Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review

Ainhoa Aldave; David Granada; Esperanza Marcos; Juan M. Vara

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A systematic review of 1,451 studies identifies 13 distinct proposals for using creativity in agile requirements elicitation and concludes they can be implemented successfully in real software projects.

desk verdict Useful niche SLR that overclaims its evidence grade: the 'moderate' RQ2 conclusion contradicts the paper's own Kitchenham scoring, but the map of 13 approaches is worth having. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07783 v1 pith:VNKOFNNU submitted 2019-08-21 cs.SE

Ainhoa Aldave , Juan M. Vara , David Granada , Esperanza Marcos This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SE

keywords requirementselicitationagilesoftwaredevelopmentcreativethinkingsystematicliteraturereviewdesigngamificationmindmappingempiricalevidence

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether creativity techniques can be systematically brought into requirements elicitation inside agile software development. By searching six digital libraries with a three-part query covering creativity, requirements, and agile terms, it identified 1,451 candidate studies, 17 primary studies, and 13 distinct proposals. The review's central claim is that these proposals are not merely theoretical: they have been applied in industry and laboratory settings and can improve problem understanding, stakeholder engagement, and how well software meets business needs. It also finds that agile methods such as Scrum, Extreme Programming, and rapid modeling are the preferred context, and that user-interface-heavy projects such as mobile and web applications are especially good candidates. The paper is careful to say the empirical evidence is moderate rather than strong, because most approaches have been tested in only one or two projects.

What carries the argument

The machinery of the paper is the systematic review protocol itself. It starts from a Boolean query built from three keyword domains—creativity terms, requirements terms, and agile terms—run across six digital libraries. After title and abstract screening, duplicates were removed, leaving 17 primary studies; quality was then scored on rigor, credibility, and relevance using a structured checklist; and the extracted data were synthesized into tables that map each proposal's type, research method, reported benefits and limitations, suitable contexts, and agile methodology. These synthesis tables, rather than any single creativity technique, carry the argument: they turn 17 heterogeneous papers into a countable set of 13 unique proposals and a set of cross-study findings.

What would settle it

Run the same review with an expanded query that adds back the dropped terms—agility, feature-driven development, DSDM, and the information-systems keyword block—and count how many additional unique approaches emerge; if the set grows materially or changes the synthesis, the claim that 13 unique proposals represent the state of the art would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a mapped and synthesized landscape: 13 unique proposals exist that leverage creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development. These proposals span several types: processes, frameworks, techniques, tools, and one model. The evidence drawn from the primary studies indicates that creativity can be implemented successfully in real software projects, mostly in large organizations and in user-interface-oriented development, and that reported benefits such as facilitated problem understanding and better meeting business needs recur across studies. The paper also concludes that creativity alone is not sufficient: generating new requirements also requires user engagement and a context with flexibility, time, and resources.

Load-bearing premise

The whole synthesis rests on the assumption that the search and selection process captured the relevant literature; the authors deliberately kept the query simple by dropping a fourth keyword block and agile synonyms such as agility, feature-driven development, and DSDM, and the inclusion criterion was the subjective judgment that a study obviously presented some kind of creative approach.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 13 proposals give practitioners a concrete menu of creativity techniques—workshops, mind maps, prototyping, goal sketching, gamification—that can be inserted into agile requirements work rather than treated as abstract theory.
Teams building mobile or web applications are the most promising early adopters, since the reviewed evidence clusters around user-interface-intensive development.
Agile contexts built on Scrum, Extreme Programming, or rapid modeling appear to be the natural home for creative elicitation, though most proposals avoid binding themselves to one method.
Reported benefits concentrate on problem understanding and meeting business needs, while the main costs are training, open-minded users, and possible team reorganization.
Because most approaches have only one or two project evaluations, the strength of evidence should be read as moderate: enough to justify adoption experiments, not enough for blanket prescriptions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct implication the review leaves implicit: creative elicitation is most valuable in early discovery or sprint-zero phases, where openness to initially 'less useful' requirements can be tolerated before the team converges on a solution.
If engagement and context are the limiting factors the review names, the next testable extension is pairing creativity techniques with engagement mechanics such as gamification or participatory co-design in the same project and measuring requirement novelty against a control group.
The absence of any explicit creativity-level classification suggests a comparative study could classify each proposal by the four-C model and test whether approaches targeting everyday creativity behave differently from those seeking professional-level creative output.
Because the evidence base is mostly single-case action research and case studies, a multi-project replication trial—same technique, several organizations, identical outcome measures—would be a more decisive test than another systematic review.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this one. First, it appears to be the first systematic review that specifically combines creativity in requirements elicitation with agile development, and as a map of the area it is genuinely useful: 17 primary studies, 13 distinct proposals, clean synthesis tables, and a reasonably careful quality assessment. Second, the headline conclusion—that the empirical evidence is 'moderate'—does not survive contact with the paper's own evidence criteria. They cite Kitchenham's scoring (Table 23), note that every single study would score 0 ('poor') because most were tested in only one or two projects, and then, instead of reporting that, they count distinct projects across all 13 heterogeneous approaches and call the aggregate 'moderate.' That is an unstated change in the unit of analysis. It cannot establish that any individual approach has moderate evidence; it only shows the field has had some initial trials. The abstract goes further and says these approaches 'provide evidence that enhanced creativity in requirements elicitation can be successfully implemented in real software projects'—which is plausible as a qualitative statement but not supported by the Kitchenham-based grade they claim.

