Guideline to Improve User Involvement during Requirement Elicitation in Agile Software Development

Guideline to Improve User Involvement during Requirement Elicitation in Agile Software Development | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Guideline to Improve User Involvement during Requirement Elicitation in Agile Software Development Qudrattullah Omerkhel, Othman Mohd Yusop, Muhammad Saqib Iqbal This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7160036/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aims to explore the key challenges of user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development and propose practical solutions to improve user involvement. To address these questions, this study employed a qualitative research approach, conducting semi-structured interviews with 19 agile practitioners from government agencies and private companies in Afghanistan. Key challenges include paper-based system dependency, requirement volatility, limited user availability, technical knowledge gaps, resistance to change, and product owner inefficiencies. Moreover, the study identified the best practices and guidelines that agile teams can implement to enhance user involvement during requirement generation in agile software development. These findings offer actionable insights for agile teams working in environments where user involvement is inconsistent or challenging. Business and commerce/Business and management Social science/Business and management Business and commerce/Information systems and information technology Physical sciences/Mathematics and computing Business and commerce/Operational research User Involvement Requirement Elicitation Agile Software Development 1. Introduction User involvement is critical in software development, particularly during requirements elicitation, when user needs are gathered and refined (Ahimbisibwe et al., 2015). Agile Software Development (ASD) emphasises continuous user involvement to ensure that evolving software meets business goals and user expectations (Bano and Zowghi, 2015; Bano et al., 2017). Unlike traditional models, such as Waterfall, which involve users primarily at the start and end of the software development cycle, agile methodologies encourage iterative feedback throughout the process (Hinderks et al., 2022). However, despite these advantages, organisations frequently encounter challenges in ensuring effective user involvement during requirements generation in agile software development (Tam et al., 2020). Several studies have highlighted key barriers that hinder user involvement, including reliance on paper-based systems, project complexity, limited user availability, resistance to change, and inadequate technical knowledge among users(Inayat et al., 2015; Ramesh et al., 2010; Schön et al., 2017). Many organisations still depend on legacy paper-based systems, making transitioning to digital documentation and agile-friendly communication methods difficult (Manifesto, 2001 ; Yaman et al., 2020). Users accustomed to manual processes often resist change and fear increased workload, accountability, or job displacement (Bourque & Fairley, 2014). Furthermore, limited user availability poses a significant challenge because users often juggle multiple responsibilities, making it difficult for development teams to obtain timely and detailed feedback (Omerkhel et al. 2023; Ciriello et al., 2022). A significant issue is the disparity in technical expertise between the users and developers. Many users struggle to articulate their requirements clearly, whereas developers may lack domain-specific knowledge to interpret user needs accurately (Rivero et al., 2013). Miscommunication and vague requirements often result in project delays and costly reworks (Inayat et al., 2015). Additionally, low user motivation can hinder involvement, especially in organisations where users are comfortable with existing systems and see little personal benefit in contributing to digital transformation efforts (Bano & Zowghi, 2015; Sekgweleo, 2019). The role of the product owner is crucial for ensuring that user input is appropriately collected, interpreted, and integrated into the development process (Hoda et al. 2011). However, many product owners lack formal training in requirements engineering, leading to inefficiencies in managing user interactions (Scrum Guides, 2020). These challenges indicate the need for structured guidelines to help product owners and agile teams involve users effectively during requirement generation in agile software development. This study aims to explore the key challenges of user involvement in eliciting agile requirements and propose practical guidelines for enhancing user participation. Specifically, it seeks to address the following questions. What are the main challenges in managing user involvement during requirement elicitation for agile software development? How can product owners facilitate effective user involvement? To explore these issues, this study used a qualitative approach, conducting semi-structured interviews with 19 agile practitioners from government agencies and private firms in Afghanistan. The results shed light on real-world challenges and offer practical strategies for enhancing user participation in agile software development. The paper continues with a literature review (Section 2), methodology description (Section 3), findings (Section 4), discussion of practical guidelines (Section 5 ), and conclusions (Section 6). By highlighting key obstacles and suggesting solutions, this study aims to advance both academic understanding and practical improvements in agile requirements engineering (Hinderks et al., 2022). 2. Review of the literature User involvement in software development has been widely studied, with numerous findings emphasising its importance in ensuring software quality and project success. Research over the past few decades has shown that effective user involvement during requirement elicitation helps reduce ambiguities, misinterpretations, and project failures (Bano & Zowghi, 2015; Hinderks et al., 2022). Agile software development promotes user-centred approaches by advocating iterative feedback and continuous collaboration between developers and users. However, despite the advantages of agile methodologies, user involvement remains a persistent challenge owing to various technical, organisational, and behavioural factors (Werder, 2016; Bano & Rimini, 2018). One of the most significant barriers is reliance on traditional paper-based systems in many organisations, particularly in the government and large enterprises. Although software teams adopt agile frameworks, bureaucratic constraints and user familiarity with manual processes hinder their transition to digital solutions (Inayat et al., 2015). Studies indicate that users accustomed to paper-based workflows often resist adopting new digital tools, leading to delays in requirements gathering, miscommunication, and inefficient documentation (Bourque & Fairley, 2011; Bourque & Fairley, 2014). In such cases, agile teams struggle to integrate user input efficiently because traditional systems are not designed for continuous feedback loops (Rahayu et al., 2017). Another major challenge is the availability of users to participate in the agile processes(Martins et al., 2019). Although agile principles emphasise frequent user interactions, real-world constraints such as busy schedules, competing work priorities, and hierarchical decision-making limit users' time to the requirements elicitation process (Kautz, 2010). Many organisations address this issue by relying on proxy users, such as product owners or business analysts, who act as intermediaries between developers and actual end users. However, studies suggest that this approach often leads to misinterpretation and incomplete requirements owing to information loss in indirect communication (Moe et al., 2012; Rivero et al., 2013). User experience also plays a critical role in the effectiveness of the requirement elicitation. Many users lack the technical knowledge required to articulate their needs in a structured manner (Gaikwad and Joeg 2017). Research highlights that nontechnical users often struggle to clearly define software functionalities, leading to ambiguous or incomplete requirements (Bano & Zowghi, 2015). This issue is further compounded when development teams lack domain-specific knowledge and fail to ask the right questions during requirement elicitation (Inayat et al., 2015). Studies suggest that bridging this gap requires interactive approaches, such as prototyping, user interface mockups, and collaborative requirement validation workshops (Ramesh et al., 2010). User resistance to change is a well-documented issue in software development. Users may hesitate to adopt new systems because of fear of job displacement, increased accountability, or a steep learning curve associated with new technologies (Bourque & Fairley, 2014). This reluctance often manifests as low involvement in meetings, reluctance to provide feedback, or outright rejection of software solutions (Kautz, 2010; Ives et al.,2010). To address this, previous studies have emphasised the importance of change management strategies such as training programs, transparent communication, and gradual system transitions (Rivero et al., 2013). The role of product owners in facilitating user involvement is another crucial factor discussed in the literature. Product owners bridge users and developers, ensuring that user requirements are accurately captured and effectively translated into technical specifications (He & King, 2008; Hinderks et al., 2022). However, studies indicate that many product owners lack formal training in requirements engineering, leading to inefficiencies in managing user interactions and prioritising requirements (Moe et al., 2012; Inayat et al., 2015). Effective product ownership requires technical knowledge, communication skills, and domain expertise to ensure that software meets user needs (Bano & Zowghi, 2015). Several methods and techniques have been proposed to enhance user involvement in eliciting agile requirements. These include the following. Interactive prototyping allows users to visualise system functionalities and provides iterative feedback before development (Ramesh et al., 2010). User Interface Mockups – Helps bridge the gap between technical and non-technical users by providing a graphical representation of system workflows (Rivero et al., 2013). Workshops and Focus Groups encourage direct communication between developers and users, fostering a deeper understanding of user needs (Bano and Zowghi, 2015). Online Communication Channels - Using tools such as email, video conferencing, and messaging applications to maintain continuous user dialogue (Kautz, 2010). Although these approaches improve user involvement, their effectiveness depends on organisational culture, team dynamics, and users’ willingness to participate actively. The existing literature underscores that no single method can fully address the challenges of user involvement, and a combination of structured approaches is necessary to ensure the elicitation of practical requirements (Inayat et al., 2015; Moe et al., 2012). In summary, the research highlights that, while agile methodologies promote user-centric development, several technical, behavioural, and organisational barriers limit effective user involvement. Addressing these challenges requires structured strategies that consider user constraints, knowledge gaps, and resistance to change. The following section describes the methodology used in this study to further explore these challenges and develop practical guidelines for improving user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development (Cavaye, 1995; Börjesson & Mathiassen, 2005). 3. Methodology This study adopts a qualitative research approach to explore the challenges of user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development, and to propose guidelines for improving user involvement. A constructivist paradigm guides research, recognising that knowledge is constructed through human experiences and interactions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Given the complexity of user involvement, a qualitative approach is suitable to capture rich and detailed insights from agile practitioners. 