Requirements determination for common systems: turning a global vision into a local reality

Kirsch, Laurie J.; Haney, Mark H.

doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2005.08.002

Cited by 30 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those tools may include a whiteboard, blank paper, prototype screens, through to body language. As concluded by Kirsch and Haney (2006) in their case study research, Vol. 8, No.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…These results imply that our novice analysts prefer to use written material as a secondary channel in order to collect and verify software requirements. Kirsch and Haney (2006) noted that the requirements determination process included a stage of knowledge acquisition, in which the participants sought to identify, document, and understand existing business processes and technologies. Project participants went about this task to elicit domain knowledge and catalogue potential requirements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Requirements Determination as a Social Practice: Perceptions and Preferences of Novice Analysts

Jebreen¹

2015

CIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At its core, Requirements Determination (RD) is fundamentally a collaborative social practice that involves multiple stakeholders who must work together to communicate, discuss and finally confirm the requirements for the system to be implemented or updated. With a potentially large number of (groups of) stakeholders involved, each with their own perspective on the system as well as their own level of understanding, the form and nature of communication in the RD process are worth investigating and improving, particularly given the impact of RD on other stages of software development, operation, and support. The many human interfaces associated with RD can lead to a variety of communication challenges, including miscommunication between users and analysts and misunderstandings between analysts and developers, all of which can add time and cost to software projects. In this paper we report on our use of the Communicative Adaptability Scale (CAS) questionnaire to assess the communicative competence of 45 novice analysts in social interaction. Through the questionnaire we have investigated the perceptions of analysts regarding the most effective channels through which to receive and send relevant RD information. Analysis leads us to confirm that first, face-to-face communication is the channel that our novice analysts prefer to employ in order to communicate with users during RD. Second, our novice analysts consider themselves to have the ability and desire to communicate in novel social contexts. The outcome of these experiences is the development and refinement of a social communication repertoire. Third, and less positively, our novice analysts consider themselves to have a lesser ability to engage in conversations with others who were not known previously. Furthermore, our analysis shows that our novice analysts perceive themselves to have limited competence to clearly express their ideas. Specifically, our analysts believe they have limited competence in word choice, pronunciation, and grammatical structure to express their ideas in a manner appropriate to the social context. Preferred channels of communication are confirmed, but their utility will be moderated by analysts' ability to interact in social settings. Additional training in communication skills, particularly articulation, may be of particular benefit to novice analysts.

show abstract

“…Those tools may include a whiteboard, blank paper, prototype screens, through to body language. As concluded by Kirsch and Haney (2006) in their case study research, Vol. 8, No.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Requirements Determination as a Social Practice: Perceptions and Preferences of Novice Analysts

Jebreen¹

2015

CIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IS requirements can be divided into 2 basic levels (Davis, 1982;Kirsch & Haney, 2006). The first level contains the organizational or global requirements.…”

Section: (V) Requirement Incompleteness/unclearness (Rq)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Involving End Users to Mitigate Risk in IS Development Projects

Amrit

Hillegersberg

Diest³

2013

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we aim to gain insight into the relationship between user participation modes and project risk factors, and then we construct a model that can be used to determine how user participation can be successfully applied in ISD projects with a given set of risk factors. We perform an in-depth literature review, which aims to clarify the concept of user participation as part of risk management. We then report on the results of a case study in Cap Gemini where we conduct an exploratory research of the application of user participation in practice. For this exploratory research, a quantitative and qualitative research method was designed in the form of a survey and interviews. Through the results from our case study, we gain insight into the relationship between user participation and IS project risk and also determine how user participation can be used to mitigate such risk.

show abstract

“…Project-internal activities (design, programming) fade into the background, while activities that trigger or constitute boundary work are highlighted. Important ISD tasks, such as user-developer interaction [5] and requirements definition [22] take on a more fluid nature where interaction and change happens as needed. This approach to requirements work has been discussed by Bergman et al [7], who stress that systems requirements emerge from a heterogeneous process of social interaction.…”

Section: Lessons For Is Development Research From a Boundary Work Permentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the IS literature encompasses many topics that involve boundary activities. Issues that involve spanning of organizational boundaries between groups or occupations, include user-developer interaction [5], stakeholder issues [38], change management [33] and cross-functional or crossorganizational implementation and use of information systems [22,27,38]. The few studies within IS that focus boundary-spanning have explored interaction between occupational and stakeholder groups in the use of intranets and knowledge management systems [25,26] or studied political processes in IS development [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing Boundaries: Everyday Boundary Work in Information Technology Project Management

Maaninen-Olsson

Mähring

2009

2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Requirements determination for common systems: turning a global vision into a local reality

Cited by 30 publications

References 41 publications

Requirements Determination as a Social Practice: Perceptions and Preferences of Novice Analysts

Requirements Determination as a Social Practice: Perceptions and Preferences of Novice Analysts

Involving End Users to Mitigate Risk in IS Development Projects

Balancing Boundaries: Everyday Boundary Work in Information Technology Project Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About