incorporate 'Power' sub-values into the RE process.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: related work is presented in Section 2, research methodology is described in Section 3, whereas formulation of the RE model with Power values is explained in Section 4, and how the model was evaluated is discussed in Section 5. Study limitations are outlined in Section 6, and the paper is concluded in Section 7. Future work is outlined in Section 8 and the availability of survey date is listed in Section 9.

2. Related Work

This section reviews the integration of human values into RE, covering methods, empirical investigations, and literature reviews.

Methods for Integrating Human Values: Several methods have been proposed for embedding human values in RE. Detweiler and Harbers [ 21 ] introduced value story workshops to help engineers and stakeholders identify and prioritize values, finding these workshops produced user stories that better reflected values compared to traditional methods. With the help of 14 experts, Harbers et al. [ 22 ] further studied the efectiveness of value story workshops concerning the adequacy of values and usability for developers. The authors revealed that values are better incorporated in user stories obtained in a value story workshop than the user stories obtained in a regular requirement elicitation workshop. Proynova et al. [ 25 ] suggested a value elicitation approach to complement existing RE techniques, though it lacks empirical validation. Duboc et al. [ 23 ] emphasized addressing power dynamics in RE, advocating for broader stakeholder engagement to align system goals. Lopes and Forster [ 27 ] proposed a method to reduce human errors in RE through an expert system based on human error theories.

Empirical Investigations: Empirical studies have explored the impact of human values on RE. Perera et al. [ 5 ] surveyed 56 practitioners and concluded that explicitly considering human values could enhance feature alignment and connection with stakeholders. Alsanoosy et al. [ 26 ] studied the influence of power distance on RE, finding that this cultural dimension afects collaboration diferently across cultures, impacting aspects such as decision-making and trust.

Literature Reviews: Hidellaarachchi et al. [ 6 ] conducted a systematic review of 74 studies, finding that communication is the most studied human aspect in RE and suggesting that a broader analysis of human aspects could enhance understanding. Alsanoosy et al. [ 24 ] reviewed the impact of culture on RE, identifying 16 cultural traits and emphasizing the dominance of power and the need for more empirical research.

Summary: From the related work discussion, it can be observed that various authors investigated human values in the RE, and most agreed on the significance of human values in the RE process. The authors highlighted that considering human values in RE is a less researched area [ 24 ]. Existing RE paradigms need more guidance on human values, especially considering soft issues compared to quality aspects, which is rare in the existing RE practices [ 5 ]. Among the human values, communication [ 6 ] and Power [ 23, 24, 26 ] are significant as both impact the RE process. Considering the significance of Power value, a model has been proposed to incorporate the sub-values of Power in the RE process. From the perspective of the study focus, this study extends the work of Duboc et al. [ 23 ] and Alsanoosy et al. [ 26 ] by proposing a model that integrates the sub-values of Power into RE practices, providing new practical insights into the operationalization of Power in RE.

3. Research Methodology

To ensure the accuracy and consistency of the data extracted from the literature, the first and second authors reviewed each other's data extraction. Problems were discussed and jointly resolved. Finally, the third author performed a random check of the extracted data.

Step 2 - First questionnaire survey to identify additional RE practices: A questionnaire-based survey was performed to identify additional RE practices to incorporate the sub-values of Power into the RE process. Guidelines provided by Kitchenham & Pfleeger [ 31 ] have been used to design and conduct the survey.

The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part aimed to collect data about the respondents’ background (i.g., experience, job nature, and respective companies). The second part was meant for data collection of additional RE practices, it listed the sub-values of Power and respective RE perspectives. Respondents were requested to recommend the RE practices for incorporating respective sub-values of Power into the RE process. With the help of five fellow researchers, two pilot studies have also been conducted to assess the quality of the questionnaire. The recommendations for improvement have been accommodated before launching the survey.

