Page 39 -

24 FULLER AND DAVIS
To understand how the use of communication channels can support the development of shared
understanding between individuals, we use the theoretical lens of channel expansion theory—
CET—(Carlson and Zmud, 1999). CET identifies certain experiences as important in shaping
how an individual may perceive (and use) a certain communication channel as being rich enough
to facilitate the communications necessary for efficient development of shared understanding.
Specifically, it proposes that an individual’s experiences with the communications channel (e.g.,
communications method or technique), message topic, organization context, and communication
partner can influence the perception and use of the communication channel. CET proposes that
as levels of experience across these four knowledge bases increase, individuals will be able to
more efficiently send (ask) and receive (interpret) messages with leaner communication chan-
nels, and still be able to develop understanding. Conversely, it suggests that if an individual has
less experience with the message topic, the organizational context, or the communication partner,
they will require a richer communication channel to enable efficient communications to develop
understanding.
Here, we apply channel expansion theory to suggest that individuals (e.g., analysts) with lesser
degrees of experience across three of the knowledge bases central to requirements elicitation—
message topic, organization context, and communication partner—would benefit from the use of
1
a richer elicitation technique or “channel” to efficiently send and receive messages and develop
understanding more than would individuals with greater experiences in these knowledge bases.
In the context of requirements elicitation, this accords with previous research findings suggesting
that the quality of the requirements elicitation process varies according to the analysts’ level of
experience with the specific domain (the message topic) that the information systems is attempt-
ing to address, the organizational context in which the information system will be implemented,
and the communication partner with whom they are interacting. CET leads us to propose that,
based on these levels of experience, elicitation techniques will vary in their effective support of
user–analyst dialogue. Furthermore, we propose that this variation also directly affects both users’
and analysts’ capacity to learn from their experience of systems analysis and design activities,
processes, tools, and techniques. In turn, crucially, this affects the degree to which they are able
to expand their other three knowledge bases (topic, context, and partner).
For requirements elicitation, we focus specifically on the empirical significance of two of
these knowledge bases, experience with the topic and experience with the organizational context
in which the topic exists. These two components of CET are at the core of the communication
activities performed between user and analyst during requirements elicitation, since they repre-
sent the analyst attempting to better understand the requirements for an information system—the
topic domain—within the context of use—the organizational environment. Since the analyst is
interested in understanding the requirements for an application in a specific context, these two
knowledge bases are fundamental to the process of analysis and design: they strongly influence
the characteristics of the elicitation techniques best suited to elicit requirements.
From a communication perspective, elicitation techniques fall into three broad categories,
each characterized by differences in the organizational context and application domain as noted
in Table 3.1, on page 26.

Verification (Nonrefutation) Focus

Certain elicitation techniques employed by analysts during requirements elicitation are geared
toward the verification of requirements as understood by the analyst. These techniques are
driven by the analyst in terms of the questions asked. Typically, the emphasis is on nonrefuta-