2020 IEEE 28th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)
Reducing Ambiguity in Requirements Elicitation via
Gamification
Hafsa Shareef Dar
Dept. of Computer Science and Software
Engineering
Int. Islamic University Islamabad
Islamabad, Pakistan
hafsa_darr@yahoo.com, hafsa.dar@uog.edu.pk
Abstract— The overall quality and success of software highly
depends on the involvement of stakeholders. Requirements
elicitation supports RE analyst to gather requirements from the
stakeholders based on their needs. There are multiple elicitation
techniques present in literature and used by the practitioners.
Some of them are questionnaires, interviews, prototyping, and
user stories etc. However, these techniques are based on textual
representation of requirements. These techniques are quite
common among the requirement engineers yet problems of
ambiguity, inconsistency, incompleteness still exist mostly due to
their textual nature and lack of stakeholder involvement. Lack
of clarity about the system increases the ambiguity of what
exactly are the system requirements. Since elicitation is carried
at an early stage of development the users are not sure of what
they want, as requirements tend to evolve with the help of
discussions and interactions among various stakeholders and
technical team. Furthermore, the conventional elicitation
methods are limited when it comes to stakeholders’
participation and involvement, thus leaving a space for more
ambiguous and incomplete requirements. In this work,
Gamification, a game-based context will be used in non-gaming
context for user involvement in fun ways. During elicitation,
gamification would help to involve and interact with the
stakeholders, with an intention to develop their interest in
eliciting and finalizing system requirements. The goal of this
paper is to reduce ambiguity during requirements elicitation.
This would help in reducing the cost and time of development.
Furthermore, we will elicit software requirements using
gamification by developing a gamification tool with a focus to
elicit unambiguous requirements by ensuring users’
participation and maintaining interest. The validation of tool
would be done using multiple confirmatory case studies from
software industry.
Keywords—ambiguity, requirements engineering,
requirements elicitation, gamification, software development
I. INTRODUCTION
Requirements Engineering (RE) is the process to get
users’ requirements and transfer them into a useful and
interpretable system. RE itself is a major phase of software
development that includes elicitation, analysis, specification,
validation, negotiation and requirements management [3].
An extremely significant sub-process of RE is
requirements elicitation, which supports the RE team to gather
users’ requirements with the help of various elicitation
techniques [2]. If the process of elicitation is not conducted
correctly and requirements are not gathered properly, it would
not only impact other phases of requirement engineering but
would impact the overall quality of the software under
development. Lack of clear and unambiguous requirements
can result in project failure [4]. Acquiring clear and
unambiguous requirements is therefore a critical goal of
requirement elicitation activity. The traditional techniques to
elicit requirements are insufficient to gather unambiguous and
2332-6441/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/RE48521.2020.00065
complete requirements since they are unable to involve and
maintain interest of stakeholders for an effective elicitation.
One of the young, yet exciting method in requirements
elicitation is ‘gamification’ [5]. Gamification is the use of
gaming elements in non-gaming contexts [6]. With the help of
using user-involvement activities in requirements elicitation,
the process not only becomes easy, but it is possible to get
clear and understandable requirements. Therefore, if we
reduce ambiguity at this stage i.e. during the process of
requirements elicitation, it will have a positive impact on the
project. The cost and time of the development will reduce. To
elicit unambiguous and clear requirements from the user, we
aim to develop a gamification tool to help RE team during
requirements elicitation.
After Introduction, Background and Motivation is
presented in Section 2. Section 3 presents the problem
statement, consisting of research questions, objectives and
technical challenges, where Section 4 is Literature Review. In
Section 5 methodology of proposed work is mentioned. And
contributions are highlighted in Section 6.
II. BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION
Requirements Engineering emerged in the early 1960s
when structured approached of software development was
used [7]. After the popularity of the object-oriented
approaches in 1991, gradually RE was considered as an
important and first step of software development [8]. RE is an
important area of software engineering that also covers
identification of functions and system constraints [9]. The
requirements are elicited from various stakeholders, yet it is a
difficult part where stakeholders have to decide ‘what to
build’. The lack of clarity of what is requirement by the
stakeholders makes requirement elicitation a complex and
crucial activity [4].
Not limited to eliciting the user needs, RE also focuses on
developing the system according to the goals [16].
