CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND

ELICITATION TECHNIQUES

ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS’ FEATURES

Gabriela N. Aranda

Departamento de Ciencias de la Computación, Universidad Nacional del Comahue

Buenos Aires 1400, Neuquén, Argentina

Aurora Vizcaíno

Departamento de Informática – Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

Paseo de la Universidad 4, Ciudad Real, España

Alejandra Cechich

Departamento de Ciencias de la Computación, Universidad Nacional del Comahue

Buenos Aires 1400, Neuquén, Argentina

Mario Piattini

Departamento de Informática – Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

Paseo de la Universidad 4, Ciudad Real, España

Keywords: Groupware, Distributed Cooperative Work, Distributed Requirements Elicitation, Cognitive Informatics.

Abstract: The set of groupware tools used during a distributed development process is usually chosen by taking into

account predetermined business politics, managers’ personal preferences, or people in charge of the project.

However, perhaps the chosen groupware tools are not the most appropriate for all the group members and it

is possible that some of them would not be completely comfortable with them.

To avoid this situation we have built a model and its supporting prototype tool which, based on techniques

from psychology, suggests an appropriate set of groupware tools and elicitation techniques according to

stakeholders’ preferences.

1 INTRODUCTION

Software development in scenarios where

stakeholders are in many geographically distributed

sites, seems to be more common every day. The

multi-site development is a current matter of study

and discussion, especially about people who are

involved in those virtual teams. It is a fact that

during a traditional requirement elicitation process,

stakeholders must face many problems that have

been detected and analysed for decades (Brooks,

1987; Davis, 1993; Loucopoulos, 1995). When

participants are distributed distance affects processes

of communication, coordination and control and has

consequences along all the software development

process

(Damian, 2004), specially during the

requirement elicitation process which is critically

based on communication between stakeholders

(SWEBOK, 2004). In addition to barriers in

communication, other obstacles appear, like

problems in knowledge management, stakeholders’

cultural diversity and time differences between

different sites (Damian, 2002).

There are some areas of research that try to

minimize the impact of these problems. One of them

is the CSCW (Computer-Supported Cooperative

Work), which takes into account both human

N. Aranda G., Vizcaíno A., Cechich A. and Piattini M. (2005).

CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS’ FEATURES.

In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 68-75

DOI: 10.5220/0002522900680075

 SciTePress

behaviour and the technical support people need to

work as a group in a more productive way. This

technical support is called groupware and is one of

the main subjects of our study. On the other hand, as

another approach to solve same problems of

distributed requirements elicitation, the use of

Cognitive Informatics is increasing day by day.

Cognitive Informatics (Chiew, 2003; Wang,

2002) is a profound interdisciplinary research area

that tackles the common root problems of modern

informatics, computation, software engineering,

artificial intelligence (AI), neural psychology, and

cognitive science. One of the most interesting things

found in cognitive informatics is that it embodies

many science and engineering disciplines, such as

informatics, computing, software engineering, and

cognitive sciences, which share a common root

problem: how natural intelligence processes

information.

Considering that the quality of the requirements

is influenced by the techniques employed during

requirement elicitation (Hickey, 2003) and the role

that groupware tools play when communicating in

virtual teams (Damian, 2002), we aim at improving

virtual teams performance by applying concepts

from cognitive informatics. We are particularly

interested in some techniques from the field of

psychology, which are called Learning Style Models

(LSM). LSM classify people according to the way in

which they perceive and process information, and

analyse relationships between students and

instructors. Considering that during requirement

elicitation a person acts like student and instructor

alternatively; we propose using LSM as a base for

improving the requirements elicitation process. In

doing so, we propose choosing a set of groupware

tools and elicitación techniques that support not only

the communication itself but also the stakeholders’

preferences.

With this in mind, in the following sections we

present some basic concepts about groupware tools,

and learning style models. In section four, we

describe a model that supports stakeholders’

personal preferences in geographically distributed

processes, and an automatic tool that uses the

previous model. In section five we present some

related works. Conclusions are addressed in the final

section of the paper.

2 CSCW AND GROUPWARE

CSCW is an acronym that refers to research into

experimental systems and the nature of

organizations, while groupware focuses on

technologies (Grudin, 1994).