What the paper does well: the protocol is recognizable (Kitchenham/Biolchini), the search is documented with numbers at each stage, the per-study summaries are readable, and the authors are transparent about several limitations—small corpus, mostly single-case evidence, simplified query. The discussion of benefits and limitations is honest, and the distinction between the 13 proposals and their underlying creative techniques is a reasonable organizing principle.

Soft spots, in proportion. The RQ2 aggregation flaw is the main one and is load-bearing for the abstract's evidence claim. The inclusion criteria are also vague: 'it is obvious that the study presents some kind of creative approach' invites subjectivity, and there is no inter-rater reliability check or list of excluded studies. The search was deliberately simplified (agile synonyms dropped), which is handled openly but still means the 17 primary studies may not be complete. These are not fatal for a niche SLR, but they should be fixed in revision.

Who this is for: researchers entering this intersection and practitioners who want a quick catalogue of techniques like creativity workshops, mind mapping, and design thinking variants applied to agile elicitation. It deserves a serious referee—the synthesis itself is new and the flaws are repairable. My recommendation: send it to peer review with a request for major revision focused on RQ2, and ask the authors to either soften the evidence claim to 'promising but mostly early/weak' or explicitly justify a cross-study aggregation rule with per-approach evidence counts.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a systematic literature review, following the Kitchenham/Biolchini protocol, of approaches that leverage creativity in requirements elicitation (RE) within agile software development (ASD). From 1451 initial search results, the authors selected 17 primary studies corresponding to 13 unique proposals. The review classifies the proposals by type (technique, process, framework, tool, model), assesses their quality using rigor/credibility/relevance criteria, and answers five research questions covering existing techniques, empirical evidence, benefits and limitations, suitable project contexts, and agile methodologies used. The authors conclude that enhanced creativity in RE can be successfully implemented in real software projects, that the empirical evidence is moderate, that mobile and web user-interface projects are good candidates, and that creativity alone is insufficient without user engagement and a supportive context.

