SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting Group Creativity in Upstream Requirements Engineering

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Creativity and Rationale

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS,volume 20))

  • 1552 Accesses

Abstract

The upstream stage of requirements engineering (RE) focuses primarily on determining high-level organizational requirements. Upstream RE provides perhaps the best opportunity to instill creativity into the design process, as it is here where stakeholders figure out what to build. However, how to incorporate creativity into current RE methods remains a fundamental concern. Negative intergroup social processes, such as those associated with status differentials, ingroup bias, and majority influence, can impede group creativity and otherwise negatively impact the upstream RE process. This chapter discuses these issues and suggests how creativity can be promoted using an IBIS design rationale coupled with group support system tools intended to diminish negative social influences between (and within) stakeholder groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories or creativity (pp. 61–91). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1977). Gender and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 44–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., & Kitapci, H. (2006). The WinWin approach: Using a requirements negotiation tool for rationale capture and use. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, N., Shami, N. S., Olson, J. S., Cheshin, A., & Nan, N. (2004). In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams: An experimental simulation. CSCW, 6(3), 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrol, J. B. (1985). Domains of cognitive ability. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. (1991). Status processes in groups. American Sociological Review, 56, 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems (TOIS), 6(4), 303–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1989). gIBIS: A tool for all reasons. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 40, 200–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 24(4), 490–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, N. B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 185–236). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couger, J. D. (1996). Creativity & innovation in information systems organizations. Danvers: Boyd & Fraser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 231–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutoit, A. H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., & Paech, B. (2006). Rationale management in software engineering: Concepts and techniques. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 1–43). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 350–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, D. (1962). Experimental studies of social influence in simple judgment situations. Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 245–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Buffalo: Creative Education Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent production. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R. (1959). Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 401–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leader, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. R. (1995). Requirements gathering: The human factor. Communications of the ACM, 38(5), 31–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions in group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to numerical minority women. The American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, N., & Anderson, N. (1990). Innovation in working groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 81–100). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Working paper no. 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • LatanĂ©, B. (1981) The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B. (1986). Responsibility and effort in organizations. In: P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 277–304). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, J., & Guo, X. (2008). A study of group support systems and the intergroup setting. Decision Support Systems, 45(3), 452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lott, A., & Lott, B. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 428–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W., Grant, K., Lai, K.-Y., Rao, R., & Rosenblitt, D. (1986). Semi-structured messages are surprisingly useful for computer-supported coordination. Proceedings of CSCW’86, MCC/ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Austin, Texas, 102–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of groups. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes, 9 (pp. 237–280). Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1974). Social influence I, Conformity and social control. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology, classic and contemporary integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Nemeth, C. (1974). Social influence II. Minority influence. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology, classic and contemporary integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouton, J. S., Blake, R. R., & Olmstead, J. A. (1956). The relationship between frequency of yielding and the disclosure of personal identity. Journal of Personality, 24, 339–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, L., & Swatman, P. A. (2006). Promoting and supporting requirements engineering in creativity. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocker, R. J., Huang, H., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2011). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panteli, N., & Davison, R. M. (2005). The role of subgroups in the communication patterns of global virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmeter, S. M., & Gaber, J. D. (1971). Creative scientists rate creativity factors. Research Management, November, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline concept to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooksby, J., Sommerville, I., & Pidd, M. (2006). A hybrid approach to upstream requirements: Ibis and cognitive map**. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J., Lovaglia, M. J., Mannix, E. A., Samuelson, C. D., & Wilson, R. K. (1992). Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 44–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M. (1935). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., O’Bannon, D., & Scully, J. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work group. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup behaviour. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 66–101). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinacke, W. E., Wilson, W. R., & Meredith, G. M. (1964). Dimensions of social psychology. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D., & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program in theoretical research programs. In J. Berger & M. Zeldich Jr. (Eds.), Studies in the growth of theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D., & Berger, J. (1997). Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts, Sociological Perspectives, 40(1–32), 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walz, D. B., Elam, J. J., & Curtis, B. (1993). Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing and integration. Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 207–230). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: An interactionist perspective. In J. A. Glover & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 77–92). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 292–321.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Rosalie J. Ocker

Authors
  1. Rosalie J. Ocker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosalie J. Ocker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Sciences and Tech, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 332, Pennsylvania, 16802, Pennsylvania, USA

    John M. Carroll

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ocker, R.J. (2013). Promoting Group Creativity in Upstream Requirements Engineering. In: Carroll, J. (eds) Creativity and Rationale. Human–Computer Interaction Series, vol 20. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4111-2_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4111-2_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4110-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4111-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation