�ݺ�ߣ

IThink: A Game-based Approach Towards Improving Collaboration and Participation in Requirement Elicitation

4th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES’12)

Agenda
• Context
• IThink
• Six Thinking Hats
• Gamification
• Prototype
• Case-Studies
• Conclusions


Common Problems
• Lack of users involvement.
• Complex communication between stakeholders and
analysts.
• Stakeholders do not always know what they want or
how to articulate their needs.
• Analysts may not entirely understand business
concepts, leading to low quality requirements.


Ideas
Generation
Methodology

ITHINK
Web-based
Gamification
interface


The Six Hats Revisited
• The adaptation of the six thinking hats method into
the game mechanics requires some adjustments
over the traditional method, taking into account the
given context.

• Each thinking hat was mapped into an activity in a
elicitation process, carrying out these activities will
contribute to obtain points generating new
requirements and discussion.


Project Blue
Manager Hat


The Blue Hat
• Is used by the project manager when a project is set
up and the categories to group requirements are
defined, this activity is not rewarded with point, since
the project manager is not considered a player.


Green
Hat

White Red
Hat Hat
Player
Black Yellow
Hat Hat


The Green Hat
• Is used by players, to create and propose new
requirements being this activity rewarded with more
points.


The Other Hats
• The players can express their opinion on a
requirement in four different ways, rating the
requirement with stars (red hat), a positive comment
(yellow hat), a negative comment (black hat), a
concrete or statistical comment (white hat).
• In order to obtain to preserve the game fairness, a
player cannot express opinions about their own
requirements.


500
Points

Green
Hat

50 50
Points Points
White Red
Hat Hat

IThink

Black Yellow
Hat Hat

100 100
Points Points


Ideas
Generation
Metodology

ITHINK
Web-based
Gamification
interface


The Other Hats


Evaluation Case Studies
• First Case Study - ”Board Game”
• Second Case Study – Web-Based Prototype


Board Game
• This case study took place at a childcare center that
was restructuring its information system.
• Seven persons with different roles in the organization
participated in this experiment: two from
management, two teachers, one educator, one
secretary and one transportation manager.
• The game was presented in a form of board game
and was played by rounds, each person played one
round.


Board Game
12

10

8

6

4

2

0
New Positive Negative Concrete
Requirements


Web-Based Prototype
• This case study took place at a classroom from a
course of the last year from a Msc in Information
Systems and Computer Engineering.
• The students were asked to use the prototype to
elicit requirements for an information system that
would be used for the management of a course.
• Seventeen students participated in this case study
with new requirements, ratings and comments to the
initial requirements.


Web-Based Prototype
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
New Positive Negative Concrete
Requirements


Player Questionnaire
• Q1 - Do you consider that the game is easy to
understand?
• Q2 - Do you consider that the game is easy to play?
• Q3 - Rate the amusement rate of the game
• Q4 - The game motivates you to participate in
requirements elicitation?
• Q5 - Do you consider that the game is a useful tool
for requirements elicitation?

The answers were based on a six points Likert scale
with 0 meaning ”No” and 5 meaning ”Yes”


Results First Case-Study
6

5

4

3

2

1

0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Max Min Avg


Results Second Case-Study
6

5

4

3

2

1

0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Max Min Avg


Results
• In general all participants agreed that using iThink as
a way to elicit requirements, was fun, interesting and
potentially more motivating than traditional
approaches.

• Nevertheless, the interface is still limited and
unappealing, which may affect the acceptance of
this tool and limit its use.


Project Manager Questionnaire
• Q1 - Are you satisfied with the number of the
contributions obtained with the game?
• Q2 - The relevance of each requirement is well
represented by its rating?
• Q3 - The requirements obtained with the game have
helped to better define the project scope?
The answers were based on a six points Likert scale
with 0 meaning ”No” and 5 meaning ”Yes”


Results First Case-Study
6

5

4

3

2

1

0
Q1 Q2 Q3
PM PO


Results Second Case-Study
6

5

4

3

2

1

0
Q1 Q2 Q3
PM


Results
• In both case-studies, project managers reported an
high degree of satisfaction, regarding the amount
and quality of generated requirements.
• Moreover they pointed out that the amount of valid
requirements and requirements feedback was similar
or better when comparing to traditional tools that
they recurrently use on their projects.


Conclusion
• The results demonstrate a good number of
contributions which may indicate that this approach
may enhance the user involvement in requirements
elicitation.

• The feedback from the project owner and project
managers assured the quality of the requirements
and the contributions.

• weakest point of this proposal seems to be the
amusement factor, which may be related with the
developed interface that was seen as unappealing
by several users.

�ݺ�ߣ

IThink: A Game-based Approach Towards Improving Collaboration and Participation in Requirement Elicitation

More Related Content

IThink: A Game-based Approach Towards Improving Collaboration and Participation in Requirement Elicitation

Editor's Notes