Requirements elicitation techniques tend to help in identifying
and analyzing user needs. These techniques such as traditional
or conversational, collaborative, cognitive, innovative and
contextual techniques [16-20] facilitate the user and the RE
team in eliciting requirements. These techniques are divided
into different methods such as questionnaire, interviews,
social analysis, user stories and others [2]. Details of the
existing techniques are given below [21].
Traditional or cconversational techniques use verbal
communication to elicit requirements. These techniques
include interviews [22-24, 25] and brainstorming [25]. The
most commonly used technique is interviews but biasness is
the factor that makes it less effective in yielding outcomes.
Similarly, brainstorming is another technique that requires
active participation of users in the session. Observational
440
techniques use a common way of observing different human
activities. Its famous methods are ethnography and social
analysis [21, 26]. Such techniques largely depends upon the
observation skills of the observant, in order to elicit
unambiguous requirements. In analytical techniques, existing
organizational or system documents and requirements are
analyzed during elicitation. The methods like document
analysis is one of its famous method [24, 27, 28]. However, if
documents are incomplete or unclear, it leads towards
ambiguous requirements. Synthetic techniques works with the
contextual circumstances and it involves methods like
prototyping [24, 25, 29] and Joint Application Development
(JAD) /Rapid Application Development (RAD) sessions.
These methods face the same issue as traditional methods i.e.
biasness may occur due to participation of specific
organization focused group.
The choice of technique selection largely depends on
technical factors and project environment. Where most of
these techniques acquire requirements by asking questions,
studying relevant material or observing different usage
scenarios, no method ensures active participation of the user.
Gamification maintains the fun part that is using gaming
elements in a serious scenario, to gain and maintain the
interest of stakeholders during elicitation. Moreover, user
motivation to participate in the process via gamification
platform may result in unambiguous and complete
requirements.
In recent years, gamification has also become part of
elicitation [10, 11] [41]. However, less work is present that
focuses on getting unambiguous and complete requirements
from the user [12-14]. The motivation of this work is to
develop a gamification tool that would support elicitation
process in getting unambiguous and complete requirements
from the user.
III. PROBLEM STATEMENT
One of the common challenges in requirements elicitation
is to involve all the stakeholders, which is a difficult part. Even
if they get involved in the process, they do not provide the
requirements clearly because of having less or no
understandability about the system. This results in ambiguous
and unclear requirements. In previous studies, some
limitations like requirements of few statements, exclusion of
extensive requirements, in-scalable for real life systems,
manual dependency, and inability to find complete words in a
sentence [48] are present. The limitations of elicitation
techniques such as experts’ dependency, document
incompleteness, biasness, untrained team and invalid solution
adds more to the challenges [22, 25]. In this context,
gamification provides help in form of an interactive platform
to stakeholders where they can understand their own system
and provide requirements. There are few challenges of using
gamification such as more time consumption activity, increase
in difficulty level, requires proper analysis, user involvement
and participation, and difficulty in finding active users [51].
Therefore, in our work, requirements ambiguity will be
reduced by involving stakeholders to participate in elicitation
process. For this purpose, a gamification tool will be used.
This tool would support the process and the team in eliciting
unambiguous and complete requirements.
441
A. Research Questions
Based on the identified gaps, three research questions have
been formulated: 1. How to elicit unambiguous and complete
software requirements via gamification? 2. What are the
challenges of using gamification during elicitation of
requirements with a focus on unambiguous and complete
software requirements? 3. What are the game-based elements
of the gamification tool for requirement elicitation?
B. Aims and Objectives
The aim of this paper is to reduce requirements ambiguity
with participation of stakeholders that will be ensured using
gamification. However, improving the motivation of
participation is to ensure that they will tell requirements and
are able to work on them, unless requirements are
unambiguous. Hence, for both of the aims, the objectives are:
to identify attractive game elements of gamification for
requirements elicitation; to develop a tool based on
gamification for elicitation of unambiguous with the help of
ambiguity reduction techniques; to perform validation by
conducting multiple confirmatory case studies on cases taken
from software industry; and to compare and analyze the results
of before and after using the tool.
Gamification is a method to improve user motivation and
to be actively engaged in the system. For participation of
stakeholders, we will use attractive and useful game elements
for elicitation, and for reducing ambiguity, ambiguity
reduction technique will be used.
C. Technical Challanges
In context of identified problem, the first technical
problem in terms of development is tool design and
development. Because gaming elements for unambiguous
and complete requirements elicitation tool are not clear from
literature. Second technical challenge is we need case studies
and organizations willingness to execute our method of
elicitation.