Using the convenience sampling method, the questionnaire was distributed to 105 professionals. The survey respondents are analysts, architects, project managers, quality assurance managers, requirements engineers, and team leaders with at least three years of industry experience. The questionnaire was distributed and collected using a Drop-of/Pick-up method [ 32 ]. The reason for choosing Drop-of/Pick-up is that there are more chances of getting a higher response rate through this method [ 33 ]. In this case, seventy-four respondents (70.48%) returned the filled questionnaires, of which four were discarded because of ambiguous responses.

Step 3 & 4 - Focus group sessions to map RE practices: To integrate Power sub-values into RE practices, two focus group sessions were conducted inspired by the approach followed in [ 29 ] and following the guidelines provided in [ 30 ]. Three experts participated in these sessions: two requirements engineers with four and eight years of experience, and a system analyst with eleven years of experience.

In the first session, literature-based RE practices were mapped to Power sub-values, creating a foundational framework for value integration. The second focus group was held after an industry survey, allowing to refine the framework. During this session, terminology was clarified, similar practices were merged, and additional RE practices were aligned with the relevant Power sub-values. This discussion addressed ambiguities and ensured a comprehensive alignment of concepts.

Together, these sessions resulted in a structured, valuedriven RE framework based on Power sub-values.

Step 5 - Model evaluation through second questionnaire survey: Based on the criteria of Comprehensiveness, Practicality, and Efectiveness, an expert panel of SE academic researchers evaluated the proposed model through an online survey, since the evaluation through experts is common in SE research [ 34 ].

The proposed model, a link to the online survey questionnaire, and related information were emailed to the experts. The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part aims to collect data about the experts' background and the second part is meant for the evaluation of the model. A pilot study has also been conducted to assess the quality of the questionnaire and the recommendations have been accommodated before launching the evaluation.

Using the convenience sampling method, ten experienced academic researchers with at least ten years of experience were invited to evaluate the model. However, three of them showed their willingness to participate in the evaluation. One of the reasons for the low response to the model's evaluation was the topic's newness.

4. Model Formulation

The purpose of the proposed model is to facilitate the incorporation of 'Power' sub-values [ 1, 3 ] into the RE process.

From the RE perspective, these sub-values can be clarified as follows:

RE-Pers1 - Incorporating “Preserving public image (PSV1)”, implies that the RE process must have a good general impression to all the stakeholders, and further, the RE process must have the capacity to meet the legitimate expectations of all the stakeholders.

RE-Pers2 - Incorporating “Social power (PSV2)” means that the RE process must provide and/or support mechanisms, rules, and ways for carrying out all the required activities to achieve objectives.

RE-Pers3 - Incorporating “Social recognition (PSV3)” means that all the stakeholders must be ready to follow mechanisms and rules provided and/or supported by the RE process. Further, all the stakeholders must be encouraged to carry out all the associated RE process activities.

RE-Pers4 - Incorporating “Authority (PSV4)” requires that the RE process must have the capacity to ensure the smooth and continuous conduction of all the required activities. Further, the RE process must be able to control all the resources.

RE-Pers5 - Incorporating “Wealth (PSV5)” means that the RE process must possess all the necessary resources to carry out required activities. Furthermore, the RE process must provide the mechanisms to utilize the resources as and when required.

Considering these perceptions, Table 1 presents the proposed RE practices-based model to incorporate the subvalues of Power into the RE process. PSV1, PSV2, PSV3, PSV4, and PSV5 represent the five sub-values of Power. The graphical representation of the proposed model is presented in Figure 3. To incorporate the sub-values of Power into the RE process, 48 relevant RE practices have been explored from the literature. Such practices have been represented by PIL1, PIL2, …, and PIL48 in Tables 2 to 6. Five additional RE practices have been discovered through the questionnaire survey with industry practitioners. Such RE practices have been denoted by PIP1, PIP2, …, and PIP5 and are presented in Tables 2 (PIP1), 3 (PIP2, PIP3), 5 (PIP4) & 6 (PIP5). The RE practices in the case of each sub-value are presented in the succeeding paragraphs.