Generally speaking, groupware is software to

enable communication between cooperating people

who work on a common task. It may include

different communication technologies, from simple

plain-text chat to advanced videoconferencing

(Gralla, 1996). To avoid ambiguities we will refer to

every simple piece of communication technology as

a groupware tool, and to the systems that combine

them as groupware packages.

The most common groupware tools used during

multi-site developments are e-mails, newsgroups

and mailing lists, electronic discussion or forums,

electronic notice or bulletin boards, asynchronous

and synchronous shared whiteboards, document

sharing, chat, instant messaging, and

videoconferencing (Damian, 2002; Gralla, 1996;

Herlea, 1998).

At first glance, groupware tools can be divided

into synchronous and asynchronous; whether the

users have to work at the same time or not (Ellis,

1991). Synchronous tools are, for instance, chat and

videoconferencing, while e-mails, forums, and

document sharing are asynchronous.

Some authors note the importance of using both

types of tools in group work. Asynchronous

collaboration is important because it allows team

members to construct requirements individually and

contribute to the collective activity of the group for a

later discussion. This is significant when groups are

distributed across time zones because of the

difficulty in scheduling real time meetings. Also,

real time collaboration and discussions seem to be

necessary components of group requirements

elicitation sessions, in such a way that, by means of

synchronous tools, stakeholders have the chance of

getting instant feedback (Herlea, 1998).

A second classification of groupware tools can

be made according to the way in which they show

the information. Some of them are based primarily

on images, figures, diagrams, etc., like shared

whiteboards, videoconferencing; while others do it

by predominantly using words, for instance, chat, e-

mails, newsgroups, mailing lists, forums, etc.

3 LEARNING STYLE MODELS

A learning process involves two steps: reception and

processing of information.

During the first step, people receive external

information –which is observable through senses–

and internal information –which emerges from

introspection–, then they select a part to process and

ignore the rest. Processing involves memorization or

reasoning (inductive or deductive), reflection or

action, and introspection or interaction with others

CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'

FEATURES

(Felder, 1996; Felder, 1988).

Learning Style Models (LMS) classify people

according to a set of behavioural characteristics

pertaining to the ways they receive and process

information and this classification is used to improve

the way people learn a given task.

These models have been discussed in the context

of analysing relationships between instructors and

students. We have tried to take advantage of this

model and discussions by adapting their application

to a virtual team that deals with a distributed

elicitation process. To do so, we consider an analogy

between stakeholders and roles in LSM since during

the elicitation process everybody “learns” from

others. In this way stakeholders play the role of

student or instructor alternatively, depending on the

moment or the task they are carrying out (Martin,

2003).

After analysing five LSM in (Martin, 2003) we

found out that every item in the other models was

included in the model proposed by Felder-Silverman

(Felder, 1988), so that we may build a complete

reference framework choosing this as a foundation.

The Felder-Silverman (F-S) Model classifies

people into four categories, each of them further

decomposed into two subcategories as follows:

Sensing/Intuitive; Visual/Verbal; Active/Reflective;

Sequential/Global. Each subcategory has the

following significant characteristics:

Sensing people prefer learning facts. They like

solving problems by well-established methods and

dislike complications and surprises. Sensors tend to

be patient with details and good at memorising facts

and doing hands-on (laboratory) work. On the

contrary, intuitive people often prefer discovering

possibilities and relationships. They like innovation

and dislike repetition. They tend to work faster and

to be more innovative than sensors. Intuitors do not

like work that involves a lot of memorisation and

routine calculations.

Visual people remember best what they see (such

as pictures, diagrams, flow charts, time lines, films,

and demonstrations). They prefer visually presented

information. On the other hand, verbal people get

more out of words, and written and spoken

explanations. They prefer verbally presented

information.

Active people tend to retain and understand

information by doing something active with it

(discussing or applying it or explaining it to others).

“Let’s try it out and see how it works” is an Active

´s phrase. In contrast, reflective people prefer to

think about information quietly first. “Let’s think it

through first” is the Reflective’s response.

Sequential people tend to gain understanding in

linear steps, with each step following logically from

the previous one. They tend to follow logical

stepwise paths in finding solutions. They may not

fully understand the material but they can

nevertheless do something with it (like solve

homework problems or pass a test) since the pieces

are logically connected. Contrarily, global people

tend to work in large jumps, absorbing material

almost randomly without seeing connections, and

then suddenly "getting it". They may be able to solve

complex problems quickly or put things together in

novel ways once they have grasped the big picture,

but they may have difficulty explaining how they

did it.

Classification into the different categories is

made by a multiple-choice test proposed by

Soloman-Felder. As a result, each person gets a rank

for each category that suggests his or her preference.

People may fit into one category or the other

depending on the circumstances: people may be

“sometimes” active and “sometimes” reflective. The

preference for one category may be strong,

moderate, or mild. Only when there is a strong

preference, can people be catalogued as a member of

a certain group.

4 OUR PROPOSAL

4.1 The Model

Before proposing a methodology for supporting

distributed elicitation we think it is necessary to

determine the aspects that have to be considered and

the way in which they relate to each other.

With the aim of recommending a set of suitable

groupware tools and elicitation techniques during a

particular elicitation process, we have defined a

model, which is depicted in Figure 1, and whose

primary concepts and relationships are now

described:

• Virtual Team

Virtual team (Peters, 2003) virtual community

(Geib, 2004), distributed group (Lloyd, 2002) are

terms used to refer to a group of people who work

together on a project. Their main characteristic is

their distribution over many sites, and the use of

information technology to communicate and

coordinate efforts.

In our model the common project or task which

they carry out is the elicitation process, which is

the process of “extract and inventory the

requirements from a combination of human

stakeholders” (SWEBOK, 2004).

ICEIS 2005 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

• Stakeholder

A stakeholder is defined as “a person, such as an

employee, […], who is involved with an

organization, […] and therefore has

responsibilities towards it and an interest in its

success” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2004).

Typical stakeholders are users (those who will

operate the system), customers (those who have

commissioned the system), system developers,

etc. (SWEBOK, 2004).

Each person in a virtual team is supposed to play

(at least) one Role during the elicitation process,

and, as it is a person, he or she has some

Personal Characteristics that tell us about his or

her preferences when he/she perceives and

process information.

• Groupware Tools

As we have mentioned before, groupware is

software to enable communication. According to

the way in which they show the information,

groupware tools have different Representation

Modes (based on figures or diagrams, or based on

spoken or written words) and different

Interaction Modes (for instance, synchronous or

asynchronous).

• Elicitation Techniques

Elicitation is fundamentally a human activity

where communication plays a transcendental role

(SWEBOK, 2004).

Requirement engineers may face some

difficulties, usually because users cannot clearly

describe their tasks, or because they are not

completely disposed to cooperate.

The election of elicitation techniques plays a very

important role in distributed teams. Since face-to-

face interaction is not possible, techniques have to

be adapted to be used in combination with

groupware. Some techniques that seem to be

adaptable to the distributed elicitation process are

question and answer methods, customer

interviews, brainstorming, idea reduction,

storyboards, prototyping, questionnaires, and use

cases (Lloyd, 2002).

Like groupware tools, elicitation techniques have

different Representation Modes (based on

images or based on words).

Relationships between these concepts can be

expressed generally as:

• A Virtual Team represents a group of

Stakeholders that work cooperatively on a

common task (which in our case is the Elicitation

Process).

• Stakeholders play Roles that imply rights and

responsibilities that have to do with their job.

In our case the roles involved in the elicitation

process are: users, clients, managers, analysts,

project managers, etc.

• Stakeholders communicate with each other using

some Groupware Tools and build different

models of a problem using a set of Elicitation

Techniques.

Stakeholder

Role

Personal

Characteristic

Groupware

Tool

Interaction

Mode

Representation

Mode

Elicitation

Technique

2..n

1..n

plays

has

Virtual team

uses

ccording to

according to

Figure 1: A model to support personal preferences in a virtual community

CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'

FEATURES

• Groupware Tools, as well as Elicitation

Techniques, are supposed to be chosen according

to the stakeholders’ Personal Characteristics, in

order to make them feel comfortable and improve

their performance.

• Each Groupware Tool has a Representation

Mode (verbal or visual) and an Interaction

Mode (synchronous or asynchronous), which are

important in deciding the suitability for a

stakeholder’s personal preferences.

• In a similar way, each Elicitation Technique has

a predominant Representation Mode (verbal,

visual, or a possible good combination of both)

that we will take into account to suggest their use

or non-use.