3.1 Research Design Semi-structured interviews were used as the primary data collection method. Semi-structured interviews allow flexibility in probing deeper into participants' experiences, while ensuring that all relevant topics are covered. This approach enables an in-depth understanding of the barriers to user involvement and strategies employed by agile teams to address them (Moe et al., 2012). 3.2 Selection of participants The study involved 19 agile practitioners from various organisations, including three government agencies: the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT), the Ministry of Finance (MoF), and the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW), as well as two private software companies in Afghanistan. These organisations were selected because they represent environments in which agile development practices are adopted alongside traditional paper-based processes. A purposeful sampling technique was used to select participants based on their experiences with agile development and involvement in eliciting requirements. The sample included product owners, business analysts, software developers, and agile team members to ensure diverse perspectives on user involvement challenges. Recruitment was conducted from 15 March 2023 to 20 May 2023. All participants provided informed verbal consent. This was documented as part of the recorded interviews. Minors were excluded from this study. 3.3 Data Collection The interviews were conducted face-to-face and lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. The interview questions were designed to explore the following: Challenges faced by agile teams involving users during requirements elicitation. Factors that influence user availability, motivation, and communication in agile projects. Strategies and best practices adopted by organisations to enhance user involvement. All interviews were recorded with the participants’ consent and later transcribed for analysis. To ensure confidentiality, the participants were anonymised. 3.4 Data analysis The interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, which identifies, organises, and interprets patterns within qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis was conducted in three stages: Open coding: The data were segmented into themes related to user involvement challenges and solutions. Axial coding: Relationships between themes were identified and grouped into broader categories. Selective coding: Core themes were refined to develop a structured understanding of the barriers to user involvement and strategies for overcoming them. To ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, member checks were conducted where selected participants reviewed the interpreted results to verify their accuracy. Additionally, a peer review process was conducted with other agile experts to validate the themes and conclusions. All participants were aged 18 years or older and voluntarily participated. Informed verbal consent was obtained before each interview, and consent was documented through audio recordings at the start of the session. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time, and the assurance of confidentiality and anonymity. No minors were involved in the study, and no personal information was collected, stored, or disclosed. The following section presents the findings of the study and highlights the key challenges and solutions identified through interviews with agile practitioners. 4. Results A thematic analysis of the 19 semi-structured interviews revealed several key challenges associated with user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development. These challenges were grouped into two main themes. Challenges in requirement elimination: addressing technical, procedural, and organisational barriers. The user involvement challenges include user availability, expertise, motivation, and user involvement strategies. Additionally, the study identified the best practices and guidelines that agile teams can implement to enhance user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development. 4.1 Challenges in Requirements Elicitation 4.1.1 Dependence on Paper-Based Systems One of the most frequently reported challenges is the continued reliance on paper documentation and manual processes, particularly in government organisations. Many users prefer traditional methods such as handwritten documents, spreadsheets, and printed forms, which slow agile workflows and hinder real-time collaboration and feedback integration. Owing to bureaucratic resistance and user reluctance to adopt new platforms, agile teams found it challenging to transition from these legacy systems to digital tools such as JIRA, Confluence, or Trello. 4.1.2 Complexity of the project and complexity of the requirements Participants noted that frequent changes in requirements due to evolving business needs and stakeholder preferences created significant challenges in maintaining clarity and stability (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008). Agile teams often receive conflicting inputs from different user groups, which leads to delays and increased rework. Additionally, the absence of a dedicated requirements engineering role meant that product owners had to interpret and prioritise requirements independently, sometimes leading to misaligned expectations between users and developers. 4.1.3 Lack of structured documentation Agile methodologies emphasise working software over comprehensive documentation, but teams struggle to effectively document evolving requirements in practice. In some cases, key details of user needs were lost or misinterpreted owing to informal communication channels, such as chats and verbal discussions. The participants suggested that balancing agility and structured documentation is essential for maintaining project consistency. 4.2 Challenges in User Involvement 4.2.1 Limited user availability A common challenge faced by agile teams is the difficulty of securing user time for feedback sessions, sprint planning, and requirement validation. Many users, especially those in government settings, are occupied with other responsibilities, making their involvement in frequent iteration complexes. 4.2.2 Variability in user expertise The study found that many users lack technical knowledge and struggle to clearly articulate the system requirements. In contrast, more technically skilled users sometimes overcomplicate feature requests, leading to scope creep and inconsistencies in requirement prioritisation. Agile teams have reported that inconsistent levels of user expertise result in fragmented and incomplete requirements. 4.2.3 Resistance to change User resistance to new tools and processes has become a significant barrier. Some participants cited a fear that automation would replace jobs, while others expressed frustration when learning new software. This lack of motivation resulted in low involvement levels and superficial feedback, which negatively affected the quality of requirements. 4.2.4 Communication Gaps and Role Ambiguity Product owners often act as intermediaries between developers and users, but unclear responsibilities and communication breakdowns lead to misinterpretation of user needs. Agile teams relied on assumption-based development in organisations where formal user involvement policies were missing, leading to inconsistencies and avoidable rework. 4.3 Best Practices to Improve User Involvement Based on the results of the interviews, the study identified six key guidelines for improving user involvement during requirement generation in agile software development. Use Legacy Systems as a Reference: Development teams should use them as a baseline to gather new requirements and demonstrate software improvements, rather than forcing users to abandon old systems. Incorporate online collaboration tools: To address user availability issues, teams should use WhatsApp groups, slack, or video conferencing to facilitate asynchronous communication and real-time feedback collection. Adopt Interactive Prototyping: Users are more engaged when visualising functionalities than when reading lengthy documents. Prototyping and interactive user interface (UI) mockups were identified as valuable strategies. Encouraging User Ownership in Agile Software Development: Agile teams should promote a sense of co-ownership by allowing users to contribute to backlog grooming and sprint reviews, thereby increasing involvement and accountability. Offer-structured training sessions: Providing training on agile methodologies and digital tools ensures that users understand their roles and can meaningfully participate in requirements discussions. Implement a Technical Liaison Role: Embedding a technical expert within the user organisation for an extended period can help bridge the knowledge gap and ensure better articulation of user needs. 4.4 Summary of key findings Table 1 summarises the key challenges and solutions identified in this study. Table 1 Summary of the Key Challenges and Proposed Solutions Challenges in User Involvement Proposed Solutions Paper-Based System Reliance Use legacy systems as a reference Requirement Volatility Maintain flexible documentation strategies Unavailability of Users Using on-line collaboration tools Lack of technical expertise Conduct structured training sessions. Resistance to change Promote user ownership in the development process. Communication Gaps Introduce a technical liaison role 5. Discussion The findings of this study highlight the critical challenges associated with user involvement during requirement generation in agile software development and provide practical solutions for addressing these challenges. The challenges observed, including paper-based system dependency, requirement volatility, limited user availability, technical knowledge gaps, and resistance to change, align with existing literature on agile software development (Bano & Zowghi, 2015; Inayat et al., 2015). However, the study also offers new insights into the contextual barriers faced in organisations that are transitioning from traditional development practices to agile methodologies, particularly in environments where bureaucratic structures and legacy systems remain dominant. 5.1 Understanding the Impact of User Involvement Challenges One of the key findings is the persistence of paper-based systems in certain organisations, particularly government agencies. Despite the benefits of digital tools for requirement management, many users hesitate to adopt digital platforms because of their familiarity with existing manual processes. This aligns with studies suggesting that organisational inertia and bureaucratic policies can delay the adoption of agile methodologies (Bourque & Fairley, 2014). Given this reality, forcing users to entirely abandon legacy systems may not be an effective strategy. Instead, agile teams should use these systems as reference points during requirement elicitation, ensuring a smoother transition to digital documentation. This study also reaffirms that the volatility of requirements remains a key challenge in agile software development. Although agile methodologies are designed to accommodate changing requirements, excessive modifications often lead to scope creep, misaligned expectations, and delayed deliveries. This issue was particularly noticeable in organisations where there was no formalised process for prioritising requirements. These findings align with previous research highlighting the need for structured backlog management and iterative refinement practices to ensure that frequent requirement changes do not derail project timelines (Ramesh et al. 2010). Another critical challenge is limited user availability, which affects the timeliness and accuracy of requirements elicitation. Agile methodologies emphasise continuous user feedback; however, users often lack the time or incentive to participate in regular requirement discussions (Rahayu et al., 2017). This challenge is exacerbated in government institutions, where rigid hierarchies and bureaucratic approval processes further delay decision making. Similar studies have recommended asynchronous communication channels and user-involvement frameworks to mitigate the impact of user unavailability (Hinderks et al. 2022). The use of WhatsApp groups, Slack, and online collaboration tools, as identified in this study, represents a feasible solution for maintaining user involvement even when face-to-face meetings are not possible. 