RE practices to incorporate PSV1 – Preserving public image: The RE practices to integrate 'preserving public image' sub-value into the RE process are given in Table 2.

The 10 RE practices have been recommended for this purpose. Out of 10 RE practices, nine have been explored from the literature, and the industry practitioners have recommended only one. The practices focus on identifying and involving stakeholders, knowing stakeholders' objectives, informing stakeholders about changes in requirements, and building consensus among the stakeholders. Various measures have also been suggested, like using scales to measure average time for meeting expectations, specifying requirements quantitatively, appointing a communication channel for each unit, and using an awareness support system.

RE practices to incorporate PSV2 – Social power: The RE practices incorporating 'social power' sub-value have been presented in Table 3. There are 13 RE practices to integrate this sub-value into the RE process. The 11 practices have been extracted from the literature, whereas practitioners have suggested 2. The practices emphasize organizing face-to-face meetings frequently, defining roles, conflict resolution, reviewing progress, and encouraging communication. According to recommended practices making overlapped-work teams, 'around the clock' working capacity, flextime, overtime, telework, long working hours, and unrestricted working hours improve 'social power'.

RE practices to incorporate PSV3 – Social recognition: Table 4 provides 8 RE practices suggested for 'social recognition'. The practices concentrate on informal discussions, using standard communication language, enabling online collaboration, persuading stakeholders to reveal issues, and building consensus. Spelling out processes, policies, glossaries, and notations is pivotal to integrating 'social recognition' into the RE process. Another crucial factor for this purpose is understanding and adopting stakeholders' cultures as much as possible.

RE practices to incorporate PSV4 – Authority: Eleven RE practices for having 'authority' are given in Table 5. Ten practices have been taken from the literature, and industry professionals have proposed one. This is evident from Table 5 that RE practices to exercise 'authority' suggest comprehended RE processes, agreed-upon responsibilities, authoritative leadership, well-defined organizational structure, written agreements, applying metrics, and reviewing progress. Conflict resolution and sharing information only with related people are also vital to have 'authority'.

RE practices to incorporate PSV5 – Wealth: Table 6 presents the 15 RE practices that exhibit the Power value 'wealth'. Of these 15 RE practices, 14 have been explored from the literature, and industry practitioners have proposed one. The practices for demonstration of 'wealth' recommend acquiring appropriate communication infrastructure, awareness support system, requirements management system, translation services, cultural liaisons, synchronous communication recording system, and 'proximity development centers' in case of distributed software development.

The capabilities to benefit from experienced practitioners, data dictionaries, multi-disciplinary teams, validation checklists, and simulations also demonstrate 'wealth' sub-values.

RE Practices Having clearly delineated and comprehended requirements engineering processes [ 59 ].

Having clearly defined and agreed responsibilities for individuals and groups [ 59 ].

Selecting authoritative leadership at project and team levels [ 59 ].

Forming a well-defined organizational structure with clear communication responsibilities [ 48 ].

Reaching written and properly documented agreements [ 60 ].

Designing metrics to measure performance [ 38 ].

Reviewing and communicating progress on mutually agreed upon artefacts regularly [ 48 ].

Enhancing the progress tracking/visibility by increasing the number of RE deliverables [ 38 ].

Organizing teams in a way that their work overlaps so that team members understand each other's responsibilities [ 51 ]. Plan for conflicts identification & resolution [ 35 ].

Sharing requirements related information only with concerned stakeholders [Proposed].

5. Model Evaluation

Three senior software engineering researchers, E1, E2, and E3 evaluated the proposed model based on Comprehensiveness, Practicality, and Efectiveness criteria. E1 is an associate professor with 13 years of experience, E2 a professor with 17 years of experience, and E3 an assistant professor with 11 years of experience, all actively involved in requirements engineering research. It is evident from the literature that several studies employ a few experts for evaluation [ 72, 73 ].