4.2 Applying LSM to choose

Groupware Tools

In order to support personal preferences, in (Martin,

2003) we have proposed a classification of

groupware tools focusing on Visual/Verbal and

Active/Reflective categories of the F-S model. The

classification is based on the description and the

strategies suggested by Felder and Silverman for

each subcategory. The results of such classifications

are shown in Figure 2. The sign “++” is used to

indicate those groupware tools which are more

suitable for people with a strong preference for a

given subcategory. The sign “+” indicates that a

groupware tool would be mildly preferred by a

stakeholder with those characteristics. Finally, the

sign “-“ suggests that a particular groupware tool

would be “not suitable” for that particular

subcategory.

Also, we have proposed a way of choosing a set

of groupware tools for a given group of

stakeholders. To do so we suggest representing the

information we know about each participant in a

two-way matrix that collects their preferences for

categories Visual/Verbal and Active/Reflective. By

doing so, we can have a view of stakeholders’

preferences in general and, according to the quadrant

that contains more instances, choose those

groupware tools that adapt to most people in the

group. Figure 3 shows an example of such a matrix.

In (Aranda, 2004), we have presented a model

based on fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets, which aims to

obtain rules, given a set of representative examples,

that tell us about the stakeholders’ preferences in

their daily use of groupware tools.

The model takes four inputs (X

, X

which are the preferences for each category of the F-

S Model, and an output variable (Y) that is the

preference for one of a given set of groupware tools.

For each input variable we have defined a

domain using the adverbs (and their correspondent

abbreviations): Very (V), Moderate (M) and Slight

(S). These adverbs correspond to strong, moderate

and mild, respectively, in the F-S model, but we

have changed their names to avoid confusion with

respect to the use of the first letter.

For instance, the definition domain for the

category Reflective-Active would be: Very

reflective (VRe), Moderately reflective (MRe),

Slightly reflective (SRe), Slightly active (SAc),

Moderately active (MAc), Very active (VAc).

Using a machine learning algorithm it is possible

to obtain rules such as “R

: if X

is VAc and X

VVi then y is IM”, which is interpreted as: “If a

user has a strong preference for the Active

subcategory and a strong preference for the Visual

subcategory, the tool that this person would prefer is

Instant Messaging”

In a similar way it is possible to find a suitable

set of elicitation techniques according to the

preferences for each category of the F-S model.

Visual

Verbal

Active

Reflective

Asynchronous

Tools

E-mails

+ ++ - ++

Mailing lists, Newsgroups - ++ - ++

Asynch. shared whiteboards

Forums - ++ - ++

Synchronous

Tools

Instant messaging

Synch. shared whiteboards

Chat - ++ ++ -

Videoconferencing ++ ++ ++ -

Figure 2: Classification of groupware tools according to category’ descriptions of the F-S model

ICEIS 2005 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

4.3 A tool to automate the selection

process

As we have previously explained we aim to find a

set of groupware tools and elicitation techniques that

are suitable for a given group of stakeholders. By

trying to do this in an automatic way we have

designed a prototype tool.

By means of our tool, stakeholders are asked to

fill in a multiple-choice test so as to know their

preferences. This information is maintained

throughout the cooperative process.

Once a group of stakeholders is defined and their

preferences detected, our tool analyses them, using

the sets of rules previously generated. As a result it

returns the most suitable groupware tools and

elicitation techniques for that group of people.

The tool’s architecture has been designed

basically on three layers:

• Lower Layer – Persistent Data

It keeps the information concerning personal

preferences of stakeholders, rules of suitability

preferences-groupware tools and rules of

suitability preferences-elicitation techniques.

• Middle Layer – Application logic

It contains those components that interact with

the database and interface layers in order to find

information and, by applying the appropriate

algorithms, analyses it and produces a suitable

answer.

• Upper Layer – User Interface

It is the layer that contains all those components

with which users of the tool interact.

Figure 4 shows a screen of our prototype tool

where three stakeholders (Mary, Tom and Pam) are

interacting.

Information about their predominant personal

characteristics is shown on the upper right hand side

of the screen. On the bottom there are two lists of

suggested groupware tools and elicitation techniques

that would be most suitable for them.