5.2 Addressing the Knowledge Gap Between Users and Developers This study highlights significant differences in technical expertise between users and agile software development teams. Many users struggle to articulate clear and structured requirements, resulting in ambiguities, vague feature requests, and misalignment of functionalities. At the same time, developers may lack domain-specific knowledge and fail to understand the operational nuances required to build software that truly meet user needs (Rivero et al., 2013). This communication gap between users and developers has been well documented in previous research, where studies have suggested that the use of prototypes, user stories, and structured requirement validation workshops can help bridge this knowledge divide (Schön et al., 2017). The findings of this study support these recommendations, particularly the effectiveness of interactive prototyping and UI mockups as a means of helping non-technical users visualise system functionalities before full development begins. Additionally, the recommendation to embed a technical liaison role within the user organisation provides a novel solution that can enhance domain knowledge transfer between users and agile teams. 5.3 Overcoming Resistance to Change Resistance to new software solutions is another prominent theme of this study. Many users were hesitant to adopt digital tools, citing fears of increased accountability, job displacement, or complexity in learning new systems. This aligns with previous studies on technology adoption challenges, which indicate that a lack of motivation and fear of change often lead to low levels of involvement during software transitions (Bourque & Fairley, 2014; Kolstad & Wiig, 2009). To mitigate user resistance, agile teams should emphasise change management strategies such as Early User Involvement: Involving users from the initial stages fosters a sense of ownership and reduces their apprehension. Training and Knowledge Sharing: Providing hands-on training ensures that users gain confidence in using new systems. Demonstrating value through prototypes: Incremental improvements rather than abrupt system changes allow users to adjust gradually. Maintain Open Communication: Regular discussions and feedback sessions give users a voice in the development process, reducing resistance. These strategies align with user-centric design principles, where software adoption is not simply about deploying new technology but about integrating users into the transition process (Kautz, 2010; Ramesh et al., 2010). 5.4 Role of the Product Owner in Facilitating User Involvement The results confirmed the essential role of the product owner in enabling effective user involvement. Product owners often act as links between users and developers. However, their capacity to accurately gather and prioritise requirements is frequently hindered by a lack of proper training in requirements engineering (Inayat et al., 2015). The findings of this study support earlier research, highlighting the importance of formal training programs for product owners to improve their skills in stakeholder communication, backlog management, and agile requirement prioritisation (Hinderks et al. 2022). The study also identifies structured guidelines that product owners can adopt to improve user involvement, including the following. Online collaboration tools are used to maintain continuous feedback loops. Incorporating interactive prototyping to make requirements more visual and understandable for nontechnical users. Encouraging user involvement in backlog refinement to ensure feature prioritisation is in line with the actual needs. Facilitating regular sprint reviews, where users can validate incremental progress and refine the requirements iteratively. These recommendations align with best practices in agile project management, which advocates for a user-driven approach to ensure that requirements remain relevant and actionable throughout development (Schön et al., 2017). 5.5 Practical Implications for Agile Teams The findings of this study provide several actionable insights for agile teams working in environments in which user involvement is inconsistent or challenging. Specifically, agile teams should: Develop hybrid strategies that balance agility with structured documentation to ensure the clarity of requirements. Asynchronous communication channels should be adopted to improve user accessibility and involvement. Provide training and ongoing support to help users adapt to agile methodologies and digital tools. Foster user ownership and accountability by encouraging their involvement in iterative development processes. By implementing these strategies, agile teams can improve the accuracy of requirements elicitation, reduce project delays, and improve the overall software quality. 5.6 Conclusion of the Discussion The findings confirm that user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development is crucial but complex, requiring a structured approach to mitigate barriers. By addressing technical, procedural, and organisational challenges, agile teams can improve collaboration, enhance the precision of requirements, and increase overall project success. The next section concludes the paper by summarising the key contributions and outlining future research directions. 6. Conclusions This study examined the difficulties of involving users during requirement gathering in agile software development and suggested practical ways to improve user participation. The major obstacles include reliance on paper-based systems, requirement volatility, limited user availability, gaps in technical knowledge, resistance to change, and inefficiencies of product owners. These issues hinder effective communication, causing misalignment of requirements and project delays. To overcome these hurdles, this study recommends referencing legacy systems, utilising online collaboration tools, adopting interactive prototypes, encouraging user ownership, and conducting structured training sessions. The product owner's role is vital for maintaining ongoing user involvement, refining backlogs, and conducting sprint reviews. The results indicate that a hybrid approach that combines agile flexibility with structured documentation can enhance requirement clarity and user collaboration. Future research should focus on quantitative metrics to evaluate the success of these strategies in various agile settings. Implementing these guidelines enables agile teams to improve requirement accuracy, increase user engagement, and enhance the overall project outcome success. Declarations Ethical Considerations and Declarations Ethics Approval and Compliance with Guidelines The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Kabul Education University (protocol No. 12, dated 5 November 2022). The study was conducted by the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Participate All participants were adult professionals aged 18 years or older. Due to the sensitivity of their professional roles, limited access to digital infrastructure in some cases, and concerns about sharing personal signatures, oral informed consent was obtained instead of written consent. Prior to participation, each participant was read a standardised consent script explaining the study’s objectives, procedures, voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality assurances, and the right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Oral consent was audio recorded with participants’ permission, and a note was also entered into the researcher’s field log immediately after each interview to confirm consent. The full consent script used during this process has been submitted as a supplementary file to this article. Participants were recruited through a multi-step referral approach: initially contacted via social networking links provided by colleagues and friends, followed by snowball sampling. This method allowed access to practitioners from relevant Afghan organisations, including the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT), the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW), and two private software companies. Consent to Publish Not applicable. The study did not involve any person’s data in any form (including images or identifiable quotes), which would require explicit consent for publication. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Funding Statement The authors received no funding or financial support for this study. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to agile practitioners from various Afghan government agencies and private companies for sharing their experiences and insights. Their contributions were vital to the success of this study. Author Contribution Q.O. conducted the interviews, performed the thematic analysis, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. O.M.Y. contributed to the study design, methodology validation, and literature review. M.S.I. reviewed and edited the manuscript, provided theoretical insights on agile requirements engineering, and contributed to structuring the guidelines. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript Data Availability The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with participants but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request References Ahimbisibwe, A., Cavana, R. Y., & Daellenbach, U. (2015). A contingency fit model of critical success factors for software development projects: A comparison of agile and traditional plan-based methods Bano, M., & Rimini, F. (2018). Power and Politics of User Involvement in Software Development . 1–6. Ciriello, D. R. F., Glud, J. A., & Hansen-Schwartz, K. H. (2022). Becoming agile together: Customer influence on agile adoption within commissioned software teams. Information and Management , 59 (4), 103645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103645 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research desing: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (fifth Edit). SAGE. Gaikwad, V., & Joeg, P. (2017). A case study in requirements engineering in context of agile. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research , 12 (8), 1697–1702. Inayat, I., Salim, S. S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., & Shamshirband, S. (2015). A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 51 , 915–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.046 Martins, H. F., Carvalho, A., Junior, D. O., & Canedo, E. D. (2019). Design Thinking : Challenges for Software Requirements Elicitation . 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120371 Rahayu, P., Sensuse, D. I., Fitriani, W. R., Nurrohmah, I., Mauliadi, R., & Rochman, H. N. (2017). Applying usability testing to improving Scrum methodology in develop assistant information system. 2016 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation, ICITSI 2016 - Proceedings , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITSI.2016.7858222 Ramesh, B., Cao, L., & Baskerville, R. (2010). Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: an empirical study. Information Systems Journal , 20 (5), 449–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2575.2007.00259.X Schön, E. M., Thomaschewski, J., & Escalona, M. J. (2017). Agile Requirements Engineering: A systematic literature review. Computer Standards and Interfaces , 49 , 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011 Scrum Guides. (2020). Ken Schwaber. In Scrumguides.Org . https://scrumguides.org/ken.html Tam, C., Moura, E. J. da C., Oliveira, T., & Varajão, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. International Journal of Project Management , 38 (3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.02.001 Yaman, S., Fagerholm, F., Munezero, M., Männistö, T., & Mikkonen, T. (2020). Patterns of user involvement in experiment-driven software development. Information and Software Technology , 120 (November 2019), 106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.106244 . Atkin, B., & Skitmore, M. (2008). Editorial: Stakeholder management in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 549–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802142405 Bano, M., & Zowghi, D. (2015). A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Information and Software Technology, 58 , 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.06.011 Bano, M., Zowghi, D., & Rimini, F. (2017). User satisfaction and system success: An empirical exploration of user involvement in software development. Empirical Software Engineering, 22(5) , 2339–2372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9465-1 Börjesson, A., & Mathiassen, L. (2005). Improving software organisations: Agility challenges and implications. Information Technology & People, 18(4) , 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840510633329 Bourque, P., & Fairley, R. E. (2014). Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK® Guide), Version 3.0 . IEEE Computer Society. Cavaye, A. L. M. (1995). User involvement in system development revisited. Information & Management, 28(5) , 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(94)00053-L Ciriello, D. R. F., Glud, J. A., & Hansen-Schwartz, K. H. (2022). Becoming agile together: Customer influence on agile adoption within commissioned software teams. Information & Management, 59(4) , 103645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103645 Hinderks, A., Domínguez Mayo, F. J., Thomaschewski, J., & Escalona, M. J. (2022). Approaches to manage the user experience process in agile software development: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 150 , 106957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106957 He, J., & King, W. R. (2008). The role of user involvement in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(1) , 301–331. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250111 Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2011). The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on self-organising agile teams. Information and Software Technology, 53(5) , 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.10.009 Ives, B., Olson, M. H., & Science, S. M. (2010). User involvement and MIS success: A review of research. MIS Quarterly, 30(5) , 586–603. Inayat, I., Salim, S. S., Salim, S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., & Shamshirband, S. (2015). A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. Computers in Human Behaviour, 51 , 915–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.046 Kautz, K. (2010). Participatory design activities and customer involvement in agile software development. Information Technology & People, 23(4) , 303–316. Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development, 37(3) , 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.002 Manifesto, A. (2001). Agile Manifesto . Retrieved from https://agilemanifesto.org/ Martins, H. F., Carvalho, A., Junior, D. O., & Canedo, E. D. (2019). Design thinking: Challenges for software requirements elicitation. Information, 10(12) , 371. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120371 Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2012). Understanding self-organising teams in agile software development. Information and Software Technology, 52(8) , 480–491. Omerkhel, Q., Yusop, O. M., Ismail, S. A., & Azmi, A. (2023). User involvement approach in agile software development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information System and Technology Management, 8(32) , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.35631/JISTM.832001 Omerkhel, Q., Yusop, O. M., Ismail, S. A., & Azmi, A. (2023). Exploring strategies for overcoming issues of user involvement in agile software development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 101(19) , 5837–5854. Ramesh, B., Cao, L., & Baskerville, R. (2010). Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: An empirical study. Information Systems Journal, 20(5) , 449–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00259.x Rivero, J. M., Luna, E. R., Grigera, J., & Rossi, G. (2013). Improving user involvement through a model-driven requirements approach. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Model-Driven Requirements Engineering (MoDRE, 2013) , 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MoDRE.2013.6597260 Schön, E. M., Thomaschewski, J., & Escalona, M. J. (2017). Agile requirements engineering: A systematic literature review. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 49 , 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011 Sekgweleo, T. (2019). Comparing agile and traditional system development methodologies. International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE), 6(5) , 174–179. Tam, C., da C. Moura, E. J., Oliveira, T., & Varajão, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of ongoing agile software development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(3) , 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.02.001 Werder, K. (2016). Team agility and team performance – The moderating effect of user involvement. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016) . Yaman, S., Fagerholm, F., Munezero, M., Männistö, T., & Mikkonen, T. (2020). Patterns of user involvement in experiment-driven software development. Information and Software Technology, 120 , 106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.106244 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7160036","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":525730464,"identity":"71003429-fc8d-43bf-9f4a-33b28f6677d9","order_by":0,"name":"Qudrattullah Omerkhel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kabul Education University of Rabbani","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qudrattullah","middleName":"","lastName":"Omerkhel","suffix":""},{"id":525730465,"identity":"263efd63-b54b-483a-afe9-f258bbafbfe7","order_by":1,"name":"Othman Mohd Yusop","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Technology Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Othman","middleName":"Mohd","lastName":"Yusop","suffix":""},{"id":525730466,"identity":"cbe263c7-28c2-4cdf-afd5-6caac43aa2b0","order_by":2,"name":"Muhammad Saqib Iqbal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National University of Sciences and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"Saqib","lastName":"Iqbal","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-18 18:23:03","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7160036/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7160036/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93108846,"identity":"deebf245-2219-423a-85ff-4ed89a10bded","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 07:20:31","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":69550,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"v5anonymisedupdated.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7160036/v1/b29fb39eab083f8a1ade63cd.docx"},{"id":93109857,"identity":"eefc5b6b-e4f6-4e1f-a763-c45a88b5e8a6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 07:36:31","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4748,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0b8dff947b05400e9993f200bdd7aed2.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7160036/v1/6a46b88978bf3d4396f2b8ea.json"},{"id":93109660,"identity":"41305d4b-2c05-4da8-98cb-c94441a28452","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 07:28:31","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":72642,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0b8dff947b05400e9993f200bdd7aed21enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7160036/v1/c3fdce14967bac7ce06d7328.xml"},{"id":93108848,"identity":"ff286870-bcfd-46f2-95d5-7716d462ad2f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 07:20:31","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":67920,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0b8dff947b05400e9993f200bdd7aed21structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7160036/v1/039c762363c444df09f8347f.xml"},{"id":93108849,"identity":"3fce264f-4183-4909-8d9c-08c6f8d5ff15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-09 07:20:31","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":80408,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7160036/v1/b28cedae3416aa26ed756fc0.html"},{"id":106490049,"identity":"9e22be2a-39af-4969-8585-5c050132362d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-09 07:13:14","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":838005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7160036/v1/b45f04f4-5f4d-46ff-9764-cd4eccfa560a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Guideline to Improve User Involvement during Requirement Elicitation in Agile Software Development","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eUser involvement is critical in software development, particularly during requirements elicitation, when user needs are gathered and refined (Ahimbisibwe et al., 2015). Agile Software Development (ASD) emphasises continuous user involvement to ensure that evolving software meets business goals and user expectations (Bano and Zowghi, 2015; Bano et al., 2017). Unlike traditional models, such as Waterfall, which involve users primarily at the start and end of the software development cycle, agile methodologies encourage iterative feedback throughout the process (Hinderks et al., 2022). However, despite these advantages, organisations frequently encounter challenges in ensuring effective user involvement during requirements generation in agile software development (Tam et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral studies have highlighted key barriers that hinder user involvement, including reliance on paper-based systems, project complexity, limited user availability, resistance to change, and inadequate technical knowledge among users(Inayat et al., 2015; Ramesh et al., 2010; Sch\u0026ouml;n et al., 2017). Many organisations still depend on legacy paper-based systems, making transitioning to digital documentation and agile-friendly communication methods difficult (Manifesto, 2001 ; Yaman et al., 2020). Users accustomed to manual processes often resist change and fear increased workload, accountability, or job displacement (Bourque \u0026amp; Fairley, 2014). Furthermore, limited user availability poses a significant challenge because users often juggle multiple responsibilities, making it difficult for development teams to obtain timely and detailed feedback (Omerkhel et al. 2023; Ciriello et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant issue is the disparity in technical expertise between the users and developers. Many users struggle to articulate their requirements clearly, whereas developers may lack domain-specific knowledge to interpret user needs accurately (Rivero et al., 2013). Miscommunication and vague requirements often result in project delays and costly reworks (Inayat et al., 2015). Additionally, low user motivation can hinder involvement, especially in organisations where users are comfortable with existing systems and see little personal benefit in contributing to digital transformation efforts (Bano \u0026amp; Zowghi, 2015; Sekgweleo, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe role of the product owner is crucial for ensuring that user input is appropriately collected, interpreted, and integrated into the development process (Hoda et al. 2011). However, many product owners lack formal training in requirements engineering, leading to inefficiencies in managing user interactions (Scrum Guides, 2020). These challenges indicate the need for structured guidelines to help product owners and agile teams involve users effectively during requirement generation in agile software development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study aims to explore the key challenges of user involvement in eliciting agile requirements and propose practical guidelines for enhancing user participation. Specifically, it seeks to address the following questions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the main challenges in managing user involvement during requirement elicitation for agile software development?