Comprehensiveness means that the model contains all the 'Power' sub-values and necessary RE practices to incorporate sub-values into the RE process. Practicality means that 'Power' sub-values have been clearly defined, and recommended sets of RE practices can be easily adapted. Effectiveness means in the case of each 'Power' sub-value, the recommended set of RE practices is useful enough for incorporating 'Power' sub-values into the RE process, and the proposed model is useful enough for incorporating 'Power' sub-values into the RE process. This study employs a sevenpoint Likert scale to evaluate the three criteria: i). Agree Strongly (1), ii). Agree Moderately (2), iii). Agree Slightly (3), iv). Neither Agree nor Disagree (4), v). Disagree Slightly (5), vi). Disagree Moderately (6), vii). Disagree Strongly (7). Table 7 presents the evaluation results. Table 8 shows pairwise values of the Kappa coeficient employed to assess the level of agreement among the three experts. This proves the attainment of three defined criteria as the value of Kappa Coeficient equal to or greater than 0.60 is acceptable [ 74 ].

6. Study limitations

The formulation of the RE practice model followed a rigorous approach. However, the evaluation of the proposed model was not as rigorous as desired, as only three experts evaluated it. Furthermore, to measure its impact on RE practice, the model needs to be evaluated in the industry.

7. Conclusions

This study investigated the possibility of integrating 'Power' human value into the RE process. According to Schwartz's theory, Power is divided into five sub-values, including i) public image presentation, ii) social power, iii) authority, iv) wealth, and v) social identity.

Based on 53 RE practices, this study presented a model incorporating the sub-values of Power into the RE process. Of the 53 RE practices, 48 were discovered from the literature, and five additional RE practices were identified through the questionnaire survey. Mapping of Power sub-values in the RE process was carried out in two focus group sessions.

Academic experts evaluated the proposed model and according to the evaluation results, the model is comprehensive, practical, and efective in incorporating the Power sub-values into the RE process. Therefore, it contributes to an efective RE process and overcomes various problems that may occur due to neglecting Power human values in the RE process.

8. Future work

The authors plan to evaluate the model in industry and refine it based on the feedback results of actual use. Further, the model will be refined in future work by considering the software process models, project size, or software type.

9. Data Availability

The survey questionnaires and responses to first survey questionnaire are available at [ 75 ].

References

[1] Whittle , Jon, Maria Angela Ferrario, Will Simm, and Waqar Hussain. ”A case for human values in software engineering . ” IEEE Software 38, no. 1 ( 2019 ): 106 - 113 .

[2] Shahin , Mojtaba, Waqar Hussain, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Harsha Perera, Rifat Shams, John Grundy, and Jon Whittle. ” Operationalizing Human Values in Software Engineering: A Survey.” IEEE Access 10 ( 2022 ): 75269 - 75295

[3] Hussain , Waqar, Mojtaba Shahin, Rashina Hoda, Jon Whittle, Harsha Perera, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Rifat Ara Shams, and Gillian Oliver. ” How can human values be addressed in agile methods a case study on safe . ” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( 2022 ).

[4] Schwartz , Shalom H. ” An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values.” Online readings in Psychology and Culture 2 , no. 1 ( 2012 ): 2307 - 0919 .

[5] Perera , Harsha, Rashina Hoda, Rifat Ara Shams, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Mojtaba Shahin, Waqar Hussain, and Jon Whittle. ” The impact of considering human values during requirements engineering activities . ” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.15293 ( 2021 ).

[6] Hidellaarachchi , Dulaji, John Grundy, Rashina Hoda, and Kashumi Madampe. ” The efects of human aspects on the requirements engineering process: A systematic literature review . ” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( 2021 ).

[7] Bhat , Jyoti M. , Mayank Gupta , and Santhosh N. Murthy . ” Overcoming requirements engineering challenges: Lessons from ofshore outsourcing . ” IEEE software 23, no. 5 ( 2006 ): 38 - 44 .

