brainstorming mind mapping -...

36
1 BRAINSTORMING AND MIND MAPPING BY PANKAJ KAMTHAN 1. INTRODUCTION You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. — Naguib Mahfouz In the word question, there is a beautiful word—quest. I love that word. — Elie Wiesel This document explores two different but related concepts, namely brainstorming and mind mapping, from the perspective of their applications to software engineering and human-computer interaction. There is much support for both brainstorming and mind mapping. In [Martin, Hanington, 2012], brainstorming and mind mapping are listed among the 100 Ways of Designing. In [Kohls, 2016], brainstorming and mind mapping are listed among the creativity patterns. In [Alam, Gühl, 2016, Section 2.7.1], brainstorming and mind mapping are listed among the techniques for project management. 1.1. INNOVATABILITY AND CREATIVITY In recent years, ‘innovation’ has received much media coverage in technologically- oriented disciplines, including software engineering [Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart, Alvaro, 2011] and human-computer interaction [De Bonte, Fletcher, 2015, Chapter 7]. (For the sake of this document, innovation is the application of old knowledge to produce new knowledge.) This has led to attention on techniques that can help people innovate, individually or collectively.

Upload: doanduong

Post on 11-Aug-2019

225 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

1

BRAINSTORMING AND MIND MAPPING

BY PANKAJ KAMTHAN 1. INTRODUCTION You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.

— Naguib Mahfouz In the word question, there is a beautiful word—quest. I love that word.

— Elie Wiesel This document explores two different but related concepts, namely brainstorming and mind mapping, from the perspective of their applications to software engineering and human-computer interaction. There is much support for both brainstorming and mind mapping. In [Martin, Hanington, 2012], brainstorming and mind mapping are listed among the 100 Ways of Designing. In [Kohls, 2016], brainstorming and mind mapping are listed among the creativity patterns. In [Alam, Gühl, 2016, Section 2.7.1], brainstorming and mind mapping are listed among the techniques for project management. 1.1. INNOVATABILITY AND CREATIVITY In recent years, ‘innovation’ has received much media coverage in technologically-oriented disciplines, including software engineering [Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart, Alvaro, 2011] and human-computer interaction [De Bonte, Fletcher, 2015, Chapter 7]. (For the sake of this document, innovation is the application of old knowledge to produce new knowledge.) This has led to attention on techniques that can help people innovate, individually or collectively.

2

There is a natural relationship between innovatability and creativity [Maiden, Gizikis, 2001; Harris, 2014, Chapter 7]. Together, they are part of inventive engineering [Arciszewski, 2015, Chapter 7]. To innovate, one needs to be curious [Gino, 2018]. To innovate, one needs to ideate, that is, have ideas [Manns, Rising, 2005; Adair, 2007; Harris, 2014, Chapter 3], be open to ideas by others [Petre, Hoek, 2016], and be willing to test those ideas [Knapp, Zeratsky, Kowitz, 2016]. Figure 1 shows elements of a conceptual model for Agile Experience Design (AXD) [Ratcliffe, McNeill, 2012]. It can be seen that “innovate” and “ideate” are among the elements of the model.

Figure 1. A conceptual model for AXD that has support for innovation and ideation. (Source: [Ratcliffe, McNeill, 2012, Page 11].)

3

1.2. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAINSTORMING AND MIND MAPPING The relationship between brainstorming and mind mapping is symbiotic, as illustrated in Figure 2. For example, brainstorming can lead to a mind map for constructing a persona, and, conversely, a persona mind map could be used during a brainstorming session to drive interaction design.

Figure 2. The perpetually symbiotic relationship between brainstorming and mind mapping. 1.3. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASIS FOR BRAINSTORMING AND MIND MAPPING If brainstorming or mind mapping are carried out collectively, then (1) in theory, the necessity for these activities could be explained by distributed cognition, and (2) in practice, these activities require an appropriate combination of ‘hard skills’ and ‘soft skills’ (especially, collaboration among those involved [Kamthan, 2014; Kamthan, 2016]). 2. BRAINSTORMING

Thinking like a computer scientist means more than being able to program a computer. It requires thinking at multiple levels of abstraction.

— Jeannette M. Wing

4

In a brainstorming session, often assisted with amply supplied coffee (or a small amount of beer), no ideas should be criticized or judged.

― Charles X. Ling and Qiang Yang There are a number of techniques for creative problem-solving [Harris, 2014, Chapter 6], as an individual or as a group, and brainstorming is one of them [Osborn, 1963]. For the sake of this document, brainstorming is a kind of directed thinking. It has been pointed out [Wilson, 2013a] that brainstorming could be used for generating ideas1, for finding solutions to specific development problems, for selecting metaphors for user interfaces, and for creating social cohesion within teams. Indeed, as far as software engineering is concerned, brainstorming is among the techniques for business analysis [IIBA, 2009; IIBA, 2013; IIBA, 2015], for software requirements elicitation [Lauesen, 2002, Section 8.2; Sutcliffe, 2002; Section 3.1.1; Paetsch, Eberlein, Maurer, 2003; Zowghi, Coulin, 2005; ISO/IEC/IEEE, 2018], and for software requirements negotiation [Boehm, Grünbacher, Briggs, 2001]. Indeed, DirectedBrainstorm is one of the ThinkLets, that is, patterns for collaboration [Vreede, Kolfschoten, Briggs, 2006]. 2.1 A BRAINSTORMING PROCESS Figure 3 shows a model of a brainstorming process, expressed as a UML Activity Diagram. (It is an adaptation of a diagram on Wikipedia.) This process is neither necessary, nor sufficient, for a useful idea. However, it helps make ideation systematic.

1 Ideation is the creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas, where an idea is understood as a basic element of thought that can be either abstract or concrete [Wikipedia]. The notion of idea is central to most brainstorming sessions, and hence brainstorming is also considered a form of ideation.

5

Figure 3. A UML Activity Diagram for a Brainstorming Process. 2.2. PRINCIPLES OF BRAINSTORMING There are three principles of brainstorming [Wilson, 2013a]: 1. Aim for Sheer Quantity. The goal of brainstorming is quantity, not quality. In fact,

the goal is quality en route quantity.