IV. EXISTING LITERATURE
Gamification as a concept was first documented in 2010
[6] and since then it gained a lot of popularity. It is commonly
used in human resources, collection of data, healthcare etc.
[32, 33]. It mainly includes different elements like setting
goals, rules, rewards, leaderboards, and feedback [5]. The
main elements of gamification are known as PBL i.e. points,
badges and leaderboards [34-36]. Points are the tracking of
score achieved by the user, feedback and progress display,
whereas badges represent the achievements of user and
leaderboards provide ranking by comparing the user score to
other users.
Gamification is not an old concept and is evolving, that is
why it may have issues of design, unachievable goals,
unrealistic rules and mechanisms [30, 31]. Recently [49] it has
been declared as a state of the art, but there are certain
problems linked to it which can impact the outcome of the
gamification activity in the long run, for instance in
gamification the level of stress and tension increases that
effects productivity in long run, gamification consumes a lot
of time, it requires a rigorous analysis before implementation,
participation awareness in users is required, absence of
standard plugins, and difficulty to get active users during the
process [51].
A. Requirements Elicitation via Gamification TABLE I. RELEVANT WORK IN GAMIFICATION
In RE some aspects have been gamified but there is still a
lot to be explored. The current practices have problems of Year Gamification Method Limitations Ref.
evaluation, less technological support, and challenges of 2019 GARUSO Level of biasness, [42]
Stakeholders’ involvement doubted requirements’
reliable results using gamified platforms. iThink [12], a in RE quality
gamified tool, was used to increase the participation and 2018 Ring-i process based on Size of sample, [43]
collaboration of stakeholders. The tool was designed based on i*models inconsistent model,
gamification concept with six thinking hats which is a creative Focused on requirements unclarity of idea, no
thinking method. iThink rewards the player on generating new inspection empirical evaluation
requirements. A project is setup by the project manager but 2017 CCRE crowd centric RE Not a comprehensive [13]
method solution, issues in
not rewarded because project manager is not considered as a Stakeholders’ engagement trustworthiness of
player. The game was implemented using Outsystems Agile Refine tool requirements
Platform and was evaluated using two case studies. Although 2016 CloudTeams Persona Absence of requirements [44]
iThink was fun, engaging and motivating, yet participants Builder specification, missing
reported that it was dependent on how new ideas are An application of user privacy, invalidated
generated. It was hard to draw further conclusion as test crowdsourcing on personas solution
in elicitation
sample was too limited. 2015 REVISE tool Only a proposed idea [14]
For elicitation, requirements visualization is considered as Developed for without implementation
requirements elicitation
a good approach to attract stakeholders, such as Architect Use and verification
Case Diagram (AUCD) [40]. To involve more customers and 2015 CCRE method in SPO Inexperienced team, less [46]
facilitate expressive communication for capturing A prototype attractive gaming
architecturally significant requirements, gamification using Refine tool was used for elements, issues to
AUCD was proposed for requirements elicitation and method presentation merge needs
analysis. In AUCD, images are used as communication media
and requirements’ representation is in visuals. Other In previous studies, gamification has been used in RE
operations of this game are to set goals, select players, game mainly to engage and motivate stakeholders so that they can
rules, and analysis of results. The tool worked with functional, participate in requirements elicitation activity, but still there
scalability and performance requirements. It was applied in are some limitations of previous work. In iThink, it was hard
different projects and for validation purpose, two different to generalize the results because of limited test sample [12]
questionnaires were conducted from players, and project [38]. Stakeholders’ background, design issues, and platform
managers/architects. The response showed that all participants usability were also missing [37, 39]. AUCD was a UML based
had a positive feedback on this method. AUCD uses use case model that doesn’t support NLP [40]. GREM was not a
diagram to manage functional and quality attributes in one comprehensive model for requirements elicitation [41].
diagram, hence it doesn’t support natural language Another work [11] mentioned a challenge to involve
requirements. stakeholders as they thought it was a non-serious fun task.