[8] Edwards , H. K. , & Sridhar , V. ( 2005 ). Analysis of software requirements engineering exercises in a global virtual team setup . Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM) , 13 ( 2 ), 21 - 41 .

[9] Sommerville , I. , & Kotonya , G. ( 1998 ). Requirements engineering: processes and techniques : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[10] Belsis , P. , Koutoumanos , A. , & Sgouropoulou , C. ( 2014 ). PBURC: a patterns-based, unsupervised requirements clustering framework for distributed agile software development . Requirements engineering , 19 ( 2 ), 213 - 225 .

[11] Prikladnicki , R. , Evaristo , R. , Gallagher , K. , Lopes , L. T. , & Audy , J. L. N. ( 2005 ). The Role of Culture in Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methodological Issues in an Exploratory Study of Cross-Cultural Distributed Software Development. the 13th Special Interest Group on Cross-Cultural Research in Information Systems (SIGCCRIS) at ICIS , Las Vegas.

[12] Perera , Harsha, Gunter Mussbacher, Waqar Hussain, Rifat Ara Shams, Arif Nurwidyantoro, and Jon Whittle. ” Continual human value analysis in software development: A goal model based approach .” In 2020 IEEE 28th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) , pp. 192 - 203 . IEEE, 2020 .

[13] Hussain , Waqar, Harsha Perera, Jon Whittle, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Rashina Hoda, Rifat Ara Shams, and Gillian Oliver. ” Human values in software engineering: Contrasting case studies of practice . ” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( 2020 ).

[14] H. Perera , W. Hussain , J. Whittle , A. Nurwidyantoro , D. Mougouei , R. A. Shams , and G. Oliver, “ A study on the prevalence of human values in software engineering publications, 2015 - 2018 ,” in Proceedings of The 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering , 2020 .

[15] S. Shane and D. Wakabayashi. ( 2018 , Apr) The business of war: Google employees protest work for the pentagon . [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/ 2018 /04/04/technology/google -letter-ceopent agon-project .html

[16] D. Mougouei , H. Perera , W. Hussain , R. Shams , and J. Whittle , “ Operationalizing human values in software: A research roadmap ,” in Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering - ESEC/FSE 2018 , 2018 , pp. 780 - 784

[17] H. Perera , “ Towards human values traceability in software: A goal modeling approach,” in Proceeding of the 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) . IEEE, 2019 , pp. 446 - 451 .

[18] E. Winter , S. Forshaw , and M. A. Ferrario , “ Measuring human values in software engineering ,” in Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM , 2018 , p. 48 .

[19] Mussbacher , Gunter, Waqar Hussain , and Jon Whittle. ” Is there a need to address human values in domain modelling? . ” In 2020 IEEE Tenth International ModelDriven Requirements Engineering (MoDRE) , pp. 73 - 77 . IEEE, 2020 .

[20] Sutclife , Alistair, and Sarah Thew. ” Analysing” people” problems in requirements engineering .” In 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering , vol. 2 , pp. 469 - 470 . IEEE, 2010 .

[21] C. Detweiler and M. Harbers , “ Value stories: Putting human values into requirements engineering .” in REFSQ Workshops , 2014 , pp. 2 - 11 .

[22] Harbers , Maaike, Christian Detweiler , and Mark A. Neerincx . ” Embedding stakeholder values in the requirements engineering process .” In International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality , pp. 318 - 332 . Springer, Cham, 2015 .

[23] Duboc , Leticia, Curtis McCord , Christoph Becker , and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. ” Critical requirements engineering in practice . ” IEEE Software 37, no. 1 ( 2019 ): 17 - 24 .

[24] Alsanoosy , Tawfeeq, Maria Spichkova , and James Harland. ” Cultural influence on requirements engineering activities: a systematic literature review and analysis . ” Requirements Engineering 25 , no. 3 ( 2020 ): 339 - 362 .

