ISBN-13: 9783639175622 / Angielski / Miękka / 2009 / 236 str.
Among the software development activities, requirements engineering is one of the most communication-intensive and then, its effectiveness is greatly constrained by the geographical distance between stakeholders. For this reason, the need to identify the appropriate task/technology fits to support teams of geographically dispersed stakeholders plays a key role for coping with the lack of physical proximity when developing requirements. Building on an extensive review of the very many existing theoris on computer-mediated communication. This dissertation reports on an empirical study that assessed the use of synchronous text-based communication in distributed requirements workshops, as compared to face-to-face (F2F), and the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC), with respects to the different tasks of distributed requirements elicitation and negotiation. Results show that, in terms of satisfaction with performance, CMC elicitation is a better task/technology fit than CMC negotiation. Furthermore, the general preference for F2F over CMC is due to the strong preference for the F2F negotiation fit over the CMC counterpart.
Among the software development activities,requirements engineering is one of the mostcommunication-intensive and then, its effectivenessis greatly constrained by the geographical distancebetween stakeholders. For this reason, the need toidentify the appropriate task/technology fits tosupport teams of geographically dispersedstakeholders plays a key role for coping with thelack of physical proximity when developing requirements.Building on an extensive review of the very manyexisting theoris on computer-mediated communication.This dissertation reports on an empirical study thatassessed the use of synchronous text-basedcommunication in distributed requirements workshops,as compared to face-to-face (F2F), and the effects ofcomputer-mediated communication (CMC), withrespects to the different tasks of distributedrequirements elicitation and negotiation. Resultsshow that, in terms of satisfaction with performance,CMC elicitation is a better task/technology fit thanCMC negotiation. Furthermore, the generalpreference for F2F over CMC is due to the strongpreference for the F2F negotiation fit over the CMCcounterpart.