The Gamified Requirements Engineering Model (GREM) Similarly, REVISE [14] is a proposed idea using CARE, so
aimed to integrate gamification with stakeholder engagement far, the tool has not been developed and implemented. Another
and performance [41]. Thus, it worked on three variables gamified platform CCRE has limitations of less attractive
where gamification was measured with dichotomous variable, game elements and inexperienced team [46].
motivation with Reiss Profile, and emotions with PANAS Ambiguity in requirements is a huge problem that arise
(Positive and Negative Affect Schedule). Requirements were due to unclear system understanding [47]. A small number of
elicited through user stories and acceptance tests via gaming studies in literature have mentioned about ambiguity of
platform that was developed in WordPress and gaming requirements in elicitation [12, 43, 44]. However, studies also
elements including PBL, levels, challenges and activity feeds report some limitations of gamification in elicitation such as
were embedded using Captain Up API. It was evaluated by less effective outcomes [46], lack of visual appeal [12],
conducting a controlled experiment in a company, involving absence of concrete work and only a proposed idea [14],
12 participants divided into two groups considering invalid solutions [44], and biasness [42].
motivation, gender and expertise. It was concluded that
although quality, productivity and creativity may increase by Gamification in RE requires analysis, participation
using gamification, but it can reduce stakeholders’ awareness, difficulty in finding active users. Also, several
communication and collaboration may have negative studies revealed the negative effect of selecting limited sample
consequences. The choice of game elements affects size. Therefore, we aim to resolve the reported problems of
gamification. More experiments are required to represent requirements ambiguity by proposing a requirements
requirements because the authors have not tested the model elicitation gamification tool for software development. This
with respect to stakeholder engagement. tool would be made attractive by using well-suited game
elements. The tool would support RE team in eliciting
Following are more gamification methods in table 1 that unambiguous and complete requirements.
are present in literature. Table shows limitations of
gamification methods.
V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research method of this study comprises of following
steps and research methods.

442
A. Survey of Literature
In the first phase, literature survey on use of gamification
in requirements elicitation would be studied. The review of
survey has been done at initial level, but for further details on
requirements ambiguity and elicitation in gamification would
be explored from computing repositories such as Springer,
IEEE, ACM, Science Direct and others, to find relevant
material. The focus of literature survey would be on finding
which gaming elements are suitable for elicitation of
unambiguous and complete requirements.
B. Development of Tool
With the help of gamification platform, stakeholders can
well understand their system and would be able to give
complete and unambiguous requirements. For this purpose, a
gamification tool would be developed to help RE team during
requirements elicitation. The web-based gamification tool
would be developed in WordPress, having game elements
PBL. The requirements would be gathered from players i.e.
users and awarded with points for each complete and
unambiguous requirement. The requirements would be then
analyzed by the team. Furthermore, for ambiguity detection
and reduction POS tagging technique will be used and embed
in the tool. In previous works, requirements ambiguity in NL
is not addressed using gamification.
C. Validation of Tool
Validation of a gamified tool is an integral part of our
study that would be performed using multiple case studies. In
previous works, either sample size was limited, or evaluation
was performed on controlled experiments. In proposed study,
at least two case studies will be selected from the software
industry. Furthermore, the case studies will be confirmatory in
nature and requirements elicitation will be performed via
gamification tool. In this context, software projects will be the
unit of analysis (UoA) and ambiguity and incompleteness are
the metrics of this study.
Figure 1 shows a step wise research method.
Fig. 1. Research methodology
VI. CONTRIBUTION
With the help of gamification in RE, user involvement
can be increased, as suggested by the previous studies.
However, the aim of this work is on reducing ambiguity in
requirements that are gathered in natural language. The
contribution of this research includes designing and
development of a gamification tool for the purpose of
reducing ambiguity, validation of the tool in software
industry i.e. in real settings and comparative analysis of
results with the existing techniques.
REFERENCES
[1] Taherdost H. and Keshavarsalez A., "A Theoretical Review on IT
Project Success/Failure Factors and Evaluating the Associated Risks,"
443
in 14th International Conference on Telecommunications and
Informatics, Malta, 2015.
[2] Dar H., Ikramullah M., Ashraf H., Ramzan M., Amjad T., and Shahzad
B., "A Systematic Study on Software Requirements Elicitation
Techniques and Its Challenges in Mobile Application Development,"
IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 63859-63865, 2018.
[3] Fricker S., Grau R. and Zwingli A., "Requirements Engineering: Best
Practice," in Requirements Engineering for Digital Health, 2015.
[4] Sadiq M., and Jain S., "An Insight into Requirements Engineering
Processes," in International Conference on Advances in
Communication, Network, and Computing - Springer, Chennai, 2012.
