A Systematic Mapping of Software Requirements Negotiation Techniques

Lucas Tito, Alexandre Estebanez, Andréa Magalhães, Daniel de Oliveira, Marcos Kalinowski


[Context] Eliciting requirements is a commonly discussed task. However, after they are ready, it is essentially important for a software project that these requirements are sufficient for stakeholders to reach their goals. Therefore, techniques to negotiate schedule, price, quality, and scope among stakeholders are important. [Goal] This paper aims at identifying and presenting characteristics of techniques that have been proposed and/or used to negotiate software requirements. [Method] A mapping study was planned and conducted to identify techniques and to capture their characteristics. Those characteristics include description, environment (e.g. academic, industrial), the types of research being published, and the types of primary studies. The main findings of the papers, and the advantages and disadvantages reported for theses techniques were also summarized. [Results] We mapped the characteristics of 10 different requirements negotiation techniques identified in 33 papers which met our inclusion criteria. We found that most of the identified techniques can be seen as variations of the seminal WinWin requirements negotiation technique proposed in 1994. [Conclusions] The conducted mapping study provides an interesting overview of the area and may also be useful to ground future research on this topic.


  1. Ahmad, S. (2008). Negotiation in the requirements elicitation and analysis process. In Proceedings of the 19th ASWEC, pages 683-689.
  2. Badampudi, D., Wohlin, C., and Petersen, K. (2015). Experiences from using snowballing and database searches in systematic literature studies. In Proc. of EASE, pages 17:1-17:10.
  3. Boehm, B., Bose, P., Horowitz, E., and Lee, M.-J. (1994). Software requirements as negotiated win conditions. In Proc. of ICRE, pages 74-83.
  4. Boehm, B., Bose, P., Horowitz, E., and Lee, M. J. (1995). Software requirements negotiation and renegotiation aids: A theory-w based spiral approach. In Proc. of ICSE, pages 243-243.
  5. Boehm, B. and Egyed, A. (1998). Software requirements negotiation: Some lessons learned. In Proc. of ICSE, pages 503-506.
  6. Boehm, B., Egyed, A., Kwan, J., and Madachy, R. (1997). Developing multimedia applications with the winwin spiral model. In Proc. of FSE, pages 20-39.
  7. Boehm, B., Egyed, A., Kwan, J., Port, D., Shah, A., and Madachy, R. (1998a). Using the winwin spiral model: A case study. Computer, 31(7):33-44.
  8. Boehm, B., Egyed, A., Port, D., Shah, A., Kwan, J., and Madachy, R. (1998b). A stakeholder win-win approach to software engineering education. Annals of Software Engineering, 6(1):295-321.
  9. Boehm, B., Grünbacher, P., and Briggs, R. O. (2001). Developing groupware for requirements negotiation: Lessons learned. IEEE Software, 18(3):46-55.
  10. Boehm, B. and Kitapci, H. (2006). The winwin approach: using a requirements negotiation tool for rationale capture and use. In Rationale Management in Software Engineering, pages 173-190. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  11. Egyed, A. and Boehm, B. (1997). Analysis of system requirements negotiation behavior patterns. In Proc. of INCOSE, pages 481-488.
  12. Egyed, A. and Boehm, B. (1999). Comparing software system requirements negotiation patterns. Systems Engineering, 2(1):1-14.
  13. Felizardo, K. R., Mendes, E., Kalinowski, M., Souza, E. F., and Vijaykumar, N. L. (2016). Using forward snowballing to update systematic reviews in software engineering. In Proc. of ESEM, pages 53:1-53:6.
  14. Grünbacher, P. (2000). Collaborative requirements negotiation with easywinwin. In Proc. of DEXA, pages 954- 958.
  15. Grünbacher, P. and Boehm, B. (2001). Easywinwin: A groupware-supported methodology for requirements negotiation. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 26(5):320- 321.
  16. Grünbacher, P. and Braunsberger, P. (2003). Tool support for distributed requirements negotiation. Cooperative methods and tools for distributed software processes, pages 56-66.
  17. Grünbacher, P. and Briggs, R. O. (2001). Surfacing tacit knowledge in requirements negotiation: experiences using easywinwin. In Proc. of HICSS.
  18. Grünbacher, P., Egyed, A., and Medvidovic, N. (2001). Reconciling software requirements and architectures: The cbsp approach. In Proc. of RE, pages 202-211.
  19. Grünbacher, P., Egyed, A., and Medvidovic, N. (2004a). Reconciling software requirements and architectures with intermediate models. Software & Systems Modeling, 3(3):235-253.