6

2. Defer Judgment about the Quality of Ideas. There is no praise and no criticism during a brainstorming session. In particular, the ideas of others should not be criticized implicitly (say, through facial expressions or other nonverbal behaviors) or explicitly (say, verbally).

3. Encourage New and Wild Ideas. The point is that new or wild ideas may serve as

triggers or otherwise lead to potentially useful ideas. The ideas can come from any source, including one’s surroundings at a train station, and at any time, including the time one is not ‘working’ per se [Petre, Hoek, 2016].

Mobile Intermezzo! Use the Web to search for paintings by Maurits Cornelius Escher. 2.3. ORDERED BRAINSTORMING SESSION A brainstorming session that is unstructured, is dominated by conflicts, or misses important perspectives, can be counterproductive. Therefore, for an effective brainstorming session, some organizing mechanism is needed. 2.3.1. SIX THINKING HATS, OR “WHERE DO IDEAS COME FROM?” Thinking doesn’t guarantee that we won’t make mistakes. But not thinking guarantees that we will.

— Leslie Lamport A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

— Winston Churchill Six Thinking Hats [De Bono, 1985; De Bono, 2000] is a technique for critical thinking, which, in turn, is part of computational thinking [Rich, Hodges, 2017]. It can be used individually or communally. In a group discussion, the Six Thinking Hats technique enables parallel thinking. For example, thinking may be related to solving a problem, or making a decision.

7

VIEWPOINTS OF SIX THINKING HATS The Six Thinking Hats technique involves looking at a problem from six different viewpoints (or, equivalently, angles or directions): 1. Blue Hat (Process): This hat is for the conductor of the conversation. The person

wearing this hat makes sure all hats are represented and that the conversation keeps moving forward.

2. White Hat (Objective): The person wearing this hat thinks about the topic

objectively and does not mix emotions with his or her thinking. This person focuses only on information and facts. This person is neutral in his or her emotions.

3. Red Hat (Intuitive): The person wearing this hat focuses on instinctive reaction and

initial impressions. This person says what comes to his or her mind and avoids overanalyzing the topic.

4. Black Hat (Negative): The person wearing this hat focuses on the negative aspects of

the topic, such as why a suggestion does not work or why it is a bad idea. This person focuses on adopting a pessimistic attitude of the topic.

5. Yellow Hat (Positive): The person wearing this hat focuses only on the positive

aspects of the topic. This person does not criticize his or her own ideas, but simply voices them and listens as others give their points of view.

6. Green Hat (Creative): The person wearing this hat comes up with creative solutions

and thinks outside the box. This person avoids the most obvious solutions and expresses more creative ideas, even if they are completely irrational.

These viewpoints are complementing rather than competing. (It is evident that any single viewpoint is insufficient.) The Six Thinking Hats may or may not be exhaustive, but, collectively, they are comprehensive. Each viewpoint is assigned a colored hat. Wearing a colored hat, either literally or metaphorically, symbolizes switching direction. Indeed, each hat could be a candidate for a sub-concept in a mind map2.

2 URL: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_07.htm .

8

The Yellow Hat and Black Hat together can help reduce, perhaps even avoid, Omission Bias, a cognitive bias. Figure 4 presents a graphical rendering of the Six Thinking Hats.

Figure 4. The Six Thinking Hats. (Source: Google Images.) The negative viewpoint is similar to Problem Statement Reversal [Alam, Gühl, 2016, Section 2.7.2; Petre, Hoek, 2016], where the problem is stated in reverse to collect negative and (seemingly) absurd ideas. 2.4. RULES FOR A BRAINSTORMING SESSION In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

— Theodore Roosevelt If you want to have good ideas, you must have many ideas. Most of them will be wrong, and what you have to learn is which ones to throw away.

— Linus Pauling I have incontrovertible evidence that there are an infinite number of awful, horrible, useless, comically stupid, and embarrassingly bad ideas.

— Scott Berkun In the process of building something we often discover the interesting problems and the interesting things that lead to interesting discoveries.

— Pattie Maes

9

There are certain rules that can be useful towards making a brainstorming session effective [Berkun, 2008; Wilson, 2013a]: Focus on Quantity Focus on Questions More Than Answers [Gregersen, 2018a] Do Not Praise or Criticize (Do Not be an ‘Idea Killer’ [Berkun, 2010, Page 90]) Do Not Worry about Duplicates You can Modify Others’ Ideas Do Not Ramble (No Long Stories) Avoid Distractions (Ringing Mobile Phones or Flickering Tablet Computers) Only One Person Speaks at a Time If You have an Idea While Someone Else is Speaking, Write Down the Idea on a

Sticky Note REMARKS The purpose of the abovementioned rules is to reduce negative social influences and to increase idea generation and group creativity [Carroll, 2013, Section 11.4.1]. 2.5. BRAINSTORMING IN CONTEXT The use of brainstorming is not universal, and a commitment to it should be put into context as there are advantages as well as disadvantages of brainstorming. The advantages of brainstorming [Wilson, 2013a] include that it can serve as means for providing ideas that may not surface any other way, for providing many ideas quickly, for requiring few material resources, for being a democratic way of generating ideas (given that people do not dominate and there is a good facilitator), and for providing social interaction. The disadvantages of brainstorming [Wilson, 2013a] include that it can be intimidating for an introvert person, can reduce individual recognition for good ideas, suffer from the side-effects of the focus on the quantity of ideas (such as, criticism or poor facilitation), does not scale to groups that do not get along well, and does not scale well to rather large groups.

10

REMARKS The act of storytelling has been put forth to offset some of the limitations inherent to brainstorming, at least as far as requirements elicitation is concerned [Boulila, Hoffmann, Herrmann, 2011]. 2.5.1. INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP BRAINSTORMING There are certainly several advantages of group brainstorming. For example, group brainstorming can be useful for combinatorial creativity (that is, combining two or more ideas to create new ideas) [Maiden, Gizikis, 2001]. In spite of the perception to the contrary, there are disadvantages of group brainstorming over individual brainstorming [Carroll, 2013, Section 11.4.1; Faste, Rachmel, Essary, Sheehan, 2013; Gregersen, 2018a]: Production Blocking: This occurs when participants must wait to convey their ideas

to the group, as another member is speaking, and, in doing so, may forget their ideas or self-censor, resulting in a loss of ideas.

Evaluation Apprehension: This stems from an anxiety of disapproval by others,

and results in participants holding back ideas. Social Loafing: This is a tendency of participants to put forth less effort (such as,

bringing forth ideas, or critiquing others’ ideas) in group settings than they would if working individually.

REMARKS The limitations of ‘conventional’ brainstorming have led to certain extensions [Faste, Rachmel, Essary, Sheehan, 2013]. In particular, ‘electronic brainstorming’ refers to brainstorming mediated by the use of computers and computer networks. For example, microblogging services, such as Twitter, can be used for electronic brainstorming. 2.6. BRAINWRITING: NON-ORAL BRAINSTORMING The aforementioned limitations of brainstorming can, to a certain extent, be overcome via brainwriting.

11

In a brainstorming session, an individual is supposed to think and speak to others (before writing). However, if an individual is supposed to think and write, but is not required to speak, then brainstorming is called as brainwriting [Wilson, 2013a, Chapter 2]. There are a number of advantages unique to brainwriting: Parallelization Relatively Shorter Session It should be noted that the purpose of brainwriting is not to advocate that speaking and writing are comparable and interchangeable. 2.6.1. BRAINWRITING AND QUESTIONNAIRES We run [Google] on questions, not answers.

— Eric Schmidt When you’re a student, you’re judged by how well you answer questions. But in life, you’re judged by how good your questions are.

— Robert Langer It has been pointed out [Wilson, 2013b, Page 40] that brainwriting can be useful for generating questions for a questionnaire (say, for interviewing stakeholders of a software project during elicitation of software requirements for that project, for interviewing users of the software system as part of acceptance testing, and so on). Indeed, a good question is at least as important as a good answer [Gregersen, 2018a; Gregersen, 2018b]. In such a case, brainwriting can be carried out sequentially or parallelly, followed by a filtering process: the questions are collected by the facilitator, duplicates are eliminated, and questions are voted upon before a subset thereof is selected. 3. MIND MAPPING A mind map [Buzan, Buzan, 1996] is a diagram that is used to represent concepts linked to and arranged around a central concept. These concepts could denote ideas, tasks, and so on.

12

THE CITY MAP ANALOGY The central concept of a mind map helps keep focus, much like the Milliarium Aureum, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. A map showing the Milliarium Aureum. (Source: Google Images.) THE ‘SUPER-TREE’ ANALOGY Let there be a ‘super-tree’ tree in which there are multiple trunks, and all the trunks and the root branch out. In particular, a ‘normal’ tree is a ‘super-tree’ is in which there is a single trunk, and both the trunk and the root branch out, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. A rendering of a tree, showing its trunk, root, and branches. (Source: Google Images.)

13

If the central concept of a mind map is viewed as the root of a tree, then, as a special case, the path to each related sub-concept is like a trunk of that tree, the path to each related sub-sub-concept is like a branch of that trunk, and the path to each related sub-sub-sub-concept is like a twig of that branch. 3.1. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF MIND MAPPING It is known that people are better at recognizing graphical patterns than they are at recognizing text [Reed, 2010]. This, in part, has motivated techniques for information visualization, in general, and knowledge cartography [Okada, Shum, Sherborne, 2008, Preface; Russell, Creighton, 2011], in particular, and one such technique is mind mapping. The origins of mind mapping lie in neurophysiology and cognitive psychology. The roots of mind mapping3 have been traced at the Mind Mapping Blog, and suggest that the idea of visual mapping goes back to thousands of years. The statistics from recent surveys suggest that the use of mind mapping has increased over the years [Beel, Langer, 2011]. 3.2. CHARACTERISTICS OF MIND MAPS A mind map is uniquely characterized by a number of properties [Eppler, 2006; Hiranabe, 2010], including the following: Easily Generated (Rudimentary Requirements for Generation) Easily Learned (Low Learning Curve) Enables Free-Form, Spontaneous, (Critical) Thinking Encourages Self-Expression Evocative Has Informal Syntax and Informal Semantics Provides High-Level View (Global View or “Big Picture”) Readily Extensible Semi-Structured Stimulates (Collaborative) Creativity

3 URL: http://www.mind-mapping.org/blog/mapping-history/roots-of-visual-mapping/ .

14

3.3. THEORETICAL BASIS OF MIND MAPS The technique of mind mapping supports cognitive scaffolding, a theory of learning in a social context, in a number of ways, including the following [Shneiderman, 1996]: By Increasing the Memory and Processing Resources available to the Users. For

example, mind maps can be used to make implicit information explicit. By Reducing the Search for Information. For example, concepts in mind maps are

related, and, using keywords or otherwise, one can navigate from concept to another. By Using Visual Representations to Enhance the Detection of Patterns. For

example, mind maps use color to group related concepts. By Enabling Perceptual Inference Operations. For example, one can draw

inferences from a mind map using transitivity of relationships between concepts. By Using Perceptual Attention Mechanisms for Monitoring. For example, mind

maps use color, size, location, and direction as mechanisms for visual attention. By Encoding Information in a Manipulable Medium. For example, it is possible to

create and edit mind maps relatively easily in an electronic medium, such as a tool available on the Social Web. In some cases, it is also possible to ‘zoom-and-pan’ mind maps.