Significance. If the evidence-related claims are repaired, this is a useful contribution to the software engineering literature. The paper appears to be the first systematic review combining creativity, requirements elicitation, and agile development, and it makes its process transparent: the search query, data sources, quality rubric, per-study summaries, and a full list of primary studies are all included. The map of 13 proposals and the observation that design-thinking-derived methods dominate the area are valuable for researchers and practitioners. The main scientific conclusion, however, the strength of empirical evidence, is currently overstated because of an unsupported aggregation in the answer to RQ2; this needs to be fixed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.1, RQ2; Table 23] The answer to RQ2 is internally inconsistent. The authors state that if each selected study were graded with Kitchenham et al.'s criteria (Table 23), 'all the selected studies would have received a score of 0' and the evidence would be 'poor', because most approaches were tested in only one or two projects. They then replace this per-study grading with a cross-study count of projects, 'between 10 and 20 projects', and conclude that the overall evidence is 'moderate'. This is an unstated change in the unit of analysis: counting distinct projects across 13 heterogeneous proposals does not establish that any single approach has moderate evidence. Since the abstract's central claim ('these approaches provide evidence that enhanced creativity ... can be successfully implemented in real software projects') and the 'moderate evidence' statement rest on this aggregation, the authors should either soften the conclusion to early, promising, or weak evidence, or provide an explicit aggregation rationale with per-approach evidence counts.
[Section 4.2, Table 13 vs Section 5.1, Table 22] The two RQ2 evidence tables contradict each other, and this matters because RQ2 is load-bearing for the abstract claim. Table 13 codes S12 as not an experiment, but Section 4.1.10 describes S12 as providing two controlled experiments and Table 22 lists S12 as a laboratory experiment. Table 13 codes S3 as not an experience report, but Table 22 lists S3 as an experience report; Table 13 codes S9 as an experience report, but Table 22 omits S9. The percentages in Table 22 are also not consistent with the listed study counts (e.g., 3 of 17 is 18%, not 23%). The evidence synthesis should be recomputed from a single reconciled coding of the 17 primary studies.
[Sections 3.3 and 3.4] The completeness and reproducibility of the review are not fully established. Section 3.3 explains that the query was deliberately simplified by dropping a fourth keyword block and agile synonyms such as 'agility', feature-driven development, and DSDM 'to keep the query as simple as possible'; the authors do not quantify how many additional relevant results these omitted terms would have returned. Section 3.4 uses a subjective inclusion criterion ('it is obvious that the study presents some kind of creative approach') and does not report how many reviewers applied it or whether inter-rater agreement was checked. The authors should state which search engines imposed term limits, report the screening procedure in more detail, and perform or justify a sensitivity check on the omitted synonyms; otherwise the claim that the 17 primary studies define the state of the art is not fully supported.
[Section 5.2 and Table 16] The abstract and Section 5.2 say that agile methodologies such as Scrum, Extreme Programming, or rapid-modelling-based methodologies are 'preferred' for introducing creativity into requirements elicitation, but Table 16 does not support a preference: only S1 and S8 mention Scrum, only S5 mentions XP, and four studies mention agile model-driven development, while the majority of the 17 primary studies specify no methodology. The wording should be changed to reflect that a minority of proposals name a specific methodology, and that among those, agile model-driven development is the most frequent.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.4, Figure 6] The caption 'Procedure for execution os the systematic review' contains a typo: 'os' should be 'of'.
[Section 5.1, RQ1, Table 21] The creative technique is spelled 'PICL' in Table 21 but 'PCIL' in the text; please standardize the acronym.
[Section 4.1.6 and Appendix I] The heading for S6 names the authors as 'Percival, Braz and Adilson', but Appendix I lists the authors as Lucena, Braz, Chicoria, and Tizzei; the heading should be corrected.
[Tables 24 and 25] The percentages in Tables 24 and 25 are not always derivable from the cited study lists (for example, 'Requirements obtained are seen as less useful' cites only S1, which is 1/17, not 8%); please reconcile the percentages and the study lists.
[Section 4.1.3, Figure 11] Figure 11 is captioned 'ADDAM Process detailed description [S3]', but ADDAM is the process described in S2, not S3; the caption appears to be mislabeled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the systematic review aggregates published primary studies and does not derive its conclusions from its own definitions, fitted parameters, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is a systematic literature review. Its central claims — that 13 unique proposals leverage creativity in requirements elicitation within agile development, that such approaches have been tried in real projects, and that the evidence is 'moderate' — are syntheses of the 17 selected primary studies, not quantities defined in terms of the conclusions. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction; the review does not define 'creativity', 'agile', or 'evidence' circularly in terms of its own results. The authors do not rely on their own prior work as the load-bearing justification for the review's findings. The skeptical concern about RQ2 — that the paper replaces the per-study Kitchenham grading with a cross-study project count to justify 'moderate' evidence — is a methodological validity and reporting concern, not a circularity reduction: the 'moderate' label is an interpretation of project counts, not a quantity constructed to equal its own input. No specific equation, definition, or self-citation chain reduces a claimed result to an input, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review, so there are no fitted parameters or invented entities. The conclusions rely on the trustworthiness of the 17 primary studies and on the adequacy of the search and selection procedure, both of which the paper itself flags as imperfect.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Primary studies accurately report their methods and outcomes.
The review does not re-validate the empirical claims in S1-S17; it aggregates their reported benefits and limitations.
domain assumption The search query and data sources identify all or most relevant studies.
Section 3.3 acknowledges the query was simplified; if coverage is incomplete, the 13-proposal corpus is not representative.
domain assumption The classification scheme and quality criteria are appropriate and consistently applied.
The authors define categories (Technique, Process, etc.) and QA items; a different taxonomy or weighting could change the synthesis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNKOFNNU

@misc{pith2026190807783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNKOFNNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07783}
}

read the original abstract

Agile approaches tend to focus solely on scoping and simplicity rather than on problem solving and discovery. This hampers the development of innovative solutions. Additionally, little has been said about how to capture and represent the real user needs. To fill this gap, some authors argue in favor of the application of Creative thinking for requirements elicitation within agile software development. This synergy between creativeness and agility has arisen as a new means of bringing innovation and flexibility to increasingly demanding software. The aim of the present study is therefore to employ a systematic review to investigate the state-of-the-art of those approaches that leverage creativity in requirements elicitation within Agile Software Development, as well as the benefits, limitations and strength of evidence of these approaches. The search strategy identified 1451 studies. The selected studies contained 13 different and unique proposals. These approaches provide evidence that enhanced creativity in requirements elicitation can be successfully implemented in real software projects. We specifically observed that projects related to user interface development, such as those for mobile or web applications, are good candidates for the use of these approaches. We have also found that agile methodologies are preferred when introducing creativity into requirements elicitation. Despite this being a new research field, there is a mixture of techniques, tools and processes that have already been and are currently being successfully tested in industry. Finally, we have found that, although creativity is an important ingredient with which to bring about innovation, it is not always sufficient to generate new requirements because this needs to be followed by user engagement and a specific context in which proper conditions, such as flexibility, time or resources, have to be met.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07783 by the authors.

**Figure 11.** This approach offers a design linkage while si [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

[1]

Microsoft Press (2002)

Aiken, P.: Microsoft computer dictionary. Microsoft Press (2002)

2002
[2]

John Wiley & Sons (2002)

Ambler, S.: Agile modeling: effective practices for extreme pro- gramming and the uniﬁed process. John Wiley & Sons (2002)

2002
[3]

Blue Hole Press (2010)

Anderson, D.J.: Kanban: successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Blue Hole Press (2010)

2010
[4]

The Journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology 51(3), 478 (1955)

Barron, F.: The disposition toward originality. The Journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology 51(3), 478 (1955)

1955
[5]

Communications of the AIS 2(3es), 4 (1999)

Baskerville, R.L.: Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the AIS 2(3es), 4 (1999)

1999
[6]

addison-wesley professional (2000)

Beck, K.: Extreme programming explained: embrace change. addison-wesley professional (2000)

2000
[7]

In: 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Con- ference (RE), pp

Bhowmik, T., Niu, N., Mahmoud, A., Savolainen, J.: Automated support for combinational creativity in requirements engineering. In: 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Con- ference (RE), pp. 243–252. IEEE (2014)

2014
[8]

System Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ, Technical Report ES 679(05), 45 (2005)

Biolchini, J., Mian, P.G., Natali, A.C.C., Travassos, G.H.: Sys- tematic review in software engineering. System Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ, Technical Report ES 679(05), 45 (2005)

2005

Show all 96 references

[9]

Rout- ledge (2004)

Boden, M.A.: The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Rout- ledge (2004)

2004
[10]

amelang, ed.) harvard business re- view, 86 (6), 84–92, 141 (2008)

Brown, T.: Design thinking.(m. amelang, ed.) harvard business re- view, 86 (6), 84–92, 141 (2008)

2008
[11]

Collins Business

Brown, T.: Change by design. Collins Business. (2009)

2009
[12]

Pearson Education (2006)

Buzan, T.: Mind mapping. Pearson Education (2006)

2006
[13]

Design Management Review 19(3), 8–15 (2008) Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review 29

Clark, K., Smith, R.: Unleashing the power of design thinking. Design Management Review 19(3), 8–15 (2008) Leveraging creativity in requirements elicitation within agile software development: a systematic literature review 29

2008
[14]

Cockburn, A.: Research methods in information systems research: Matching method to researcher (2003)

2003
[15]

Pearson Education (2004)

Cockburn, A.: Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Pearson Education (2004)

2004
[16]

los alamitos

Committee, I.S.C., et al.: Ieee standard glossary of software en- gineering terminology (ieee std 610.12-1990). los alamitos. CA: IEEE Computer Society 169 (1990)

1990
[17]

In: Information Systems– Creativity and Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enter- prises, pp

Conboy, K., Wang, X., Fitzgerald, B.: Creativity in agile sys- tems development: a literature review. In: Information Systems– Creativity and Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enter- prises, pp. 122–134. Springer (2009)

2009
[18]