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow can product owners facilitate effective user involvement?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore these issues, this study used a qualitative approach, conducting semi-structured interviews with 19 agile practitioners from government agencies and private firms in Afghanistan. The results shed light on real-world challenges and offer practical strategies for enhancing user participation in agile software development. The paper continues with a literature review (Section 2), methodology description (Section 3), findings (Section 4), discussion of practical guidelines (Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec20\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), and conclusions (Section 6). By highlighting key obstacles and suggesting solutions, this study aims to advance both academic understanding and practical improvements in agile requirements engineering (Hinderks et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Review of the literature","content":"\u003cp\u003eUser involvement in software development has been widely studied, with numerous findings emphasising its importance in ensuring software quality and project success. Research over the past few decades has shown that effective user involvement during requirement elicitation helps reduce ambiguities, misinterpretations, and project failures (Bano \u0026amp; Zowghi, 2015; Hinderks et al., 2022). Agile software development promotes user-centred approaches by advocating iterative feedback and continuous collaboration between developers and users. However, despite the advantages of agile methodologies, user involvement remains a persistent challenge owing to various technical, organisational, and behavioural factors (Werder, 2016; Bano \u0026amp; Rimini, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the most significant barriers is reliance on traditional paper-based systems in many organisations, particularly in the government and large enterprises. Although software teams adopt agile frameworks, bureaucratic constraints and user familiarity with manual processes hinder their transition to digital solutions (Inayat et al., 2015). Studies indicate that users accustomed to paper-based workflows often resist adopting new digital tools, leading to delays in requirements gathering, miscommunication, and inefficient documentation (Bourque \u0026amp; Fairley, 2011; Bourque \u0026amp; Fairley, 2014). In such cases, agile teams struggle to integrate user input efficiently because traditional systems are not designed for continuous feedback loops (Rahayu et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother major challenge is the availability of users to participate in the agile processes(Martins et al., 2019). Although agile principles emphasise frequent user interactions, real-world constraints such as busy schedules, competing work priorities, and hierarchical decision-making limit users' time to the requirements elicitation process (Kautz, 2010). Many organisations address this issue by relying on proxy users, such as product owners or business analysts, who act as intermediaries between developers and actual end users. However, studies suggest that this approach often leads to misinterpretation and incomplete requirements owing to information loss in indirect communication (Moe et al., 2012; Rivero et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUser experience also plays a critical role in the effectiveness of the requirement elicitation. Many users lack the technical knowledge required to articulate their needs in a structured manner (Gaikwad and Joeg 2017). Research highlights that nontechnical users often struggle to clearly define software functionalities, leading to ambiguous or incomplete requirements (Bano \u0026amp; Zowghi, 2015). This issue is further compounded when development teams lack domain-specific knowledge and fail to ask the right questions during requirement elicitation (Inayat et al., 2015). Studies suggest that bridging this gap requires interactive approaches, such as prototyping, user interface mockups, and collaborative requirement validation workshops (Ramesh et al., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUser resistance to change is a well-documented issue in software development. Users may hesitate to adopt new systems because of fear of job displacement, increased accountability, or a steep learning curve associated with new technologies (Bourque \u0026amp; Fairley, 2014). This reluctance often manifests as low involvement in meetings, reluctance to provide feedback, or outright rejection of software solutions (Kautz, 2010; Ives et al.,2010). To address this, previous studies have emphasised the importance of change management strategies such as training programs, transparent communication, and gradual system transitions (Rivero et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe role of product owners in facilitating user involvement is another crucial factor discussed in the literature. Product owners bridge users and developers, ensuring that user requirements are accurately captured and effectively translated into technical specifications (He \u0026amp; King, 2008; Hinderks et al., 2022). However, studies indicate that many product owners lack formal training in requirements engineering, leading to inefficiencies in managing user interactions and prioritising requirements (Moe et al., 2012; Inayat et al., 2015). Effective product ownership requires technical knowledge, communication skills, and domain expertise to ensure that software meets user needs (Bano \u0026amp; Zowghi, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral methods and techniques have been proposed to enhance user involvement in eliciting agile requirements. These include the following.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eInteractive prototyping allows users to visualise system functionalities and provides iterative feedback before development (Ramesh et al., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eUser Interface Mockups \u0026ndash; Helps bridge the gap between technical and non-technical users by providing a graphical representation of system workflows (Rivero et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkshops and Focus Groups encourage direct communication between developers and users, fostering a deeper understanding of user needs (Bano and Zowghi, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnline Communication Channels - Using tools such as email, video conferencing, and messaging applications to maintain continuous user dialogue (Kautz, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough these approaches improve user involvement, their effectiveness depends on organisational culture, team dynamics, and users\u0026rsquo; willingness to participate actively. The existing literature underscores that no single method can fully address the challenges of user involvement, and a combination of structured approaches is necessary to ensure the elicitation of practical requirements (Inayat et al., 2015; Moe et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the research highlights that, while agile methodologies promote user-centric development, several technical, behavioural, and organisational barriers limit effective user involvement. Addressing these challenges requires structured strategies that consider user constraints, knowledge gaps, and resistance to change. The following section describes the methodology used in this study to further explore these challenges and develop practical guidelines for improving user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development (Cavaye, 1995; B\u0026ouml;rjesson \u0026amp; Mathiassen, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e This study adopts a qualitative research approach to explore the challenges of user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development, and to propose guidelines for improving user involvement. A constructivist paradigm guides research, recognising that knowledge is constructed through human experiences and interactions (Creswell \u0026amp; Creswell, 2018). Given the complexity of user involvement, a qualitative approach is suitable to capture rich and detailed insights from agile practitioners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews were used as the primary data collection method. Semi-structured interviews allow flexibility in probing deeper into participants' experiences, while ensuring that all relevant topics are covered. This approach enables an in-depth understanding of the barriers to user involvement and strategies employed by agile teams to address them (Moe et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Selection of participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study involved 19 agile practitioners from various organisations, including three government agencies: the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT), the Ministry of Finance (MoF), and the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW), as well as two private software companies in Afghanistan. These organisations were selected because they represent environments in which agile development practices are adopted alongside traditional paper-based processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA purposeful sampling technique was used to select participants based on their experiences with agile development and involvement in eliciting requirements. The sample included product owners, business analysts, software developers, and agile team members to ensure diverse perspectives on user involvement challenges. Recruitment was conducted from 15 March 2023 to 20 May 2023. All participants provided informed verbal consent. This was documented as part of the recorded interviews. Minors were excluded from this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interviews were conducted face-to-face and lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. The interview questions were designed to explore the following:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eChallenges faced by agile teams involving users during requirements elicitation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactors that influence user availability, motivation, and communication in agile projects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrategies and best practices adopted by organisations to enhance user involvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e All interviews were recorded with the participants\u0026rsquo; consent and later transcribed for analysis. To ensure confidentiality, the participants were anonymised.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, which identifies, organises, and interprets patterns within qualitative data (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, 2006). The analysis was conducted in three stages:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOpen coding: The data were segmented into themes related to user involvement challenges and solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAxial coding: Relationships between themes were identified and grouped into broader categories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelective coding: Core themes were refined to develop a structured understanding of the barriers to user involvement and strategies for overcoming them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the trustworthiness of the findings, member checks were conducted where selected participants reviewed the interpreted results to verify their accuracy. Additionally, a peer review process was conducted with other agile experts to validate the themes and conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants were aged 18 years or older and voluntarily participated. Informed verbal consent was obtained before each interview, and consent was documented through audio recordings at the start of the session. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time, and the assurance of confidentiality and anonymity. No minors were involved in the study, and no personal information was collected, stored, or disclosed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe following section presents the findings of the study and highlights the key challenges and solutions identified through interviews with agile practitioners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eA thematic analysis of the 19 semi-structured interviews revealed several key challenges associated with user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development. These challenges were grouped into two main themes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eChallenges in requirement elimination: addressing technical, procedural, and organisational barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe user involvement challenges include user availability, expertise, motivation, and user involvement strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Additionally, the study identified the best practices and guidelines that agile teams can implement to enhance user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Challenges in Requirements Elicitation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.1 Dependence on Paper-Based Systems\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the most frequently reported challenges is the continued reliance on paper documentation and manual processes, particularly in government organisations. Many users prefer traditional methods such as handwritten documents, spreadsheets, and printed forms, which slow agile workflows and hinder real-time collaboration and feedback integration. Owing to bureaucratic resistance and user reluctance to adopt new platforms, agile teams found it challenging to transition from these legacy systems to digital tools such as JIRA, Confluence, or Trello.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.2 Complexity of the project and complexity of the requirements\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants noted that frequent changes in requirements due to evolving business needs and stakeholder preferences created significant challenges in maintaining clarity and stability (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008). Agile teams often receive conflicting inputs from different user groups, which leads to delays and increased rework. Additionally, the absence of a dedicated requirements engineering role meant that product owners had to interpret and prioritise requirements independently, sometimes leading to misaligned expectations between users and developers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.3 Lack of structured documentation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgile methodologies emphasise working software over comprehensive documentation, but teams struggle to effectively document evolving requirements in practice. In some cases, key details of user needs were lost or misinterpreted owing to informal communication channels, such as chats and verbal discussions. The participants suggested that balancing agility and structured documentation is essential for maintaining project consistency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Challenges in User Involvement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.1 Limited user availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA common challenge faced by agile teams is the difficulty of securing user time for feedback sessions, sprint planning, and requirement validation. Many users, especially those in government settings, are occupied with other responsibilities, making their involvement in frequent iteration complexes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.2 Variability in user expertise\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study found that many users lack technical knowledge and struggle to clearly articulate the system requirements. In contrast, more technically skilled users sometimes overcomplicate feature requests, leading to scope creep and inconsistencies in requirement prioritisation. Agile teams have reported that inconsistent levels of user expertise result in fragmented and incomplete requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.3 Resistance to change\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUser resistance to new tools and processes has become a significant barrier. Some participants cited a fear that automation would replace jobs, while others expressed frustration when learning new software. This lack of motivation resulted in low involvement levels and superficial feedback, which negatively affected the quality of requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.4 Communication Gaps and Role Ambiguity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eProduct owners often act as intermediaries between developers and users, but unclear responsibilities and communication breakdowns lead to misinterpretation of user needs. Agile teams relied on assumption-based development in organisations where formal user involvement policies were missing, leading to inconsistencies and avoidable rework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Best Practices to Improve User Involvement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Based on the results of the interviews, the study identified six key guidelines for improving user involvement during requirement generation in agile software development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse Legacy Systems as a Reference: Development teams should use them as a baseline to gather new requirements and demonstrate software improvements, rather than forcing users to abandon old systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncorporate online collaboration tools: To address user availability issues, teams should use WhatsApp groups, slack, or video conferencing to facilitate asynchronous communication and real-time feedback collection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdopt Interactive Prototyping: Users are more engaged when visualising functionalities than when reading lengthy documents. Prototyping and interactive user interface (UI) mockups were identified as valuable strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEncouraging User Ownership in Agile Software Development: Agile teams should promote a sense of co-ownership by allowing users to contribute to backlog grooming and sprint reviews, thereby increasing involvement and accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOffer-structured training sessions: Providing training on agile methodologies and digital tools ensures that users understand their roles and can meaningfully participate in requirements discussions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplement a Technical Liaison Role: Embedding a technical expert within the user organisation for an extended period can help bridge the knowledge gap and ensure better articulation of user needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4 Summary of key findings\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarises the key challenges and solutions identified in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of the Key Challenges and Proposed Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChallenges in User Involvement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProposed Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePaper-Based System Reliance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse legacy systems as a reference\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRequirement Volatility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaintain flexible documentation strategies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnavailability of Users\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing on-line collaboration tools\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of technical expertise\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConduct structured training sessions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResistance to change\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePromote user ownership in the development process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunication Gaps\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntroduce a technical liaison role\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study highlight the critical challenges associated with user involvement during requirement generation in agile software development and provide practical solutions for addressing these challenges. The challenges observed, including paper-based system dependency, requirement volatility, limited user availability, technical knowledge gaps, and resistance to change, align with existing literature on agile software development (Bano \u0026amp; Zowghi, 2015; Inayat et al., 2015). However, the study also offers new insights into the contextual barriers faced in organisations that are transitioning from traditional development practices to agile methodologies, particularly in environments where bureaucratic structures and legacy systems remain dominant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Understanding the Impact of User Involvement Challenges\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the key findings is the persistence of paper-based systems in certain organisations, particularly government agencies. Despite the benefits of digital tools for requirement management, many users hesitate to adopt digital platforms because of their familiarity with existing manual processes. This aligns with studies suggesting that organisational inertia and bureaucratic policies can delay the adoption of agile methodologies (Bourque \u0026amp; Fairley, 2014). Given this reality, forcing users to entirely abandon legacy systems may not be an effective strategy. Instead, agile teams should use these systems as reference points during requirement elicitation, ensuring a smoother transition to digital documentation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study also reaffirms that the volatility of requirements remains a key challenge in agile software development. Although agile methodologies are designed to accommodate changing requirements, excessive modifications often lead to scope creep, misaligned expectations, and delayed deliveries. This issue was particularly noticeable in organisations where there was no formalised process for prioritising requirements. These findings align with previous research highlighting the need for structured backlog management and iterative refinement practices to ensure that frequent requirement changes do not derail project timelines (Ramesh et al. 