[5] Deterding S., Sicart M., Nacke L., O’Hara K., and Dixon D.,
“Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming context,”
CHI-2011, ACM, Canada, 2011
[6] Deterding S., Sicart M., Nacke L., and Dixon D., “Gamification:
Toward a definition,” CHI-2011, ACM, Canada, 2011
[7] Alexandar I., "A Historical Perspective on Requirements,"
ScenerioPlus, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.scenarioplus.org.uk/papers/historical/historical.htm.
[Accessed May 2019].
[8] Ouhbi S., Idri A., and Luis J., "Requirements engineering education: a
systematic mapping study," Requirements Eng - Springer, vol. 20, p.
119–138, 2015.
[9] Zave P., "Classification of Research Efforts in Requirements
Engineering," ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 315-321,
1997.
[10] Dikert K., Paasivaara M., and Lassenius C., "Challenges and success
factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature
review," The Journal of Systems and Software, no. 119, p. 87–108,
2016.
[11] Pasanen J., “Enhancing Requirements eliciation and validation with
gamification,” Actoin research University of Gothenburg, Department
of Computer Science and Engineerinf, Sweden, June 2016
[12] Fernandaz J., Duarte D., Ribeiro C., Farinha C., Maderis J., and Mira
M., “iThink: A game based approach towards imporving collaboration
and participation in requirements elicitation,” Virtual World for
Serious Applications (VS-GAMES ‘12), Procedia Elsevier, 15 (66) –
77, 2012
[13] Dalpiaz F., Snijders R., Brinkkemper S., Hossieni M., Shahri A., and
Ali A., “Engaging the crowd stakeholders in requirements engineering
via gamification,” Book chapter Gamification Analytics – methods and
tools for monitoring and adapting gamification, DOI 10.1007/978-3-
319-45557-0_9, 2017
[14] Unkelas N., and Hadar I., “Inviting everupne to play: Gamifying
collaborative requirements engineering,” IEEE 5th International
workshop in Empirical Requirements Engineering – EmpiRE ’15,
DOI: 10.1109/EmpiRE.2015.74313041, 2015
[15] Haniza W., “A review on effecttive requirement elicitation
techniques,” Intrenational journal on advances in computer science and
technogy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-8, 2017
[16] Sharma S., and Panday S., “Revisiting requirements elicitation
techniques,” Intrenational journal on advances in computer science and
technogy, vol. 75, no. 12, pp. 35-39, 2013
[17] Kausar S., Tariq S., S Riaz., and Khanum A., “Guidelines for the
selection of elicitation techniques,” 2010 International Conference on
emerging technologies – ICET IEEE, Islamabad, 2010
[18] Sharma S., and Panday S., “Requirements Elicitation issues and
challenges,” 2014 International conference on computing for
sustainable global development – INDIACom IEEE, New Delhi, 2014
[19] Arif S., Khan Q. and Ghayur S., “Requirements engineering process,
tool/technologies and methodologies,” International Journal of reviews
in computing, Vol. 2, pp. 41-56, e-ISSN 2077-30336, 2010
[20] Rahman T., Naeem M., and Riaz N., “Analysis of Requirement
engineering processes, tools/techniques and methodologies,”
International journal of information technology and computer science,
vol. 3, pp. 40-48, 2013
[21] Zhang Z., “Effective requirements development – A comparison of
requirements elicitation techniques,” SQM2007 – Conference, 2007
[22] Maria H., and Ali Z., “Requirement elicitation techniques for open
source systems: A review,” International journal of advance computer
science and applications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 330-334, 2018
[23] Gogeun J., and Linde C., “Techniques for requirements elicitation,”
Proceedings IEEE symposium on requirements engineering, IEEE, San
Diago, CA, 1993
[24] Kotonya G., and Sommerville I., “Requirements engineering processes
and techniques,” John wiley and sons, 2002
[25] Leffingwell D., and Widrig D., “Managing software requirements – A
user case approach,” 2nd edition, Addison Wisley, 2003
[26] Iqbal T., and Suaib M., “Requirement Elicitation technique: A review
paper,” International journal of computer and mathematical sciences,
vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 1-6, 2014
[27] Von A., Paech B., Kiedaisch F., and Houdek F., “Systematic
requirements recycling thorugh abstraction and traceability,”
Proceedings in IEEE Joint International Conference on requirements
engineering, 2002
[28] Woo H., and Robinson W., “Reuse of scenerio specifications using an
automated relational learner: A lightweight approach,” 10th
anniversary IEEE joint conference on requirements engineering – RE
2002, Essen Germany, 2002, pp. 173- 180
[29] Nuseibeh B., and Easterbrook S., “Requirements engineering: a
roadmap,” Proceedings of Conference on the future of software
engineering, ACM press pp. 35-46, Ireland, 2000
[30] Gartner, “Gamification trends and strategies to help prepare for the
future,” Gartner press release, 2012
[31] Rajmarthandan S., “Using gamification to build a passonate and quality
driven software development team,” Cognizant 20-20 Insights,
Cognizant, 2014
[32] Darejeh A., and Salwa S., “Gamification solution to enhance software
user engagement – A systematic review,” International journal of
human computer interaction, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 613-642, 2016
[33] Dubois D., and Tamburrlli G., “Understanding gamification
mechanisms for software development,” ESEC/FSC 13, ACM, Russia,
2013
[34] Lombriser P., and Van R., “Improving the quality of software
development life cycle with gamification,” ADFA, p.1, Springer,
Verleg Berlin, 2011
[35] Cursino R., Ferreira D., Lencastre M., Fagundes R., and Pimentel J.,
“Gmification in Requirements engineering: A systematic review,”
International conference on the quality of information and
communication technology, IEEE, 2018
[36] Morschheuser B., Werder K., Hamari J., and Abe J., “How to gamify?