3.4. USES OF MIND MAPS A mind map can serve as an aid in a number of activities, carried out individually or communally, including the following: Brainstorming Clarifying Thoughts Classifying Things Communicating Ideas to Others Creating Decision Making Convergent and Non-Linear Divergent Thinking (Thinking Outside The Box) Exploring Improving Critical Thinking Improving Reading and Writing Skills

15

Managing Knowledge Note Taking Organizing Information Planning Preparing a To-Do List Problem Solving Understanding Visualizing Concepts The aforementioned uses of mind mapping are significant to a variety of disciplines, including the following: Business [Buzan, Buzan, 1996] Information Retrieval [Beel, Langer, Genzmehr, Gipp, 2014] Education

o Argumentation [Govier, 2014] o Clarification, Critical Thinking, Learning [Buzan, Buzan, 1996; Eppler, 2006;

Mapman, 2013; João, Silva, 2014] Software Engineering

o Task Elicitation and Allocation o Glossary Development o Selection (Programming Style, Standard, Tool, Other) o Lean Development [Sayer, Williams, 2007, Chapter 7] o Project Management [Kliem, 2014; Moss, 2014; Alam, Gühl, 2016] o Knowledge Management [Okada, Shum, Sherborne, 2008, Chapter 10; Schneider,

2009, Section 3.4] o Conceptual Modeling [Hiranabe, 2007; Hiranabe, 2010] o Stakeholder Identification o User Needs Identification o Impact Mapping [Adzic, 2012] o Problem Solving [IIBA, 2015, Section 10.29.2; Gregersen, 2018a] o Requirements Elicitation [Robertson, Robertson, 2006, Chapter 5; Chenal,

2008; Change Vision, 2010; Hiranabe, 2010; Mahmud, Venezianot, 2011; Wanderley, Silveira, Araújo, Moreira, 2013; Ghazi, Glinz, 2017]

o Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering [Contó, Godoy, Palácios, Genvigir, L´Erario, Domingues, Gonçalves, Duarte, Fabri, 2013]

o Triage (Requirements, Defects, Other ) [Moss, 2014] o Epic Decomposition o User Story Interpretation (Ambiguity Reduction) o User Story Understanding [Roman, 2018, Section 5.3]

16

o Acceptance Criteria Identification o Risk Identification [Boehm, 1991; Mahfuz, 2016, Chapter 8; Pritchard, 2015,

Chapter 11] o Design Thinking [Plattner, Meinel, Leifer, 2011; Keeling, 2017, Chapter 2] o Model-Driven Engineering [Wanderley, Silveira, Araújo, Moreira, Guerra, 2014] o Test Planning [Moss, 2014] o Test Case Identification [Sabourin, 2006; Dwajan, Vemuri, Madireddi, 2013] o Test Generation (Equivalence Classes of Tests) [Sabourin, 2006] o Test Heuristics [Moss, 2014] o Defect Taxonomy o Root Cause Identification (“Five Whys”) o Threat Modeling [Shostack, 2014, Chapter 4] o Trace Discovery o Stating Goals, Formulating Questions, Deciding Metrics for GQM o Selecting Patterns o Sketching [Roberts, Headleand, Ritsos, 2017]

Human-Computer Interaction o Card Sorting [Spencer, 2009] o Context Diagramming o User Modeling [Beel, Langer, Genzmehr, Gipp, 2014; Beel, 2015; Beel, Langer,

Kapitsaki, Breitinger, Gipp, 2015] o Experience Map o Interaction Design [Wilson, 2013] o Persona-Driven Design o Empathy Map [Ferreira, Silva, Oliveira, Conte, 2015]

REMARKS There are specific types of mind maps, such as impact maps4 used for strategic planning. 3.5. STRUCTURE OF A MIND MAP The structure of a mind map is a radial hierarchy denoting relationships with the central concept. The relationships in a mind map are called basic ordering ideas (BOIs).

4 URL: http://www.impactmapping.org/ .

17

A BOI radiates recursively, on a two-dimensional coordinate system, from more to less abstract and from more to less general, as it moves away from the central concept, to sub-concepts. A BOI could be annotated using a keyword to articulate the relationship between concepts. For example, a keyword could be used to describe how a sub-concept is related to a concept. Figure 7 shows, using a mind map, the general graphical structure and taxonomy of an abstract mind map. A mind map can be presented at different levels of abstraction. For example, unless necessary, keywords can be excluded.

Figure 7. The structure and taxonomy of an abstract mind map. (Source: [IIBA, 2015, Section 10.29.2].) REMARKS The structure of a mind map has led to it being called a Spider Diagram.

18

3.6. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF A MIND MAP There is no standard format for a mind map. In a graphic, the central concept is normally placed at the center of the canvas to allow sub-concepts and BOIs to branch out easily. The concepts and BOIs can be colored for identification or classification. 3.7. EXAMPLES In [Hiranabe, 2010; Mahmud, Venezianot, 2011], it has been pointed out that mind mapping can be used as a means for deciding user stories for agile projects. MIND MAPPING FOR IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS Figure 8 shows an example of a mind map for stakeholder modeling.

Figure 8. A partial mind map of a subset of ‘baseline’ and ‘satellite’ stakeholder classes. MIND MAPPING FOR NAMING USE CASES Figure 9 shows an example of a mind map for deciding a suitable name for a use case.

19

Figure 9. A partial mind map for assessing a use case name. MIND MAPPING FOR FORMULATING USER STORIES Figure 10 shows an example of a mind map for formulating a user story. It has been pointed out that user story format encourages innovation [O’hEocha, Conboy, 2010].

Figure 10. A structured user story statement has a (user) role, goal, and a value to that role.

20

MIND MAPPING FOR ELICITING PERSONAS Figure 11 shows an example of a mind map for deciding upon suitable personas for the Bank Customer user role.

Figure 11. A mind map ‘expedition’ for finding personas, given a user role. MIND MAPPING FOR UNDERSTANDING TESTERS Figure 12 shows a mind map of the perception of testers about their profession.

21

Figure 12. A tester’s mental model based on a Modified Delphi Card Sort Method. (Source: [Catania, Porter, Micallef, 2019].

Figure 13 shows an example of a mind map for the concept of “Mind Map” on Wikipedia, generated automatically using WikiMindMap5. It shows “brainstorming” and “idea” among its sub-concepts.

Figure 13. A partial mind map of the “Mind Map” concept on Wikipedia. 5 URL: http://www.wikimindmap.org/ .