Technical Paper, Available on-line: http://www

Constantine, L.L.: Activity modeling: Toward a pragmatic inte- gration of activity theory with usage-centered design. Technical Paper, Available on-line: http://www. foru se. com/articles/activi- tymodeling. pdf (2006)

2006
[19]

Journal of Systems and Software 139, 32–50 (2018)

Curcio, K., Navarro, T., Malucelli, A., Reinehr, S.: Requirements engineering: A systematic mapping study in agile software devel- opment. Journal of Systems and Software 139, 32–50 (2018)

2018
[20]

In: Requirements Engi- neering, 14th IEEE International Conference, pp

Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Ef- fectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical re- sults derived from a systematic review. In: Requirements Engi- neering, 14th IEEE International Conference, pp. 179–188. IEEE (2006)

2006
[21]

Wiley Online Library (2010)

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Self-determination. Wiley Online Library (2010)

2010
[22]

In: Proceed- ings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: En- visioning future media environments, pp

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game de- sign elements to gamefulness: deﬁning gamiﬁcation. In: Proceed- ings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: En- visioning future media environments, pp. 9–15. ACM (2011)

2011
[23]

Ergonomie der Mensch-System- Interaktion-Teil 210 (2010)

DIN, E.: 9241-210 (2011). Ergonomie der Mensch-System- Interaktion-Teil 210 (2010)

2011
[24]

In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering, pp

Dowson, M.: Iteration in the software process; review of the 3rd international software process workshop. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering, pp. 36–41. IEEE Computer Society Press (1987)

1987
[25]

Information and software technol- ogy 50(9-10), 833–859 (2008)

Dyb ˚a, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Empirical studies of agile software devel- opment: A systematic review. Information and software technol- ogy 50(9-10), 833–859 (2008)

2008
[26]

ASME Resource Guide to Inno- vation in Eng

Faste, R., Roth, B., Wilde, D.J.: Integrating creativity into the me- chanical engineering curriculum. ASME Resource Guide to Inno- vation in Eng. Design (1993)

1993
[27]

Franz, B.: extreme programming (2012)

2012
[28]

Communications of the ACM 44(8), 31–37 (2001)

Gershon, N., Page, W.: What storytelling can do for information visualization. Communications of the ACM 44(8), 31–37 (2001)

2001
[29]

In: Requirements Engineering, 1993., Proceedings of IEEE Inter- national Symposium on, pp

Goguen, J.A., Linde, C.: Techniques for requirements elicitation. In: Requirements Engineering, 1993., Proceedings of IEEE Inter- national Symposium on, pp. 152–164. IEEE (1993)

1993
[30]

In: Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on, pp

Heikkil ¨a, V .T., Damian, D., Lassenius, C., Paasivaara, M.: A map- ping study on requirements engineering in agile software devel- opment. In: Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on, pp. 199–207. IEEE (2015)

2015
[31]

The nature of creativity 22, 11–38 (1988)

Hennessey, B.A., Amabile, T.M.: The conditions of creativity. The nature of creativity 22, 11–38 (1988)

1988
[32]

proceedings

Hickey, A.M., Davis, A.M.: Elicitation technique selection: how do experts do it? In: Requirements engineering conference, 2003. proceedings. 11th ieee international, pp. 169–178. IEEE (2003)

2003
[33]

Journal of Management Information Systems 20(4), 65–84 (2004)

Hickey, A.M., Davis, A.M.: A uniﬁed model of requirements elici- tation. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(4), 65–84 (2004)

2004
[34]

New Management Publishing Company (1994)

Higgins, J.M.: 101 creative problem solving techniques: The handbook of new ideas for business. New Management Publishing Company (1994)

1994
[35]

IEEE software 30(5), 78–84 (2013)

Hollis, B., Maiden, N.: Extending agile processes with creativity techniques. IEEE software 30(5), 78–84 (2013)

2013
[36]

In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, pp

Horkoff, J., Maiden, N., Lockerbie, J.: Creativity and goal model- ing for software requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, pp. 165–168. ACM (2015)

2015
[37]

In: Interna- tional Conference on Agile Processes and Extreme Programming in Software Engineering, pp

Hosbond, J.H., Nielsen, P.A.: Misﬁt or misuse? lessons from im- plementation of scrum in radical product innovation. In: Interna- tional Conference on Agile Processes and Extreme Programming in Software Engineering, pp. 21–31. Springer (2008)

2008
[38]

Computers in human behavior 51, 915– 929 (2015)

