Collaborative and AI-Supported Requirements Elicitation: An Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.24060v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2026 02:09:43 GMT
• Title: Collaborative and AI-Supported Requirements Elicitation: An Empirical Study
• Abstract summary: generative AI can support the transformation of collaboratively generated knowledge into structured requirements documentation.<n>We compare four requirements elicitation approaches: collaborative elicitation without AI support, collaborative elicitation supported by the Strateegia platform and its GPT-powered Writer applet, direct requirements generation using a Large Language Model, and requirements generation from collaborative discussion transcripts using a Large Language Model.<n>Our findings indicate that approaches combining stakeholder collaboration and AI-supported synthesis produced the highest-rated requirements artifacts and were perceived as clearer and easier to execute than traditional collaborative elicitation.
• Score: 2.198430261120653
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Requirements elicitation requires stakeholders to communicate needs, negotiate priorities, and collaboratively construct knowledge that can be transformed into software requirements artifacts. Recent advances in LLMs have created opportunities to support these activities through AI-assisted collaboration and automated artifact generation. However, limited empirical evidence is available regarding how AI-supported collaborative environments influence requirements elicitation outcomes. In this study, we conducted a mixed-method controlled experiment comparing four requirements elicitation approaches: collaborative elicitation without AI support, collaborative elicitation supported by the Strateegia platform and its GPT-powered Writer applet, direct requirements generation using a Large Language Model, and requirements generation from collaborative discussion transcripts using a Large Language Model. We evaluated the resulting artifacts using quality criteria derived from ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 and collected participant perceptions regarding the elicitation process. Our findings indicate that approaches combining stakeholder collaboration and AI-supported synthesis produced the highest-rated requirements artifacts and were perceived as clearer and easier to execute than traditional collaborative elicitation. The results suggest that generative AI can support the transformation of collaboratively generated knowledge into structured requirements documentation while preserving the value of stakeholder participation. We discuss implications for AI-supported requirements elicitation and human-AI collaboration in Requirements Engineering.

Related papers

• What do you mean by human-AI collaboration: Prerequisite functions and the affordances needed to achieve it [0.09229852843814058]
  Chapter asks what is gained and lost when a demanding concept from the learning sciences is applied so freely.<n>It reconstructs the requirements that a situation, an interaction, and a set of cognitive processes have historically had to meet before being called collaborative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-13T23:30:12Z)
• From Prompts to Context: An Ontology-Driven Framework for Human-Generative AI Collaboration [26.702635306128865]
  This paper introduces an ontology-driven framework for representing Human-Generative AI collaboration.<n>Its core component, Contextual Collaboration AI Ontology, models key elements of collaboration as a shared machine-interpretable vocabulary.<n>We show how the framework can support the representation and documentation of collaboration episodes across requirements analysis, design, implementation, and testing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T09:35:59Z)
• Teaching Agile Requirements Engineering: A Stakeholder Simulation with Generative AI [5.361962126043114]
  Students gain practical experience by applying state-of-the art agile practices for requirements elicitation and documentation.<n>Students also develop an understanding of the technical and ethical limitations associated with the use of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T12:07:52Z)
• Taxonomy of User Needs and Actions [51.86289485979439]
  The growing ubiquity of conversational AI highlights the need for frameworks that capture users' instrumental goals and the situated, adaptive, and social practices through which they achieve them.<n>To address this gap, we introduce the Taxonomy of User Needs and Actions (TUNA), an empirically grounded framework developed through iterative qualitative analysis of 1193 human-AI conversations.<n> TUNA organizes user actions into a three-level hierarchy encompassing behaviors associated with information seeking, synthesis, procedural guidance, content creation, social interaction, and meta-conversation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T17:04:42Z)
• Rethinking Testing for LLM Applications: Characteristics, Challenges, and a Lightweight Interaction Protocol [83.83217247686402]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have evolved from simple text generators into complex software systems that integrate retrieval augmentation, tool invocation, and multi-turn interactions.<n>Their inherent non-determinism, dynamism, and context dependence pose fundamental challenges for quality assurance.<n>This paper decomposes LLM applications into a three-layer architecture: textbftextitSystem Shell Layer, textbftextitPrompt Orchestration Layer, and textbftextitLLM Inference Core.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T13:00:28Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Methodological Foundations for AI-Driven Survey Question Generation [41.94295877935867]
  This paper presents a methodological framework for using generative AI in educational survey research.<n>We explore how Large Language Models can generate adaptive, context-aware survey questions.<n>We examine ethical issues such as bias, privacy, and transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T09:50:34Z)
• Collaborative Gym: A Framework for Enabling and Evaluating Human-Agent Collaboration [50.657070334404835]
  Collaborative Gym is a framework enabling asynchronous, tripartite interaction among agents, humans, and task environments.<n>We instantiate Co-Gym with three representative tasks in both simulated and real-world conditions.<n>Our findings reveal that collaborative agents consistently outperform their fully autonomous counterparts in task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T09:21:15Z)
• Constraining Participation: Affordances of Feedback Features in Interfaces to Large Language Models [49.266685603250416]
  Large language models (LLMs) are now accessible to anyone with a computer, a web browser, and an internet connection via browser-based interfaces.<n>This article examines how interactive feedback features in ChatGPT's interface afford user participation in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T13:50:37Z)
• Augmenting the Author: Exploring the Potential of AI Collaboration in Academic Writing [25.572926673827165]
  This case study highlights the importance of prompt design, output analysis, and recognizing the AI's limitations to ensure responsible and effective AI integration in scholarly work. The paper contributes to the field of Human-Computer Interaction by exploring effective prompt strategies and providing a comparative analysis of Gen AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T19:06:39Z)
• The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice [64.29355073494125]
  This article aims to ground what we dub the "participatory turn" in AI design by synthesizing existing theoretical literature on participation. We articulate empirical findings concerning the current state of participatory practice in AI design based on an analysis of recently published research and semi-structured interviews with 12 AI researchers and practitioners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T05:30:42Z)
• Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond "Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir" [76.44130385507894]
  This paper aims to ground what we dub a 'participatory turn' in AI design by synthesizing existing literature on participation and through empirical analysis of its current practices. Based on our literature synthesis and empirical research, this paper presents a conceptual framework for analyzing participatory approaches to AI design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-01T17:57:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.