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.
Keywords
1
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 10
th
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 Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http ://ceur-ws.org
IS S N 1 6 1 3 -0 0 7 3
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
Individual
Advantages
Disadvantages
Brainstorming
yes
both
Well known
High number
of new ideas
Disregarded
principles
Creative
pauses
no
no
Simple to
apply
Unstructured
Six thinking
hats
yes
yes
Force to
consider
different
moods and
viewpoints
Requires high
abstraction skills
(...)
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.