5 RELATED WORK

Some related work concerning analysis of

groupware tools and elicitation techniques in

distributed teams is found in literature:

In (Damian, 2002) a case study is described of a

real multi-site organization that uses a mix of

synchronous and asynchronous tools, like

teleconferencing, a common repository of

documents, email, and other Internet technologies.

The authors collected data from inspecting

documents, observed requirements meetings, and

performed semi-structured interviews with

stakeholders. As a conclusion, some of the points

that stakeholders note as problems –which are

especially interesting for us– are the lack of informal

or face-to-face communication and the difficulty in

sharing drawings on a whiteboard during

spontaneous discussions.

Figure 3: Choosing a set of groupware tools according to F-S Model categories

Pam

Tom

Mary

Asynchronous tools

Synchronous tools

E-mails

Forums

Chat

Videoconferencing

Shared Whiteboards

Videoconferencing

E-mails

Instant Messaging

Strong

Mod

Mild

Strong

Mod

Strong

Mod

Mild

Strong

Mod

REFLECTIVE ACTIVE

VISUAL

VERBAL

CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'

FEATURES

Another example is reported in (Lloyd, 2002)

and shows the results of an exploratory empirical

study about effectiveness of requirement engineering

in a distributed setting. Students from different

graduate Software Engineering courses played the

role of customers or engineers in separate groups.

They used a previously selected set of groupware

tools: audio-conferencing and chat for synchronous

communication, and email for file sharing and

asynchronous discussions. They could do just four

planned audio-conferencing meetings, (no more than

19 minutes each), while the use of other

technologies was not restricted. They were able to

use a wide set of requirement elicitation techniques.

Participants playing the role of software engineers

wrote a Software Requirements Specification (SRS)

document using only the knowledge gained from

remote collaboration with customers. After SRS

documents were produced, a set of metrics was

applied to assess document quality. They concluded

that students who played the role of software

engineers chose the techniques according to

previous experience and instruction in the course.

Data collected suggested that groups producing high

quality SRS were those that had only used the

synchronous tools and did not need to use email and

asynchronous elicitation methods.

Both case studies have interesting points for us.

However, we think that different conclusions could

be reached if aspects relative to personal

characteristics had been applied. Why did students

who wrote the highest quality SRS documents not

need to use email to communicate with their

customers?: It may be because their personal

characteristics were suitable for synchronous tools,

while those who needed email interaction needed

more time to think and prepare questions or answers

so that synchronous communication was not the best

form for them; or it may be that they needed “to see”

the words written, and audio-conferencing was not

appropriate. With reference to the results obtained in

(Damian, 2002), the need to use a whiteboard to

draw during discussions indicates people with a

strong preference for visual tools.

In (Carrizo Moreno, 2004), a survey of works

where theories, empirical analysis and comparisons

between different elicitation techniques is presented.

It focuses on the fact that elicitation techniques are

chosen without having a valid guide to select the

best one.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Today, many organisations have adopted a

decentralised, team-based, distributed structure

where members communicate through groupware

tools. The selection of appropriate technology and

elicitation techniques in such environments is a

subject of study in current literature.

By means of improving communication during

the elicitation process, we think it is possible to

improve the elicitation process itself. When

stakeholders feel comfortable with the technology

and methodologies they use, information gathered

during elicitation is expected to be more accurate.

Figure 4: An interface that shows the suggestions for a particular group of stakeholders

ICEIS 2005 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

Stakeholders might feel more comfortable

expressing their ideas and describing facts by using

a tool closer to the way they perceive and reason

about the world.

In this paper, we have proposed a model and its

supporting tool to relate stakeholders' learning

preferences to communication tools and elicitation

techniques – more suitable according to those

preferences. However, an aspect that needs further

discussion is the possibility of solving conflicts

when stakeholders' preferences seem to be opposite.

We are working on that restriction.

Additionally, as a future work we are using this

tool in academic and industrial environments, in

order to evaluate how it behaves in real situations

and analyse its effectiveness in virtual teams.

REFERENCES

Aranda, G., Cechich, A., Vizcaíno, A. and Castro-Schez,

J. J. (2004). Using fuzzy sets to analyse personal

preferences on groupware tools. X Congreso

Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación, CACIC

2004, San Justo, Argentina, pp. 549-560.