22

REMARKS There are guidelines for structuring and presenting mind maps [Rustler, 2012;

Mapman, 2013]. There are collections of mind maps6, for illustration or inspiration. 3.8. TOOLS FOR MIND MAPPING The tools for mind mapping [Beel, Langer, Genzmehr, Gipp, 2014] range from (1) those that are technologically-basic, to (2) those that are technologically-advanced, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. In recent years, there has been an increase in tools for mind mapping available as open source. There is also interest in assessing the quality of mind mapping tools [Orehovački, Granić, Kermeka, 2013]. 3.8.1. MOTIVATION FOR USING ELECTRONIC, MIND MAP-SPECIFIC TOOLS It is possible to generate a mind map in print or in electronic medium [IIBA, 2015, Section 10.29.2]. It has been pointed out that the thought process underlying mind mapping is better understood using pen/pencil/marker and paper, than using a computer [Rustler, 2012, Page 17]. The combination of pen/pencil/marker and paper is relatively inexpensive and their use has a shallow learning curve. However, the use of a computer is better than paper for a variety of reasons, including mind mapping collaboratively, for archiving and sharing (partially completed) mind maps, for presenting information selectively at different levels of abstraction (by showing/hiding nodes), or for importing mind maps from and exporting mind maps to different formats. 3.8.2. GRAPHICAL MIND MAPPING There are a number of mind mapping tools7 available that can be used in a standalone or distributed computing environment [Chik, 2008; Mapman, 2013].

6 URL: http://www.ministryoftesting.com/resources/mindmaps/ . 7 URL: http://www.mind-mapping.org/ .

23

For example, XMind8 is a tool for mind mapping (and more), available for a variety of broadly-used operating systems. It provides several templates for mind mapping, as shown in Figure 14. However, the commercial and non-commercial versions tend to have significant differences.

Figure 14. A mind map of the “Six Thinking Hats” technique. (Source: XMind Templates.) For another example, FreeMind9 is a comparable mind mapping tool, available as open source software (OSS). It allows export to Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) and Portable Document Format (PDF). For another example, Coggle10 is a tool for mind mapping, available as a Web Application. It provides support for mathematical notation due to its support for MathJax11. For yet another example, bubbl.us12 is a tool for mind mapping, available as a Social Web Application. It allows collaborative mind mapping, and archiving and sharing of mind maps. However, it could be noted that such tools vary considerably in their quality [Orehovački, Granić, Kermeka, 2013]. 3.8.3. TEXTUAL MIND MAPPING It could be noted that even though a mind map is a graphical representation, the process of mind mapping itself need not necessarily be visual.

8 URL: http://www.xmind.net/ . 9 URL: http://freemind.sourceforge.net/ . 10 URL: https://coggle.it/ . 11 URL: http://www.mathjax.org/ . 12 URL: http://bubbl.us/ .

24

For example, Text2MindMap13 is a tool for mind mapping that works by supplying structured text outline, which is then converted into a graphical mind map. However, the kinds of mind maps that are generated are structured as trees. (The mention of the mind mapping tools above is for the purpose of awareness, not advocacy.) The capabilities of mobile devices have led to the development of mobile mind mapping tools that are either native to such devices or can be accessed via the Web. 3.9. MIND MAPPING IN CONTEXT

— Arachnophobia (1990)

There are evident limitations, not of the notion of a mind map, but in the realization of mind mapping. 3.9.1. SIZE The mind maps for a non-trivial activity, such as software requirements elicitation or software project stakeholder identification, can become prohibitively large. A large number of concepts, along with the relationships between them, can become hard to manage and difficult to comprehend if they are all presented in a single diagram, on a constrained two-dimensional surface, for simultaneous viewing. In such a case, there are two partial solutions, based on the software engineering principle of separation of concerns [Ghezzi, Jazayeri, Mandrioli, 2003]: (1) to decompose the original mind map into multiple sub-mind maps, or (2) to decompose the original concept and create mind maps for each sub-concept.

13 URL: https://www.text2mindmap.com/ .

25

REMARKS The result of (1) is a collection of sub-graphs. The partial solution to (1) is similar to dealing with flowcharts in structured

programming or UML Activity Diagrams in object-oriented programming that are lengthy (span multiple pages).

3.9.2. UNDERSTANDING A shared understanding of a mind map can be difficult to communicate [IIBA, 2015, Section 10.29.4], especially to non-participants. 3.9.3. MIND MAP VERSUS CONCEPT MAP VERSUS ARGUMENT MAP There are other approaches for information visualization, such as concept map and argument map, which are related to mind map [Eppler, 2006; Okada, Shum, Sherborne, 2008, Preface; Davies, 2011]. There are apparent similarities as well as differences between mind map and concept map. They are both visual diagramming techniques, and show relationships between concepts based on association. However, concept map is more general than mind map, as it does not have a notion of a central concept. Furthermore, concept map can be either hierarchical or non-hierarchical [Davies, 2011]. (Therefore, structurally, mind map is a kind of concept map14.) There are relatively few similarities and relatively more differences between mind map and argument map. They are both visual diagramming techniques. However, in an argument map, the relationships between concepts are based on (logical) inferences rather than association. (“The purpose of argument mapping is to uncover the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions, and evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion” [Wikipedia].) Furthermore, an argument map aims to instill critical thinking [Bassham, Irwin, Nardone, Wallace, 2011] rather than creativity [Nguyen, Shanks, 2009; Carroll, 2013].

14 Indeed, structurally, mind map is also similar to topic map, an approach for “the representation and interchange of knowledge, with an emphasis on the findability of information” [Wikipedia].