Inayat, I., Salim, S.S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., Shamshirband, S.: A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. Computers in human behavior 51, 915– 929 (2015)

2015
[39]

In: Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009

Jiang, L., Eberlein, A.: An analysis of the history of classical soft- ware development and agile development. In: Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009. SMC 2009. IEEE International Conference on, pp. 3733–3738. IEEE (2009)

2009
[40]

2007 (2007)

Jones, S., Maiden, N., Karlsen, K.: Creativity in the speciﬁcation of large-scale socio-technical systems. 2007 (2007)

2007
[41]

Review of general psychology13(1), 1 (2009)

Kaufman, J.C., Beghetto, R.A.: Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of general psychology13(1), 1 (2009)

2009
[42]

Keele, UK, Keele University 33(2004), 1–26 (2004)

Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33(2004), 1–26 (2004)

2004
[43]

Empirical Software Engineering 13(1), 97–121 (2008)

Kitchenham, B., Al-Khilidar, H., Babar, M.A., Berry, M., Cox, K., Keung, J., Kurniawati, F., Staples, M., Zhang, H., Zhu, L.: Evalu- ating guidelines for reporting empirical software engineering stud- ies. Empirical Software Engineering 13(1), 97–121 (2008)

2008
[44]

In: Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, pp

Kitchenham, B.A., Pﬂeeger, S.L.: Personal opinion surveys. In: Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, pp. 63–92. Springer (2008)

2008
[45]

IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine 2(2), 54–55 (2016)

Kreinovich, V .: From conference papers to journal papers: Chal- lenges and new ideas [leader’s corner]. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine 2(2), 54–55 (2016)

2016
[46]

Addison-Wesley Professional (2010)

Lefﬁngwell, D.: Agile software requirements: lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Addison-Wesley Professional (2010)

2010
[47]

Proceedings of the IEEE 68(9), 1060–1076 (1980)

Lehman, M.M.: Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evo- lution. Proceedings of the IEEE 68(9), 1060–1076 (1980)

1980
[48]

In: Software metrics symposium, 1997

Lehman, M.M., Ramil, J.F., Wernick, P.D., Perry, D.E., Turski, W.M.: Metrics and laws of software evolution-the nineties view. In: Software metrics symposium, 1997. proceedings., fourth inter- national, pp. 20–32. IEEE (1997)

1997
[49]

In: Pro- ceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Com- puting, pp

Lemos, J., Alves, C., Duboc, L., Rodrigues, G.N.: A systematic mapping study on creativity in requirements engineering. In: Pro- ceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Com- puting, pp. 1083–1088. ACM (2012)

2012
[50]

Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., Wagner, R.: Design thinking: A fruit- ful concept for it development? In: Design thinking, pp. 3–18. Springer (2011)

2011
[51]

New York: Rosenfeld Media (2013)

Løvlie, L., Polaine, A., Reason, B.: Service design: from insight to implementation. New York: Rosenfeld Media (2013)

2013
[52]

In: Research Challenges in Information Sci- ence (RCIS), 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on, pp

Mahaux, M., Nguyen, L., Gotel, O., Mich, L., Mavin, A., Schmid, K.: Collaborative creativity in requirements engineering: Analysis and practical advice. In: Research Challenges in Information Sci- ence (RCIS), 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2013)

2013
[53]

Maiden, N., Gizikis, A.: Where do requirements come from? IEEE software 18(5), 10–12 (2001)

2001
[54]

In: Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2010 18th IEEE International, pp

Maiden, N., Jones, S., Karlsen, K., Neill, R., Zachos, K., Milne, A.: Requirements engineering as creative problem solving: A re- search agenda for idea ﬁnding. In: Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2010 18th IEEE International, pp. 57–66. IEEE (2010)

2010
[55]

In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, pp

Maiden, N., Manning, S., Robertson, S., Greenwood, J.: Integrat- ing creativity workshops into structured requirements processes. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, pp. 113–
[56]

In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Soft- ware Engineering, pp

Maiden, N., Ncube, C., Robertson, S.: Can requirements be cre- ative? experiences with an enhanced air space management sys- tem. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Soft- ware Engineering, pp. 632–641. IEEE Computer Society (2007)

2007
[57]

In: Requirements Engineering, 2005

Maiden, N., Robertson, S.: Integrating creativity into requirements processes: Experiences with an air trafﬁc management system. In: Requirements Engineering, 2005. Proceedings. 13th IEEE Inter- national Conference on, pp. 105–114. IEEE (2005)