Brooks, F. P. (1987). No Silver Bullet: Essence and

accidents of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer

4(20), pp. 10-19.

Cambridge Dictionary (2004). Cambridge Advanced

Learner's Dictionary. Cambridge Dictionaries Online,

<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/>. Cambridge

University Press 2004.

Carrizo Moreno, D. (2004). Selección de Técnicas de

Educción de Requisitos: Una Revisión Conjunta de la

Ingeniería de Software y la Ingeniería del

Conocimiento. IV Jornadas Iberoamericanas de

Ingeniería del Software e Ingeniería del

Conocimiento, JIISIC 2004, Madrid, Spain, pp. 159-

174.

Chiew, V. and Wang, Y. (2003). From Cognitive

Psychology to Cognitive Informatics. Second IEEE

International Conference on Cognitive Informatics,

ICCI’03, London, UK, pp. 114-120.

Damian, D., Lanubile, F., Hargreaves, E. and Chisan, J.

(2004). Workshop Introduction. 3rd International

Workshop on Global Software Development. Co-

located with ICSE 2004, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Damian, D. and Zowghi, D. (2002). The impact of

stakeholders geographical distribution on managing

requirements in a multi-site organization. IEEE Joint

International Conference on Requirements

Engineering, RE'02, Essen, Germany, pp. 319-328.

Davis, A. (1993). Software Requirements: Objects,

Functions and States. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Upper Saddle River.

Felder, R. (1996). Matters of Styles. ASEE Prism 6(4), pp.

18-23.

Felder, R. and Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and

Teaching Styles in Engineering Education.

Engineering Education 78(7), pp. 674-681.

Geib, M., Braun, C., Kolbe, L. and Brenner, W. (2004).

Measuring the Utilization of Collaboration

Technology for Knowledge Development and

Exchange in Virtual Communities. 37th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-

38, Big Island, Hawaii, pp. 1-10.

Gralla, P. (1996). How Intranets Work. Emeryville,

California, Ziff-Davis Press.

Grudin, J. (1994). Computer-Supported Cooperative

Work: History and Focus. IEEE Computer 27(5), pp.

19-26.

Herlea, D. and Greenberg, S. (1998). Using a Groupware

Space for Distributed Requirements Engineering. 7th

IEEE Int'l Workshop on Coordinating Distributed

Software Development Projects, Stanford, California,

USA, pp. 57-62.

Hickey, A. M. and Davis, A. M. (2003). Elicitation

Technique Selection: How do experts do it?

International Joint Conference on Requirements

Engineering (RE03), Los Alamitos, California, IEEE

Computer Society Press, pp. 169-178.

Ellis, C.A.; Gibbs, S.J. and Rein, G.L. (1991). Groupware:

Some Issues and Experiences. Comm. of ACM 34 (1),

pp. 38-58.

Lloyd, W., Rosson, M. B. and Arthur, J. (2002).

Effectiveness of Elicitation Techniques in Distributed

Requirements Engineering. 10th Anniversary IEEE

Joint International Conference on Requirements

Engineering, RE'02, Essen, Germany, pp. 311-318.

Loucopoulos, P. and Karakostas, V. (1995). System

Requirements Engineering. New York, NY, USA. Mc

Graw-Hill. International series in Software

Engineering.

Martin, A., Martinez, C., Martinez, N., Aranda, G. and

Cechich, A. (2003). Classifying Groupware Tools to

Improve Communication in Geographically

Distributed Elicitation. IX Congreso Argentino de

Ciencias de la Computación, CACIC 2003, La Plata,

Argentina, pp. 942-953.

Peters, L. (2003). The Virtual Environment: The “How-to”

of Studying Collaboration and Performance of

Geographically Dispersed Teams. Twelfth IEEE

International Workshops on Enabling Technologies:

Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises,

WETICE’03, Linz, Austria, pp. 137-141.

SWEBOK (2004). Guide to the Software Engineering

Body of Knowledge. Software Engineering

Coordinating Committee (IEEE-CS y ACM).

Wang, Y. (2002). On Cognitive Informatics. First IEEE

International Conference on Cognitive Informatics,

ICCI'02, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp. 34-42.

CHOOSING GROUPWARE TOOLS AND ELICITATION TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS'

FEATURES