Requirements Elicitation

Facilitated workshops are the most effective requirements elicitation technique in this scenario. Here's why:

1. Varying levels of technical expertise: Facilitated workshops bring together stakeholders with different backgrounds and expertise levels, allowing for a balanced discussion and shared understanding.

2. Collaboration: Workshops encourage active participation and collaboration among stakeholders, fostering better communication and idea sharing.

3. Real-time clarification: Misunderstandings or technical gaps can be addressed immediately during the workshop, reducing the risk of miscommunication.

4. Consensus building: Workshops help in reaching a consensus on requirements, priorities, and project goals.

5. Visual aids: Facilitators can use visual tools like whiteboards or diagrams to explain complex concepts, bridging the gap between technical and non-technical stakeholders.

The other options are less suitable:

Delphi technique is more appropriate for gathering expert opinions anonymously and is less effective for diverse groups with varying expertise.

Root cause analysis is typically used for problem-solving rather than requirements gathering for a new system.

Formal document review sessions with technical experts would exclude non-technical stakeholders, potentially missing important business requirements and user perspectives.

The best answer is considering 'The interviewee's knowledge about the subject, availability and communication preferences'. During the requirements elicitation process for a new software project, a deep understanding of the stakeholders' knowledge, their availability to discuss the project, and their preferred method of communication can significantly affect the success of the interviews. Other factors, such as prior experience with similar software projects, the interviewer's willingness to conduct the interviews, or the feasibility of condensing interviews into a single day, are also considerations but they are secondary or can be counterproductive. Prior experience does not necessarily guarantee relevant knowledge for the current project, the willingness of the interviewer does not outweigh the need to understand the interviewee's point of view, and rushing the interview process may lead to overlooked or misunderstood requirements.

The best answer is 'Prototyping'. In cases where the client isn't clear about their requirements, it's effective to use techniques like Prototyping. That way, the client can see a preliminary version of the project (a 'prototype') and provide feedback based on that, leading to more precise requirements. 'Brainstorming only with your project team' is an insular approach and doesn't involve the client, who is the primary stakeholder. They need to be involved in defining requirements. 'Refusing to start the project until the client has provided clear requirements' isn't a practical or professional approach. Finally, 'Using your personal judgment to decide for the client' isn't ethical or effective. Project decisions should be client-driven, and employing personal judgment over client preferences could lead to a project outcome that doesn't meet the client's needs.