[25] Proynova , Rumyana, Barbara Paech, Andreas Wicht, and Thomas Wetter. ” Use of personal values in requirements engineering-a research preview .” In International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality , pp. 17 - 22 . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010 .

[26] Alsanoosy , Tawfeeq, Maria Spichkova , and James Harland. ” The influence of power distance on requirements engineering activities . ” Procedia Computer Science 159 ( 2019 ): 2394 - 2403 .

[27] Lopes , Milene Elizabeth Rigolin Ferreira, and Carlos Henrique Quartucci Forster. ” Application of human error theories for the process improvement of Requirements Engineering .” Information Sciences 250 ( 2013 ): 142 - 161 .

[28] Wohlin , Claes. ” Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering .” In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering , pp. 1 - 10 . 2014 .

[29] Minhas , Nasir Mehmood , Kai Petersen, Nauman bin Ali, and Krzysztof Wnuk. ” Regression testing goalsview of practitioners and researchers .” In 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Workshops (APSECW) , pp. 25 - 31 . IEEE, 2017 .

[30] Kontio , Jyrki, Johanna Bragge , and Laura Lehtola. ” The focus group method as an empirical tool in software engineering .” Guide to advanced empirical software engineering . London: Springer London, 2008 . 93 - 116 .

[31] Kitchenham , B. A. , & Pfleeger , S. L. ( 2008 ). Personal opinion surveys Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering (pp. 63 - 92 ): Springer.

[32] Steele , J. , Bourke , L. , Lulof , A. , Liao , P.-S., Theodori , G. L. , & Krannich , R. S. ( 2001 ). The drop-of/pick-up method for household survey research . Community Development , 32 ( 2 ), 238 - 250 .

[33] Allred , S. B. , & Ross-Davis , A. ( 2011 ). The drop-of and pick-up method: An approach to reduce nonresponse bias in natural resource surveys . Small-Scale Forestry , 10 ( 3 ), 305 - 318 .

[34] Beecham , S. , Hall, T. , Britton , C. , Cottee , M. , & Rainer , A. ( 2005 ). Using an expert panel to validate a requirements process improvement model . Journal of Systems and Software , 76 ( 3 ), 251 - 275

[35] Iqbal , J. , Ahmad , R. , Nizam , M. H. , Nasir , M. , & Noor , M. A. Significant requirements engineering practices for software development outsourcing . In: 22nd Australian Software Engineering Conference; 2013; Melbourne , Australia: IEEE. p. 137 - 144 .

[36] Lohmann , S. , Ziegler , J. , & Heim , P. ( 2008 ). Involving end users in distributed requirements engineering Engineering Interactive Systems (pp. 221 - 228 ): Springer.

[37] Bhat , J. M. , Gupta , M. , & Murthy , S. N. ( 2006 ). Overcoming requirements engineering challenges: Lessons from ofshore outsourcing . Software , IEEE, 23 ( 5 ), 38 - 44 .

[38] Paré , G. , & Dubé , L. ( 1999 , January). Virtual teams: an exploratory study of key challenges and strategies . In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems(ICIS1999) (pp. 479 - 483 ). Association for Information Systems (AISeL).

[39] Al-Ani , B. , Bietz , M. J. , Wang , Y. , Trainer , E. , Koehne , B. , Marczak , S. , . . . Prikladnicki , R. ( 2013 ). Globally distributed system developers: their trust expectations and processes . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work.

[40] Gumm , D. C. ( 2007 ). A Model of Requirements Engineering at Organizational Interfaces: An Empirical Study on Distributed Requirements Engineering . In WORKSHOP , 2007 .

[41] Calefato , F. , Damian , D. , & Lanubile , F. ( 2012 ). Computer-mediated communication to support distributed requirements elicitations and negotiations tasks . Empirical Software Engineering , 17 ( 6 ), 640 - 674 .