2005
[58]

Software Engineering Journal 11(3), 183–192 (1996)

Maiden, N.A., Rugg, G.: Acre: selecting methods for requirements acquisition. Software Engineering Journal 11(3), 183–192 (1996)

1996
[59]

Harvard Business Press (2009)

Martin, R.L.: The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press (2009)

2009
[60]

Psychological re- view 50(4), 370 (1943)

Maslow, A.H.: A theory of human motivation. Psychological re- view 50(4), 370 (1943)

1943
[61]

Ten Speed Press (2010)

Michalko, M.: Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative-thinking tech- niques. Ten Speed Press (2010)

2010
[62]

In: 2016 IEEE 24th In- ternational Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp

Murukannaiah, P.K., Ajmeri, N., Singh, M.P.: Acquiring creative requirements from the crowd: Understanding the inﬂuences of per- sonality and creative potential in crowd re. In: 2016 IEEE 24th In- ternational Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 176–

2016
[63]

Information and software technology 51(3), 655–662 (2009)

Nguyen, L., Shanks, G.: A framework for understanding creativity in requirements engineering. Information and software technology 51(3), 655–662 (2009)

2009
[64]

crc Press (1988)

Ohno, T.: Toyota production system: beyond large-scale produc- tion. crc Press (1988)

1988
[65]

Booksurge Llc (2009)

Oza, N., Abrahamsson, P.: Building blocks of agile innovation. Booksurge Llc (2009)

2009
[66]

Pearson Education (2001)

Palmer, S.R., Felsing, M.: A practical guide to feature-driven de- velopment. Pearson Education (2001)

2001
[67]

Software Quality Journal 16(2), 237–261 (2008)

Pino, F.J., Garc ´ıa, F., Piattini, M.: Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review. Software Quality Journal 16(2), 237–261 (2008)

2008
[68]

the institute of design at stanford (2010)

Plattner, H.: An introduction to design thinking process guide. the institute of design at stanford (2010)

2010
[69]

IEEE software 17(4), 26–32 (2000)

Rising, L., Janoff, N.S.: The scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE software 17(4), 26–32 (2000)

2000
[70]

Rowe, P.: G., design thinking (1987)

1987
[71]

Creativity Research Journal 24(1), 92–96 (2012)

Runco, M.A., Jaeger, G.J.: The standard deﬁnition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24(1), 92–96 (2012)

2012
[72]

In: Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV), 2012 International Conference on, pp

Saha, S.K., Selvi, M., B ¨uy¨ukcan, G., Mohymen, M.: A system- atic review on creativity techniques for requirements engineering. In: Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV), 2012 International Conference on, pp. 34–39. IEEE (2012)

2012
[73]

In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, p

Salah, D., Paige, R.F., Cairns, P.: A systematic literature review for agile development processes and user centred design integration. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, p. 5. ACM (2014)

2014
[74]

In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp

Schlosser, C., Jones, S., Maiden, N.: Using a creativity workshop to generate requirements for an event database application. In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 109–122. Springer (2008)

2008
[75]

Computer Standards & Interfaces 49, 79–91 (2017)

Sch ¨on, E.M., Thomaschewski, J., Escalona, M.J.: Agile require- ments engineering: A systematic literature review. Computer Standards & Interfaces 49, 79–91 (2017)

2017
[76]

CRC Press (1993)

Schuler, D., Namioka, A.: Participatory design: Principles and practices. CRC Press (1993)

1993
[77]

Microsoft press (2004)

Schwaber, K.: Agile project management with Scrum. Microsoft press (2004)

2004
[78]

Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile software development with Scrum, vol. 1. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River (2002)

2002
[79]

july, 2016

Schwaber, K., SUTHERLAND, J.: The scrum guide–the deﬁnitive guide to scrum: The rules of the game. july, 2016. Acesso em 30 (2016)

2016
[80]

MIT press (1996)

Simon, H.A.: The sciences of the artiﬁcial. MIT press (1996)

1996
[81]

Microsoft press (2011)

Sliger, M.: Agile project management with Scrum. Microsoft press (2011)

2011
[82]

In: Procedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design, pp

Snider, C., Dekoninck, E., Culley, S.: Studying the appearance and effect of creativity within the the latter stages of the product de- velopment process. In: Procedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design, pp. 317–328. ACM (2011)

2011
[83]

Pearson Ed- ucation (2003)