26

REMARKS In [McManus, 2004a, Section 2.1.1.2], concept mapping have been advocated as an approach for identifying stakeholders. In [Moon, Hoffman, Novak, Cañas, 2011], concept maps have been used to organize knowledge. In [Schuster, 2012], concept mapping have been advocated as an approach for care planning. In [Freeman, 2004; Faily, Lyle, Paul, Atzeni, Blomme, Desruelle, Bangalore, 2012; Fonseka, 2014], concept maps have been used for software requirements elicitation. In [Bias, Moon, Hoffman, 2015], concept maps have been used for usability evaluation. In [Yamashita, Anda, Sjøberg, Benestad, Arnstad, Moonen, 2009], concept maps have been used for making assessments about maintainability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The inclusion of images from external sources is only for non-commercial educational purposes, and their use is hereby acknowledged.

27

REFERENCES [Adair, 2007] The Art of Creative Thinking: How to Be Innovative and Develop Great Ideas. By J. Adair. Kogan Page. 2007. [Adzic, 2012] Impact Mapping: Making a Big Impact with Software Products and Projects. By G. Adzic. Provoking Thoughts. 2012. [Alam, Gühl, 2016] Project-Management in Practice: A Guideline and Toolbox for Successful Projects. By M. D. Alam, U. F. Gühl. Springer-Verlag. 2016. [Arciszewski, 2015] Inventive Engineering: Knowledge and Skills for Creative Engineers. By T. Arciszewski. CRC Press. 2015. [Bassham, Irwin, Nardone, Wallace, 2011] Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction. By G. Bassham, W. Irwin, H. Nardone, J. M. Wallace. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill. 2011. [Beel, 2015] Towards Effective Research-Paper Recommender Systems and User Modeling based on Mind Maps. By J. Beel. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Magdeburg. Magdeburg, Germany. 2015. [Beel, Langer, 2011] An Exploratory Analysis of Mind Maps. By J. Beel, S. Langer. The 2011 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2011). Mountain View, U.S.A. September 19-22, 2011. [Beel, Langer, Genzmehr, Gipp, 2014] Utilizing Mind-Maps for Information Retrieval and User Modelling. By J. Beel, S. Langer, M. Genzmehr, B. Gipp. The Twenty Second International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2014). Aalborg, Denmark. July 7-11, 2014. [Beel, Langer, Kapitsaki, Breitinger, Gipp, 2015] Exploring the Potential of User Modeling Based on Mind Maps. By J. Beel, S. Langer, G. M. Kapitsaki, C. Breitinger, B. Gipp. The Twenty Third International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2015). Dublin, Ireland. June 29-July 3, 2015. [Berkun, 2010] The Myths of Innovation. By S. Berkun. O’Reilly Media. 2010. [Bias, Moon, Hoffman, 2015] Concept Mapping Usability Evaluation: An Exploratory Study of a New Usability Inspection Method. By R. G. Bias, B. M. Moon, R. R.

28

Hoffman. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. Volume 31. Issue 9. 2015. Pages 571-583. [Boehm, 1991] Software Risk Management: Principles and Practices. By B. Boehm. IEEE Software. Volume 8. Issue 1. 1991. Pages 32-41. [Boehm, Grünbacher, Briggs, 2001] EasyWinWin: A Groupware-Supported Methodology for Requirements Negotiation. By B. W. Boehm, P. Grünbacher, R. O. Briggs. The Twenty Third International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001). Toronto, Canada. May 12-19, 2001. [Boulila, Hoffmann, Herrmann, 2011] Using Storytelling to Record Requirements: Elements for an Effective Requirements Elicitation Approach. By N. Boulila, A. Hoffmann, A. Herrmann. The 2011 Fourth International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering (MERE 2011). Trento, Italy. August 30, 2011. [Buzan, Buzan, 1996] The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain’s Untapped Potential. By T. Buzan, B. Buzan. Plume. 1996. [Carroll, 2013] Creativity and Rationale: Enhancing Human Experience by Design. By J. M. Carroll (Editor). Springer-Verlag. 2013. [Catania, Porter, Micallef, 2019] Towards Human-Centric Software Testing. By S. Catania, C. Porter, M. Micallef. The 2019 International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2019). Lisbon, Portugal. July 10-12, 2019. [Change Vision, 2010] Zen and the Art of User Requirements. By Change Vision, Inc. White Paper. 2010. [Chenal, 2008] Mind Mapping Improves Software Requirements Quality, Communication and Traceability. By D. Chenal. Tech Brief. QAvantage. 2008. [Chik, 2008] Intelligent Mind-Mapping. By V. C. H. Chik. M.E. Thesis. The University of Auckland. Auckland, New Zealand. 2008. [Contó, Godoy, Palácios, Genvigir, L´Erario, Domingues, Gonçalves, Duarte, Fabri, 2013] Applying Mind Maps at Representing Software Requirements. By J. A. P. Contó, W. F. Godoy, R. H. C. Palácios, E. C. Genvigir, A. L´Erario, A. L. S. Domingues, J. A.

29

Gonçalves, A. S. Duarte, J. A. Fabri. The 2013 World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (WorldCIST 2013). Olhão, Portugal. March 27–30, 2013. [Davies, 2011] Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What are the Differences and Do They Matter? By M. Davies. Higher Education. Volume 62. Issue 3. 2011. Pages 279-301. [De Bonte, Fletcher, 2015] Scenario-Focused Engineering: A Toolbox for Innovation and Customer-Centricity. By A. De Bonte, D. Fletcher. Microsoft Press. 2015. [De Bono, 1985] Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management. By E. de Bono. Little, Brown, and Company. 1985. [De Bono, 2000] Six Thinking Hats. By E. de Bono. Penguin Books. 2000. [Dwajan, Vemuri, Madireddi, 2013] Effective Test Case Development using Mind Maps. By A. Dwajan, L. C. Vemuri, V. Madireddi. The Thirteenth Annual International Software Testing Conference (STC 2013). Bangalore, India. December 4-5, 2013. [Eppler, 2006] A Comparison between Concept Maps, Mind Maps, Conceptual Diagrams, and Visual Metaphors as Complementary Tools for Knowledge Construction and Sharing. By M. J. Eppler. Information Visualization. Volume 5. Number 3. 2006. Pages 202-210. [Faily, Lyle, Paul, Atzeni, Blomme, Desruelle, Bangalore, 2012] Requirements Sensemaking Using Concept Maps. By S. Faily, J. Lyle, A. Paul, A. S. Atzeni, D. Blomme, H. Desruelle, K. Bangalore. The Fourth International Conference on Human-Centered Software Engineering (HCSE 2012). Toulouse, France. October 29-31, 2012. [Faste, Rachmel, Essary, Sheehan, 2013] Brainstorm, Chainstorm, Cheatstorm, Tweetstorm: New Ideation Strategies for Distributed HCI Design. By H. Faste, N. Rachmel, R. Essary, E. Sheehan. The 2013 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2013). Paris, France. April 27-May 2, 2013. [Ferreira, Silva, Oliveira, Conte, 2015] Designing Personas with Empathy Map. By B. Ferreira, W. Silva, E. Oliveira, T. Conte. The Twenty Seventh International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2015). Pittsburgh, U.S.A. July 6-8, 2015.