  20. Grünbacher, P., Halling, M., Biffl, S., BIFFL, S., and Boehm, B. W. (2004b). Integrating collaborative processes and quality assurance techniques: experiences from requirements negotiation. Journal of Management Inf. Sys., 20(4):9-29.
  21. Grünbacher, P. and Seyff, N. (2005). Requirements negotiation. In Engineering and managing software requirements, pages 143-162. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  22. Grünbacher, P., Seyff, N., Briggs, R. O., In, H. P., Kitapci, H., and Port, D. (2007). Making every student a winner: The winwin approach in software engineering education. JSS, 80(8):1191 - 1200.
  23. In, H., Boehm, B., Rodgers, T., and Deutsch, M. (2001). Applying winwin to quality requirements: a case study. In Proc. of ICSE, pages 555-564.
  24. In, H. P. and Olson, D. (2004). Requirements negotiation using multi-criteria preference analysis. J.UCS, 10(4):306-325.
  25. In, H. P., Olson, D., and Rodgers, T. (2002). Multi-criteria preference analysis for systematic requirements negotiation. In Proceedings of the Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), pages 887-892.
  26. Kazman, R., In, H. P., and Chen, H.-M. (2005). From requirements negotiation to software architecture decisions. Information and Software Technology, 47(8):511-520.
  27. Khan, U. Z., Wahab, F., and Saeed, S. (2014). Integration of scrum with win-win requirements negotiation model. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research , 19(1):101-104.
  28. Kitapci, H. and Boehm, B. W. (2007). Formalizing informal stakeholder decisions-a hybrid method approach. In Proc. of HICSS.
  29. Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical report, Keele University.
  30. Le Bon, G. (1895). Psychologie des foules. UltraLetters.
  31. Lee, M.-j. (1996). Foundations of the winwin requirements negotiation system. PhD thesis, University of Southern California.
  32. Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S., Kalinowski, M., and et al. (2016). Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice. Empirical Software Engineering (doi:10.1007/s10664-016-9451-7), pages 1-41.
  33. Raja, B. S., Iqbal, M. A., and Ihsan, I. (2007). Moving from problem space to solution space. Int. J. of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 1(11):764-767.
  34. Ramires, J., Antunes, P., and Respício, A. (2005). Software requirements negotiation using the software quality function deployment. In International Conference on Collaboration and Technology (CRIWG), pages 308- 324.
  35. Ruhe, G. (2002). Software engineering decision supporta new paradigm for learning software organizations. In Int. Workshop on Learning Software Organizations, pages 104-113.
  36. Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., and Pfahl, D. (2002). Quantitative winwin: A new method for decision support in requirements negotiation. In Proc. of SEKE, SEKE 7802, pages 159-166, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  37. Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., and Pfahl, D. (2003). Trade-off analysis for requirements selection. IJSEKE, 13(04):345- 366.
  38. Schopenhauer, A. (1831). Die Kunst zu beleidigen. C.H. Beck.
  39. Stallinger, F. and Gr ünbacher, P. (2001). System dynamics modelling and simulation of collaborative requirements engineering. JSS, 59(3):311 - 321.
  40. Vogl, H., Lehner, K., Gr ünbacher, P., and Egyed, A. (2011). Reconciling requirements and architectures with the cbsp approach in an iphone app project. In Proc. of RE, pages 273-278.
  41. Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., Mead, N., and Rolland, C. (2005). Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: A proposal and a discussion. Requirements Engineering, 11(1):102-107.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Tito L., Estebanez A., Magalhães A., de Oliveira D. and Kalinowski M. (2017). A Systematic Mapping of Software Requirements Negotiation Techniques . In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-248-6, pages 518-525. DOI: 10.5220/0006362605180525

in Bibtex Style

author={Lucas Tito and Alexandre Estebanez and Andréa Magalhães and Daniel de Oliveira and Marcos Kalinowski},
title={A Systematic Mapping of Software Requirements Negotiation Techniques},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
TI - A Systematic Mapping of Software Requirements Negotiation Techniques
SN - 978-989-758-248-6
AU - Tito L.
AU - Estebanez A.
AU - Magalhães A.
AU - de Oliveira D.
AU - Kalinowski M.
PY - 2017
SP - 518
EP - 525
DO - 10.5220/0006362605180525