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother critical challenge is limited user availability, which affects the timeliness and accuracy of requirements elicitation. Agile methodologies emphasise continuous user feedback; however, users often lack the time or incentive to participate in regular requirement discussions (Rahayu et al., 2017). This challenge is exacerbated in government institutions, where rigid hierarchies and bureaucratic approval processes further delay decision making. Similar studies have recommended asynchronous communication channels and user-involvement frameworks to mitigate the impact of user unavailability (Hinderks et al. 2022). The use of WhatsApp groups, Slack, and online collaboration tools, as identified in this study, represents a feasible solution for maintaining user involvement even when face-to-face meetings are not possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Addressing the Knowledge Gap Between Users and Developers\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights significant differences in technical expertise between users and agile software development teams. Many users struggle to articulate clear and structured requirements, resulting in ambiguities, vague feature requests, and misalignment of functionalities. At the same time, developers may lack domain-specific knowledge and fail to understand the operational nuances required to build software that truly meet user needs (Rivero et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis communication gap between users and developers has been well documented in previous research, where studies have suggested that the use of prototypes, user stories, and structured requirement validation workshops can help bridge this knowledge divide (Sch\u0026ouml;n et al., 2017). The findings of this study support these recommendations, particularly the effectiveness of interactive prototyping and UI mockups as a means of helping non-technical users visualise system functionalities before full development begins. Additionally, the recommendation to embed a technical liaison role within the user organisation provides a novel solution that can enhance domain knowledge transfer between users and agile teams.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Overcoming Resistance to Change\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResistance to new software solutions is another prominent theme of this study. Many users were hesitant to adopt digital tools, citing fears of increased accountability, job displacement, or complexity in learning new systems. This aligns with previous studies on technology adoption challenges, which indicate that a lack of motivation and fear of change often lead to low levels of involvement during software transitions (Bourque \u0026amp; Fairley, 2014; Kolstad \u0026amp; Wiig, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo mitigate user resistance, agile teams should emphasise change management strategies such as\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEarly User Involvement: Involving users from the initial stages fosters a sense of ownership and reduces their apprehension.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining and Knowledge Sharing: Providing hands-on training ensures that users gain confidence in using new systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemonstrating value through prototypes: Incremental improvements rather than abrupt system changes allow users to adjust gradually.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaintain Open Communication: Regular discussions and feedback sessions give users a voice in the development process, reducing resistance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese strategies align with user-centric design principles, where software adoption is not simply about deploying new technology but about integrating users into the transition process (Kautz, 2010; Ramesh et al., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.4 Role of the Product Owner in Facilitating User Involvement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results confirmed the essential role of the product owner in enabling effective user involvement. Product owners often act as links between users and developers. However, their capacity to accurately gather and prioritise requirements is frequently hindered by a lack of proper training in requirements engineering (Inayat et al., 2015). The findings of this study support earlier research, highlighting the importance of formal training programs for product owners to improve their skills in stakeholder communication, backlog management, and agile requirement prioritisation (Hinderks et al. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The study also identifies structured guidelines that product owners can adopt to improve user involvement, including the following.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnline collaboration tools are used to maintain continuous feedback loops.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncorporating interactive prototyping to make requirements more visual and understandable for nontechnical users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEncouraging user involvement in backlog refinement to ensure feature prioritisation is in line with the actual needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFacilitating regular sprint reviews, where users can validate incremental progress and refine the requirements iteratively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese recommendations align with best practices in agile project management, which advocates for a user-driven approach to ensure that requirements remain relevant and actionable throughout development (Sch\u0026ouml;n et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.5 Practical Implications for Agile Teams\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study provide several actionable insights for agile teams working in environments in which user involvement is inconsistent or challenging. Specifically, agile teams should:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDevelop hybrid strategies that balance agility with structured documentation to ensure the clarity of requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsynchronous communication channels should be adopted to improve user accessibility and involvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvide training and ongoing support to help users adapt to agile methodologies and digital tools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFoster user ownership and accountability by encouraging their involvement in iterative development processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy implementing these strategies, agile teams can improve the accuracy of requirements elicitation, reduce project delays, and improve the overall software quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.6 Conclusion of the Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings confirm that user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development is crucial but complex, requiring a structured approach to mitigate barriers. By addressing technical, procedural, and organisational challenges, agile teams can improve collaboration, enhance the precision of requirements, and increase overall project success. The next section concludes the paper by summarising the key contributions and outlining future research directions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the difficulties of involving users during requirement gathering in agile software development and suggested practical ways to improve user participation. The major obstacles include reliance on paper-based systems, requirement volatility, limited user availability, gaps in technical knowledge, resistance to change, and inefficiencies of product owners. These issues hinder effective communication, causing misalignment of requirements and project delays. To overcome these hurdles, this study recommends referencing legacy systems, utilising online collaboration tools, adopting interactive prototypes, encouraging user ownership, and conducting structured training sessions. The product owner's role is vital for maintaining ongoing user involvement, refining backlogs, and conducting sprint reviews.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that a hybrid approach that combines agile flexibility with structured documentation can enhance requirement clarity and user collaboration. Future research should focus on quantitative metrics to evaluate the success of these strategies in various agile settings. Implementing these guidelines enables agile teams to improve requirement accuracy, increase user engagement, and enhance the overall project outcome success.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Considerations and Declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Compliance with Guidelines\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Kabul Education University (protocol No. 12, dated 5 November 2022). The study was conducted by the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were adult professionals aged 18 years or older. Due to the sensitivity of their professional roles, limited access to digital infrastructure in some cases, and concerns about sharing personal signatures, oral informed consent was obtained instead of written consent. Prior to participation, each participant was read a standardised consent script explaining the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives, procedures, voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality assurances, and the right to withdraw at any stage without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOral consent was audio recorded with participants\u0026rsquo; permission, and a note was also entered into the researcher\u0026rsquo;s field log immediately after each interview to confirm consent. The full consent script used during this process has been submitted as a supplementary file to this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through a multi-step referral approach: initially contacted via social networking links provided by colleagues and friends, followed by snowball sampling. This method allowed access to practitioners from relevant Afghan organisations, including the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT), the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW), and two private software companies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. The study did not involve any person\u0026rsquo;s data in any form (including images or identifiable quotes), which would require explicit consent for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors received no funding or financial support for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors are grateful to agile practitioners from various Afghan government agencies and private companies for sharing their experiences and insights. Their contributions were vital to the success of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eQ.O. conducted the interviews, performed the thematic analysis, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. O.M.Y. contributed to the study design, methodology validation, and literature review. M.S.I. reviewed and edited the manuscript, provided theoretical insights on agile requirements engineering, and contributed to structuring the guidelines. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with participants but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhimbisibwe, A., Cavana, R. Y., \u0026amp; Daellenbach, U. (2015). A contingency fit model of critical success factors for software development projects: A comparison of agile and traditional plan-based methods\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBano, M., \u0026amp; Rimini, F. (2018). \u003cem\u003ePower and Politics of User Involvement in Software Development\u003c/em\u003e. 1\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiriello, D. R. F., Glud, J. A., \u0026amp; Hansen-Schwartz, K. H. (2022). Becoming agile together: Customer influence on agile adoption within commissioned software teams. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(4), 103645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103645\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Creswell, J. D. (2018). \u003cem\u003eResearch desing: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches\u003c/em\u003e (fifth Edit). SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaikwad, V., \u0026amp; Joeg, P. (2017). A case study in requirements engineering in context of agile. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Applied Engineering Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1697\u0026ndash;1702.