30

[Fonseka, 2014] Requirement Eliciting Process: A Method To Analyze Requirements Through Concept Maps. By M. N. Fonseka. M.Sc. Thesis. North Dakota State University. 2014. [Freeman, 2004] The Effects of Concept Maps on Requirements Elicitation and System Models during Information Systems Development. By L. A. Freeman. The First International Conference on Concept Mapping (CMC 2004). Pamplona, Spain. September 14-17, 2004. [Ghazi, Glinz, 2017] Challenges of Working with Artifacts in Requirements Engineering and Software Engineering. By P. Ghazi, M. Glinz. Requirements Engineering. Volume 22. Number 3. 2017. Pages 359-385. [Ghezzi, Jazayeri, Mandrioli, 2003] Fundamentals of Software Engineering. By C. Ghezzi, M. Jazayeri, D. Mandrioli. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall. 2003. [Gino, 2018] The Business Case for Curiosity. By F. Gino. Harvard Business Review. September-October 2018. Pages 48-57. [Govier, 2014] A Practical Study of Argument. By T. Govier. Enhanced Seventh Edition. Cengage Learning. 2014. [Gregersen, 2018a] Better Brainstorming. By H. Gregersen. Harvard Business Review. March-April 2018. Pages 64-71. [Gregersen, 2018b] Questions Are the Answer: A Breakthrough Approach to Your Most Vexing Problems at Work and in Life. By H. Gregersen. HarperCollins Publishers. 2018. [Hiranabe, 2007] Agile Modeling with Mind Map and UML. By K. Hiranabe. Better Software. January 2007. [Hiranabe, 2010] Exploring User Requirements through Mind Mapping. By K. Hiranabe. Change Vision, Inc. 2010. [Harris, 2014] Idea Engineering: Creative Thinking and Innovation. By L. V. A. Harris. Momentum Press. 2014. [IIBA, 2009] A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge, Version 2.0. International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA). 2009.

31

[IIBA, 2013] Agile Extension to the BABOK® Guide, Version 1.0. International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA). 2013. [IIBA, 2015] A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge, Version 3.0. International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA). 2015. [ISO/IEC/IEEE, 2018] ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018. Systems and Software Engineering -- Life Cycle Processes -- Requirements Engineering. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society. 2018. [João, Silva, 2014] Concept Mapping and Mind Mapping to Lift the Thinking Skills of Chemical Engineering Students. By I. M. João, J. M. Silva. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy. Volume 4. Issue 5. 2014. Pages 42-48. [Kamthan, 2014] Towards an Understanding of Collaborations in Agile Course Projects. By P. Kamthan. In: Overcoming Challenges in Software Engineering Education: Delivering Non-Technical Knowledge and Skills. L. Yu (Editor). IGI Global. 2014. Pages 36-51. [Kamthan, 2016] On the Nature of Collaborations in Agile Software Engineering Course Projects. By P. Kamthan. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education. Volume 5. Issue 2. 2016. Pages 42-59. [Keeling, 2017] Design It! From Programmer to Software Architect. By M. Keeling. The Pragmatic Programmers. 2017. [Kliem, 2014] Creative, Efficient, and Effective Project Management. By R. L. Kliem. CRC Press. 2014. [Knapp, Zeratsky, Kowitz, 2016] Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. By J. Knapp, J. Zeratsky, B. Kowitz. Bantam Press. 2016. [Kohls, 2016] Creativity Patterns – 5 Methods. By C. Kohls. The Twenty Third Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP 2016). Monticello, U.S.A. October 24-26, 2016. [Lauesen, 2002] Software Requirements: Styles and Techniques. By S. Lauesen. Addison-Wesley. 2002.

32

[Mahfuz, 2016] Software Quality Assurance: Integrating Testing, Security, and Audit. By A. S. Mahfuz. CRC Press. 2016. [Mahmud, Venezianot, 2011] Mind-mapping: An Effective Technique to Facilitate Requirements Engineering in Agile Software Development. By I. Mahmud, V. Venezianot. The Fourteenth International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT 2011). Dhaka, Bangladesh. December 22-24, 2011. [Maiden, Gizikis, 2001] Where Do Requirements Come From? By N. A. M. Maiden, A. Gizikis. IEEE Software. Volume 18. Number 5. 2001. Pages 10-12. [Manns, Rising, 2005] Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas. By M. L. Manns, L. Rising. Addison-Wesley. 2005. [Mapman, 2013] Learn With Mind Maps. By M. Mapman. Amazon Digital Services. 2013. [Martin, Hanington, 2012] Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. By B. Martin, B. Hanington. Rockport Publishers. 2012. [Moon, Hoffman, Novak, Cañas, 2011] Applied Concept Mapping: Capturing, Analyzing, and Organizing Knowledge. By B. M. Moon, R. R. Hoffman, J. D. Novak, A. J. Cañas. CRC Press. 2011. [Moss, 2014] Feeling Lost in the Woods: Mind Maps Can Help. By C. Moss. Better Software. January/February 2014. Pages 26-28. [Nguyen, Shanks, 2009] A Framework for Understanding Creativity in Requirements Engineering. By L. Nguyen, G. G. Shanks. Information and Software Technology. Volume 51. Number 3. 2009. Pages 655-662. [O’hEocha, Conboy, 2010] The Role of the User Story Agile Practice in Innovation. By C. O’hEocha, K. Conboy. The First International Conference on Lean Enterprise Software and Systems (LESS 2010). Helsinki, Finland. October 17-20, 2010. [Okada, Shum, Sherborne, 2008] Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques. By A. Okada, S. B. Shum, T. Sherborne (Editors). Springer-Verlag. 2008.

33

[Orehovački, Granić, Kermeka, 2013] Evaluating the Perceived and Estimated Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications. By T. Orehovački, A. Granić, D. Kermeka. The Journal of Systems and Software. Volume 86. 2013. Pages 3039-3059. [Osborn, 1963] Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving. By A. F. Osborn. Third Revised Edition. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1963. [Paetsch, Eberlein, Maurer, 2003] Requirements Engineering and Agile Software Development. By F. Paetsch, A. Eberlein, F. Maurer. The Twelfth IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE 2003). Linz, Austria. June 9-11, 2003. [Petre, Hoek, 2016] Software Design Decoded: 66 Ways Experts Think. By M. Petre, A. van der Hoek. The MIT Press. 2016. [Pikkarainen, Codenie, Boucart, Alvaro, 2011] The Art of Software Innovation: Eight Practice Areas to Inspire your Business. By M. Pikkarainen, W. Codenie, N. Boucart, J. A. H. Alvaro (Editors). Springer-Verlag. 2011. [Plattner, Meinel, Leifer, 2011] Design Thinking: Understand – Improve – Apply. By H. Plattner, C. Meinel, L. Leifer (Editors). Springer-Verlag. 2011. [Pritchard, 2015] Risk Management: Concepts and Guidance. By C. L. Pritchard. Fifth Edition. CRC Press. 2015. [Ratcliffe, McNeill, 2012] Agile Experience Design: A Digital Designer’s Guide to Agile, Lean, and Continuous. By L. Ratcliffe, M. McNeill. New Riders. 2012. [Reed, 2010] Thinking Visually. By S. K. Reed. Psychology Press. 2010. [Rich, Hodges, 2017] Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. By P. J. Rich, C. B. Hodges (Editors). Springer International Publishing. 2017. [Roberts, Headleand, Ritsos, 2017] Five Design-Sheets: Creative Design and Sketching for Computing and Visualisation. By J. C. Roberts, C. J. Headleand, P. D. Ritsos. Springer International Publishing. 2017. [Robertson, Robertson, 2006] Mastering the Requirements Process. By S. Robertson, J. Robertson. Second Edition. 2006.

34

[Roman, 2018] Thinking-Driven Testing: The Most Reasonable Approach to Quality Control. By A. Roman. Springer International Publishing. 2018. [Russell, Creighton, 2011] Artwork for Requirements Definition. By S. Russell, O. Creighton. The 2011 Fourth International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering (MERE 2011). Trento, Italy. August 30, 2011. [Rustler, 2012] Mind Mapping For Dummies. By F. Rustler. John Wiley and Sons. 2012. [Sabourin, 2006] X Marks the Test Case: Using Mind Maps For Software Design. By R. Sabourin. Better Software. November 2006. Pages 30-35. [Sayer, Williams, 2007] Lean For Dummies. By N. J. Sayer, B. Williams. John Wiley and Sons. 2007. [Schneider, 2009] Experience and Knowledge Management in Software Engineering. By K. Schneider. Springer-Verlag. 2009. [Schuster, 2012] Concept Mapping: A Critical-Thinking Approach to Care Planning. By P. M. Schuster. Third Edition. F. A. Davis Company. 2012. [Shneiderman, 1996] The Eyes Have It: A Task by Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations. By B. Shneiderman. The 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (VL 1996). Boulder, U.S.A. September 3-6, 1996. [Shostack, 2014] Threat Modeling: Designing for Security. By A. Shostack. John Wiley and Sons. 2014. [Spencer, 2009] Card Sorting: Designing Usable Categories. By D. Spencer. Rosenfeld Media. 2009. [Sutcliffe, 2002] User-Centred Requirements Engineering. By A. Sutcliffe. Springer-Verlag. 2002. [Vreede, Kolfschoten, Briggs, 2006] ThinkLets: A Collaboration Engineering Pattern Language. By G. J. De Vreede, G. L. Kolfschoten, R. O. Briggs. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology. Volume 25. Numbers 2/3. 2006. Pages 140-154. [Wanderley, Silveira, Araújo, Moreira, 2013] Transforming Creative Requirements into Conceptual Models. By F. Wanderley, D. S. da Silveira, J. Araújo, A. Moreira. The

35

Seventh IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2013). Paris, France. May 29-31, 2013. [Wanderley, Silveira, Araújo, Moreira, Guerra, 2014] Experimental Evaluation of Conceptual Modelling through Mind Maps and Model Driven Engineering. By F. Wanderley, D. S. da Silveira, J, Araújo, A. Moreira, E. Guerra. The Fourteenth International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA 2014). Guimarães, Portugal. June 30-July 3, 2014. [Wilson, 2013a] Brainstorming and Beyond: A User-Centered Design Method. By C. Wilson. Morgan Kaufmann. 2013. [Wilson, 2013b] Credible Checklists and Quality Questionnaires: A User-Centered Design Method. By C. Wilson. Morgan Kaufmann. 2013. [Yamashita, Anda, Sjøberg, Benestad, Arnstad, Moonen, 2009] Using Concept Mapping for Maintainability Assessments. By A. Yamashita, B. Anda, D. I. K. Sjøberg, H. C. Benestad, P. E. Arnstad, L. Moonen. The Third International Symposium of Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2009). Orlando, U.S.A. October 15, 2009. [Zowghi, Coulin, 2005] Requirements Elicitation: A Survey of Techniques, Approaches, and Tools. By D. Zowghi, C. Coulin. In: Engineering and Managing Software Requirements. A. Aurum, C. Wohlin (Editors). Springer-Verlag. 2005. Pages 19-46.

36

This resource is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.