Stapleton, J.: DSDM: Business focused development. Pearson Ed- ucation (2003)

2003
[84]

Stappers, F.P.M.: Bridging formal models: an engineering per- spective. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2012)

2012
[85]

The journal of psychology 36(2), 311–322 (1953)

Stein, M.I.: Creativity and culture. The journal of psychology 36(2), 311–322 (1953)

1953
[86]

Handbook of creativity 1, 3–15 (1999)

Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I.: The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of creativity 1, 3–15 (1999)

1999
[87]

Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., Andrews, K., Lawrence, A.: This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases, vol. 1. Wiley Hobo- ken, NJ (2011)

2011
[88]

practice

Svensson, R.B., Taghavianfar, M., Gren, L.: Creativity techniques for more creative requirements: theory vs. practice. In: Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2015 41st Eu- romicro Conference on, pp. 104–111. IEEE (2015)

2015
[89]

Japanese Business: Part 1, Classics Part 2, Japanese man- agement V ol

Takeuchi, H., Nonaka, I.: 16 the new new product development game. Japanese Business: Part 1, Classics Part 2, Japanese man- agement V ol. 2: Part 1, Manufacturing and production Part 2, Au- tomotive industry V ol. 3: Part 1, Banking and ﬁnance Part 2, Cor- porate strategy and...

1998
[90]

In: Software Engineering (CONSEG), 2012 CSI Sixth International Conference on, pp

Tiwari, S., Rathore, S.S., Gupta, A.: Selecting requirement elici- tation techniques for software projects. In: Software Engineering (CONSEG), 2012 CSI Sixth International Conference on, pp. 1–

2012
[91]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6600 (2014)

Turk, D., France, R., Rumpe, B.: Limitations of agile software pro- cesses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6600 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[92]

Library of Progress: Library Science, Information Technology & Computer 29(1), 117–117 (2009)

Vasanthi, J., Ravi, S.: A generic framework for content-based li- brary portal. Library of Progress: Library Science, Information Technology & Computer 29(1), 117–117 (2009)

2009
[93]

Journal of Systems and Software 111, 157–184 (2016)

Yang, C., Liang, P., Avgeriou, P.: A systematic mapping study on the combination of software architecture and agile development. Journal of Systems and Software 111, 157–184 (2016)

2016
[94]

In: International Re- quirements Engineering, 2008

Zachos, K., Maiden, N.: Inventing requirements from software: An empirical investigation with web services. In: International Re- quirements Engineering, 2008. RE’08. 16th IEEE, pp. 145–154. IEEE (2008)

2008
[95]

In: Engineering and managing software requirements, pp

Zowghi, D., Coulin, C.: Requirements elicitation: A survey of techniques, approaches, and tools. In: Engineering and managing software requirements, pp. 19–46. Springer (2005) 31 Appendices Appendix I - List of studies selected for the review (Primary Studies) S1 Hollis, B., &...

2005
[122]

ACM (2004) 30 Ainhoa Aldave et al

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Microsoft Press (2002)

Aiken, P.: Microsoft computer dictionary. Microsoft Press (2002)

2002

[2] [2]

John Wiley & Sons (2002)

Ambler, S.: Agile modeling: effective practices for extreme pro- gramming and the uniﬁed process. John Wiley & Sons (2002)

2002

[3] [3]

Blue Hole Press (2010)

Anderson, D.J.: Kanban: successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Blue Hole Press (2010)

2010

[4] [4]

The Journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology 51(3), 478 (1955)

Barron, F.: The disposition toward originality. The Journal of Ab- normal and Social Psychology 51(3), 478 (1955)

1955

[5] [5]

Communications of the AIS 2(3es), 4 (1999)

Baskerville, R.L.: Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the AIS 2(3es), 4 (1999)

1999

[6] [6]

addison-wesley professional (2000)

Beck, K.: Extreme programming explained: embrace change. addison-wesley professional (2000)

2000

[7] [7]

In: 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Con- ference (RE), pp

Bhowmik, T., Niu, N., Mahmoud, A., Savolainen, J.: Automated support for combinational creativity in requirements engineering. In: 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Con- ference (RE), pp. 243–252. IEEE (2014)

2014

[8] [8]

System Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ, Technical Report ES 679(05), 45 (2005)

Biolchini, J., Mian, P.G., Natali, A.C.C., Travassos, G.H.: Sys- tematic review in software engineering. System Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ, Technical Report ES 679(05), 45 (2005)

2005