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInayat, I., Salim, S. S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., \u0026amp; Shamshirband, S. (2015). A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u003c/em\u003ein Human Behavior, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e, 915\u0026ndash;929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartins, H. F., Carvalho, A., Junior, D. O., \u0026amp; Canedo, E. D. (2019). \u003cem\u003eDesign Thinking : Challenges for Software Requirements Elicitation\u003c/em\u003e. 1\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120371\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahayu, P., Sensuse, D. I., Fitriani, W. R., Nurrohmah, I., Mauliadi, R., \u0026amp; Rochman, H. N. (2017). Applying usability testing to improving Scrum methodology in develop assistant information system. \u003cem\u003e2016 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation, ICITSI 2016 - Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITSI.2016.7858222\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamesh, B., Cao, L., \u0026amp; Baskerville, R. (2010). Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: an empirical study. \u003cem\u003eInformation Systems Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(5), 449\u0026ndash;480. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2575.2007.00259.X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n, E. M., Thomaschewski, J., \u0026amp; Escalona, M. J. (2017). Agile Requirements Engineering: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eComputer Standards and Interfaces\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 79\u0026ndash;91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScrum Guides. (2020). Ken Schwaber. In \u003cem\u003eScrumguides.Org\u003c/em\u003e. https://scrumguides.org/ken.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTam, C., Moura, E. J. da C., Oliveira, T., \u0026amp; Varaj\u0026atilde;o, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Project Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 165\u0026ndash;176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.02.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYaman, S., Fagerholm, F., Munezero, M., M\u0026auml;nnist\u0026ouml;, T., \u0026amp; Mikkonen, T. (2020). Patterns of user involvement in experiment-driven software development. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Software Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e120\u003c/em\u003e(November 2019), 106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.106244\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e. Atkin, B., \u0026amp; Skitmore, M. (2008). Editorial: Stakeholder management in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 549\u0026ndash;552. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802142405\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBano, M., \u0026amp; Zowghi, D. (2015). A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Software Technology, 58\u003c/em\u003e, 148\u0026ndash;169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.06.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBano, M., Zowghi, D., \u0026amp; Rimini, F. (2017). User satisfaction and system success: An empirical exploration of user involvement in software development. \u003cem\u003eEmpirical Software Engineering, 22(5)\u003c/em\u003e, 2339\u0026ndash;2372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9465-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB\u0026ouml;rjesson, A., \u0026amp; Mathiassen, L. (2005). Improving software organisations: Agility challenges and implications. \u003cem\u003eInformation Technology \u0026amp; People, 18(4)\u003c/em\u003e, 359\u0026ndash;382. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840510633329\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBourque, P., \u0026amp; Fairley, R. E. (2014). \u003cem\u003eGuide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK\u0026reg; Guide), Version 3.0\u003c/em\u003e. IEEE Computer Society.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCavaye, A. L. M. (1995). User involvement in system development revisited. \u003cem\u003eInformation \u0026amp; Management, 28(5)\u003c/em\u003e, 311\u0026ndash;323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(94)00053-L\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiriello, D. R. F., Glud, J. A., \u0026amp; Hansen-Schwartz, K. H. (2022). Becoming agile together: Customer influence on agile adoption within commissioned software teams. \u003cem\u003eInformation \u0026amp; Management, 59(4)\u003c/em\u003e, 103645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103645\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHinderks, A., Dom\u0026iacute;nguez Mayo, F. J., Thomaschewski, J., \u0026amp; Escalona, M. J. (2022). Approaches to manage the user experience process in agile software development: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Software Technology, 150\u003c/em\u003e, 106957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106957\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, J., \u0026amp; King, W. R. (2008). The role of user involvement in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management Information Systems, 25(1)\u003c/em\u003e, 301\u0026ndash;331. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoda, R., Noble, J., \u0026amp; Marshall, S. (2011). The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on self-organising agile teams. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Software Technology, 53(5)\u003c/em\u003e, 521\u0026ndash;534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.10.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIves, B., Olson, M. H., \u0026amp; Science, S. M. (2010). User involvement and MIS success: A review of research. \u003cem\u003eMIS Quarterly, 30(5)\u003c/em\u003e, 586\u0026ndash;603.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInayat, I., Salim, S. S., Salim, S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., \u0026amp; Shamshirband, S. (2015). A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. \u003cem\u003eComputers in Human Behaviour, 51\u003c/em\u003e, 915\u0026ndash;929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKautz, K. (2010). Participatory design activities and customer involvement in agile software development. \u003cem\u003eInformation Technology \u0026amp; People, 23(4)\u003c/em\u003e, 303\u0026ndash;316.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKolstad, I., \u0026amp; Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? \u003cem\u003eWorld Development, 37(3)\u003c/em\u003e, 521\u0026ndash;532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManifesto, A. (2001). \u003cem\u003eAgile Manifesto\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://agilemanifesto.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartins, H. F., Carvalho, A., Junior, D. O., \u0026amp; Canedo, E. D. (2019). Design thinking: Challenges for software requirements elicitation. \u003cem\u003eInformation, 10(12)\u003c/em\u003e, 371. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120371\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoe, N. B., Dings\u0026oslash;yr, T., \u0026amp; Dyb\u0026aring;, T. (2012). Understanding self-organising teams in agile software development. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Software Technology, 52(8)\u003c/em\u003e, 480\u0026ndash;491.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOmerkhel, Q., Yusop, O. M., Ismail, S. A., \u0026amp; Azmi, A. (2023). User involvement approach in agile software development: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Information System and Technology Management, 8(32)\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.35631/JISTM.832001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOmerkhel, Q., Yusop, O. M., Ismail, S. A., \u0026amp; Azmi, A. (2023). Exploring strategies for overcoming issues of user involvement in agile software development: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 101(19)\u003c/em\u003e, 5837\u0026ndash;5854.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamesh, B., Cao, L., \u0026amp; Baskerville, R. (2010). Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: An empirical study. \u003cem\u003eInformation Systems Journal, 20(5)\u003c/em\u003e, 449\u0026ndash;480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00259.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRivero, J. M., Luna, E. R., Grigera, J., \u0026amp; Rossi, G. (2013). Improving user involvement through a model-driven requirements approach. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Model-Driven Requirements Engineering (MoDRE, 2013)\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MoDRE.2013.6597260\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n, E. M., Thomaschewski, J., \u0026amp; Escalona, M. J. (2017). Agile requirements engineering: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eComputer Standards \u0026amp; Interfaces, 49\u003c/em\u003e, 79\u0026ndash;91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSekgweleo, T. (2019). Comparing agile and traditional system development methodologies. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE), 6(5)\u003c/em\u003e, 174\u0026ndash;179.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTam, C., da C. Moura, E. J., Oliveira, T., \u0026amp; Varaj\u0026atilde;o, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of ongoing agile software development projects. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Project Management, 38(3)\u003c/em\u003e, 165\u0026ndash;176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.02.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWerder, K. (2016). Team agility and team performance \u0026ndash; The moderating effect of user involvement. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYaman, S., Fagerholm, F., Munezero, M., M\u0026auml;nnist\u0026ouml;, T., \u0026amp; Mikkonen, T. (2020). Patterns of user involvement in experiment-driven software development. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Software Technology, 120\u003c/em\u003e, 106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.106244\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"User Involvement, Requirement Elicitation, Agile Software Development","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7160036/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7160036/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to explore the key challenges of user involvement during requirement elicitation in agile software development and propose practical solutions to improve user involvement. To address these questions, this study employed a qualitative research approach, conducting semi-structured interviews with 19 agile practitioners from government agencies and private companies in Afghanistan. Key challenges include paper-based system dependency, requirement volatility, limited user availability, technical knowledge gaps, resistance to change, and product owner inefficiencies. Moreover, the study identified the best practices and guidelines that agile teams can implement to enhance user involvement during requirement generation in agile software development. These findings offer actionable insights for agile teams working in environments where user involvement is inconsistent or challenging.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Guideline to Improve User Involvement during Requirement Elicitation in Agile Software Development","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-09 07:20:26","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7160036/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4731173d-28f1-431d-8614-360260031bb6","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":55870590,"name":"Business and commerce/Business and management"},{"id":55870591,"name":"Social science/Business and management"},{"id":55870592,"name":"Business and commerce/Information systems and information technology"},{"id":55870593,"name":"Physical sciences/Mathematics and computing"},{"id":55870594,"name":"Business and commerce/Operational research"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-09T07:11:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-09 07:20:26","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7160036","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7160036","identity":"rs-7160036","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}