[42] Heindl , M. , Reinisch , F. , & Bifl , S. ( 2007 ). ” Requirements Management Infrastructures in Global Software Development-Towards Application Lifecycle Management with Role-based In-time Notification”; International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE) , Workshop on Tool-Supported Requirements Management in Distributed Projects (REMIDI) . REMIDI, ICGSE , 2007 .

[43] Damian , D. , Chisan , J. , Allen , P. , & Corrie , B. ( 2003 , May). Awareness meets requirements management: awareness needs in global software development . In Proc. of the International Workshop on Global Software Development, International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 7 - 11 ).

[44] Damian , D. E. , & Zowghi , D. ( 2003b ). RE challenges in multi-site software development organisations . Requirements engineering , 8 ( 3 ), 149 - 160 .

[45] Noll , J. , Beecham , S. , & Richardson , I. ( 2010 ). Global software development and collaboration: barriers and solutions . ACM Inroads , 1 ( 3 ), 66 - 78 .

[46] Šmite , D. ( 2006 ). Requirements management in distributed projects . Journal of Universal Knowledge Management , 1 ( 2 ), 69 - 76 .

[47] Damian , D. ( 2007 ). Stakeholders in global requirements engineering: Lessons learned from practice . Software , IEEE, 24 ( 2 ), 21 - 27 .

[48] Schmid , K. ( 2014 ). Challenges and solutions in global requirements engineering-A literature survey Software Quality . Model-Based Approaches for Advanced Software and Systems Engineering (pp. 85 - 99 ): Springer

[49] Šmite , D. , Moe , N. B. , & Torkar , R. ( 2008 ). Pitfalls in remote team coordination: Lessons learned from a case study Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (pp. 345 - 359 ): Springer.

[50] Babar , M. A. , Verner , J. M. , & Nguyen , P. T. ( 2007 ). Establishing and maintaining trust in software outsourcing relationships: An empirical investigation . Journal of Systems and Software , 80 ( 9 ), 1438 - 1449 .

[51] Sommerville , I. ( 2007 ). Software engineering (8th Edition ed .) , Addison Wesley. Sommerville I. Software engineering . 10th ed. Addison-Wesley; 2015 .

[52] Damian , D. ( 2002 , May). The study of requirements engineering in global software development: as challenging as important . In Proceedings of Global Software Development, Workshop (Vol. 9 ).

[53] Prikladnicki , R. , & Carmel , E. ( 2013 , May). Is time-zone proximity an advantage for software development? The case of the Brazilian IT industry . In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 973 - 981 ). IEEE Press.

[54] Hashmi , S. I. , Ishikawa , F. , & Richardson , I. ( 2013 , May). A communication process for global requirements engineering . In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software and System Process (pp. 136 - 140 ). ACM.

[55] Prikladnicki , R. , Boden , A. , Avram , G., de Souza, C. R. , & Wulf , V. ( 2014 ). Data collection in global software engineering research: learning from past experience . Empirical Software Engineering , 19 ( 4 ), 822 - 856 .

[56] Illes-Seifert , T. , Herrmann , A. , Geisser , M. , & Hildenbrand , T. ( 2007 ). The Challenges of Distributed Software Engineering and Requirements Engineering: Results of an Online Survey . Paper presented at the WORKSHOP

[57] Duarte , D. , Farinha , C. , da Silva , M. M. , & da Silva , A. R. ( 2012 , June). Collaborative requirements elicitation with visualization techniques . In Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE) , 2012 IEEE 21st International Workshop on (pp. 343 - 348 ). IEEE.

[58] Niazi , M. , Ikram , N. , Bano , M. , Imtiaz , S. , & Khan , S. U. ( 2013 ). Establishing trust in ofshore software outsourcing relationships: an exploratory study using a systematic literature review . Software, IET , 7 ( 5 ), 283 - 293 .