A method for desiging gamification,” Proceedings of the 5th annual
Hawaii international conference on system sciences – HICSS IEEE,
USA, Jan 4-7 2017
[37] Hamari J., and Koivisto J., “Why do people use gamification
services?,” International journal of information management, Elsevier,
vol. 35, pp. 419-431, 2015
[38] Wohlin C., Runeson P., Host M., Ohlsson M., Regnell B., and Wesslen
A., “Experimentation in Software Engineering,” Springer TS, 2012
444
[39] Lombriser P., and Dalpiaz F., “Engaging stakeholders in scenerio
based requirements engineering with gamification,” Department of
information and computer sciences, Utrect University, 2016
[40] Kumar S., and Krishnamurthi I., “Improving user participation in
requirement elicitaion and analysis by applying gamification using
architect’s use case diagram,” Proceedings of the 3rd international
symposium on big data and cloud computing challenges – ISBCC ’16,
Springer, Switzerland, Vol. 49, 2016
[41] Lombriser P., Dalpiaz F., Lucassen G., and Brinkkemper S., “Gamified
requirements engineering: model and experimentation,” Conference
paper, Department of information and computer science, Utrect
university, 2016
[42] Kolpondinos M., and Glinz M., “GRUSO: a gamification approach for
involving stakeholders outside organizational reach in requirements
engineering,” Requirements Engineering, Springer, London, 2019
[43] Pimentel J., Santos E., Pereira T., Ferreira D., and Castro J., “A
gamified requirements inspection process for goal models,” SAC 2018,
ACM, France, 2018
[44] Alvertis I., Papaspyros D., Kousouris S., Mouzakitis S., and Askounis
D., “Using crowdsourced and anonymized personas in the
requirements elicitation and software development phases of software
engineering,” 11th International conference on availability, reliability
and security, IEEE, Greece, 2016
[45] Snjiders, Ozum, Brrinkemper and Dalpiaz, “Crowd centric
reuqirements engineering: A method based on crowd sourcing and
gamification,” Technical Report, Department of Information and
Computer Sciences, Utrect University, Netherlands, March 2015
[46] Baumer F., and Geierhos M., “Flexible ambiguity resolution and
incompleteness detection in requirements descriptions via an indicator
based configuration of text analysis piplines,” Proceedings of the 51st
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, pp.
5746-5755, 2018
[47] Huzooree G., and Devi V., “A Systematic study on requirements
engineering processes and practices in Mauritius,” International
journal of advanced research in computer science and software
engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 40-46, 2015
[48] Hafeez M., and Firdaus M., “Ambigous software requirements
specification detection: An automated approach,” Proceedings of 5th
International workshop on requirements engineering and testing – RET
2018, ACM, USA, 2018
[49] Healey D., “Gamification,” Macmillan Education, Springer,
http:www.macmillannavio.com, 2019
[50] Platanova V., and Berzisa S., “Gamification in Software development
projects,” Information technology and management science, Vol. 20,
pp. 58-63, 2017
[51] Snijders R., Dalpiaz F., Hossieni M., Ali R., and Ozum A., “Refine:A
Gamified platform for participaroty requirements engineering,”
Conference on CrowdRE 2015, IEEE, Ottawa Canada, 2015, pp. 1-6