Page 38 -

REQUIREMENTS ELICITATION TECHNIQUES AS COMMUNICATION CHANNELS 23
“fit” between various requirement elicitation techniques and the communication demands of the
contexts in which they might be applied.
The chapter concludes by showing how the framework can be used to provide guidance on
the selection of requirements elicitation techniques by practitioners. It also identifies a number
of communications “gaps” and conflicting agendas—areas where further research might enhance
the tools and techniques used for requirements elicitation.

COMMUNICATION

Communication has been defined as “a process in which participants create and share infor-
mation with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding” (Rogers, 1986, p. 199).
Creating and sharing information is inherently a social exchange process, in which developing
understanding about information received from others requires both information transfer and
processing. Developing a mutual understanding requires that individuals pass information
about how they understand and interpret the world around them, as well as processing to make
sense of the passed information itself. Thus an important outcome of successful communica-
tion is the development of mutual understanding about the information and the meaning that
each participant attaches to it (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Miranda and Saunders, 2003; Rogers,
1986; Te’eni, 2001).
Communication channels facilitate or enable individuals to communicate with others to develop
mutual understandings (Rice et al., 1990). These channels include many of the media that are
used to communicate today, such as telephone systems and voice mail, as well as other computer-
supported media, such as videoconferencing, bulletin boards, instant messaging, and e-mail.
However, in a more general sense, a communication channel could be any device or technique
that facilitates, guides, or otherwise enables individuals to communicate with one another. While
much of the recent research into communication has focused on newer media such as e-mail and
videoconferencing, other more commonplace communication methods, such as reports, documen-
tation, interview scripts, and agendas are also communication channels that in some way impact
the nature of how individuals communicate.
Considering the interaction between user and analyst, the methods, tools, and techniques
employed by the analyst serve as channels that simultaneously guide, constrain, and facilitate
communication as the analyst attempts to understand the requirements of the business situation
at hand. In common with other communication channels, the techniques employed by the analyst
may be more or less effective dependent on the context and manner in which they are used (Daft
and Lengel, 1986; Dennis and Valacich, 1999; Dennis, Wixom, and Vandenberg, 2001).
A significant amount of research has examined how communication channels can impact the
communication performance (development of shared understanding) between two individuals. In
general, this stream of research has focused on the prediction of performance from using certain
communication channels for certain types of communication-oriented tasks. The findings from this
research, while often ambiguous, do acknowledge that characteristics of the communication task,
certain salient characteristics of the channel, and characteristics of the individuals communicating
can influence performance of a particular medium for a task (Dennis and Kinney, 1998; Mennecke,
Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000; Rice and Shook, 1990). Furthermore, to the degree that individuals
have greater or lesser levels of familiarity with the communication task or topic, the individuals
involved in the communication, and the channel that supports or guides the communication, dif-
ferential results in communication performance can arise (Carlson and Zmud, 1999; Dennis and
Valacich, 1999; McGrath, 1991).