[59] Berenbach , B. ( 2006 , May). Impact of organizational structure on distributed requirements engineering processes: lessons learned . In Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global software development for the practitioner (pp. 15 - 19 ). ACM.

[60] Krishna , S. , Sahay , S. , & Walsham , G. ( 2004 ). Managing cross-cultural issues in global software outsourcing . Communications of the ACM , 47 ( 4 ), 62 - 66 .

[61] Christiansen , H. M. ( 2007 ). Meeting the challenge of communication in ofshore software development Software Engineering Approaches for Ofshore and Outsourced Development (pp. 19 - 26 ): Springer.

[62] Lormans , M. , Van Dijk , H. , Van Deursen , A. , Nocker , E. , & de Zeeuw , A. . Managing evolving requirements in an outsourcing context: an industrial experience report . In Software Evolution , 2004 . Proceedings. 7th International Workshop on Principles of (pp. 149 - 158 ). IEEE.

[63] Calefato , F. , Lanubile , F. , & Prikladnicki , R. ( 2011 , August). A controlled experiment on the efects of machine translation in multilingual requirements meetings . In 2011 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Global Software Engineering (pp. 94 - 102 ). IEEE.

[64] Carmel , E. , & Agarwal , R. ( 2001 ). Tactical approaches for alleviating distance in global software development . Software , IEEE, 18 ( 2 ), 22 - 29 .

[65] Brockmann , P. S. , & Thaumuller , T. ( 2009 , July) . Cultural aspects of global requirements engineering: An empirical Chinese-German case study . In 2009 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering.

[66] Kwan , I. , Damian , D. , & Marczak , S. ( 2007 , August) . The efects of distance, experience, and communication structure on requirements awareness in two distributed industrial software projects . In Global Requirements Engineering Workshop (GREW'07) , in Proc. of International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2007 ), Munich, Germany.

[67] Damian , D. E. , & Zowghi , D. ( 2002 , September) . The impact of stakeholders' geographical distribution on managing requirements in a multi-site organization . In Requirements Engineering , 2002 . Proceedings. IEEE Joint International Conference on (pp. 319 - 328 ). IEEE.

[68] Alam , K. A. , Ahmad , R. B. , & Akhtar , M. ( 2014 , September) . Change Impact analysis and propagation in service based business process management systems preliminary results from a systematic review . In Software Engineering Conference (MySEC) , 2014 8th Malaysian (pp. 7 - 12 ). IEEE.

[69] Zhang , H. , Li , J. , Zhu , L. , Jefery , R. , Liu, Y. , Wang , Q. , & Li , M. ( 2014 ). Investigating dependencies in software requirements for change propagation analysis . Information and Software Technology , 56 ( 1 ), 40 - 53 .

[70] Abbott , P. , & Jones , M. ( 2003 ). The importance of being nearest: nearshore software outsourcing and globalization discourse Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology (pp. 375 - 397 ): Springer.

[71] Bohner , S. A. ( 1996 , November). Impact analysis in the software change process: A year 2000 perspective . In Software Maintenance 1996 , Proceedings., International Conference on (pp. 42 - 51 ). IEEE.

[72] Lam , S. S. , Petri , K. L. , & Smith , A. E. ( 2000 ). Prediction and optimization of a ceramic casting process using a hierarchical hybrid system of neural networks and fuzzy logic . Iie Transactions , 32 ( 1 ), 83 - 91 .

[73] Lauesen , S. , & Vinter , O. ( 2001 ). Preventing requirement defects: An experiment in process improvement . Requirements engineering , 6 ( 1 ), 37 - 50 .

[74] Landis , J. R. , & Koch , G. G. ( 1977 ). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data , Biometrics , 159 - 174 .

[75] Minhas , Nasir Mehmood ( 2024 ), “Requirements Engineering Practices Model to Incorporate ' Power' Human Value (Data set)”, Mendeley Data, V1 , doi: 10.17632/w85t2bwtmb.1