User-Centred Requirements Engineering

Sutcliffe﻿, Alistair

doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0217-5

Cited by 118 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 112 publications

(179 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…SE research aims at helping make the best choices in terms of selecting, with respect to a given problem, the most suited requirement specification language, the most skilled programmer, the best fitting programming paradigm and language, etc. These choices have a social component in that they are strongly dependent on human actors: requirements consist of a call for a software solution to a problem expressed by groups of people or even entire organizations [59,60]; programmers are human beings endowed with honed technical skills, but also characterized by idiosyncrasies and subjective preferences with respect to programming paradigms and languages [61,62]. Thus, experiments intended to investigate these aspects of SE must make use of human subjects, and so did our chosen examples.…”

Section: Social Issues In the Labmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Experiments in a Socio-Technical Perspective: The Case of Software Engineering

Schiaffonati

Verdicchio

2015

Philosophies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments in computing share many characteristics with the traditional experimental method, but also present significant differences from a practical perspective, due to their aim at producing software artifacts and the central role played by human actors and organizations (e.g., programmers, project teams, software houses) involved in the software development process. By analyzing some of the most significant experiments in the subfield of software engineering, we aim at showing how the conceptual framework that supports experimental methodology in this context needs an extension in a socio-technical perspective.

show abstract

Section: Social Issues In the Labmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Experiments in a Socio-Technical Perspective: The Case of Software Engineering

Schiaffonati

Verdicchio

2015

Philosophies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They require specific techniques and tools that facilitate the communication between those involved in the development [8].…”

Section: Mpiu+a Development Process Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic wiki for quality management in software development projects

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Quality Management has become a strategic issue for organisations and very valuable to produce quality software. However, Quality Management Systems (QMS) are not easy to implement and maintain. Our experience shows the benefits of developing a QMS by first formalising it using Semantic Web ontologies and then putting them into practice through a semantic wiki. The QMS ontology that has been developed captures the core concepts of a traditional QMS and combines them with concepts coming from the MPIu+a development process model, which is geared towards obtaining usable and accessible software products. Then, the ontology semantics is directly put into play by a semantics-aware tool, the Semantic MediaWiki. The developed QMS tool has been running for two years at the GRIHO research group, where it has been used to manage almost 50 software development projects taking into account quality management issues. It has been also externally audited by a quality certification organisation. Its users are very satisfied with their daily work with the tool, which manages all the documents created during project development and also allows them to collaborate thanks to wiki features.

show abstract

“…Scenarios use language and concepts that are readily accessible to users and domain experts, whereas tasks and other conceptual models are expressed in a specialized language that users have to learn. Because scenarios invoke specific memory schema associated with experience or similar stories, they help to recruit specific knowledge (Carroll, 2000;Sutcliffe, 2002). This tunes our critical faculties, since detail tends to provide more subject matter to detect inconsistencies and errors when we reason about models and specifications.…”

Section: Representations and Reasoning Pathologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, DR may bias problem exploration by presenting a ready-made set of alternatives. Furthermore, unless the author of the DR diagram is careful, the diagram can embed biases from the author's viewpoint in the relationships between the alternatives and supporting/detracting evidence (Karsenty, 1996;Sutcliffe, 2002;Sutcliffe & Ryan, 1997).…”

Section: Representations and Reasoning Pathologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Juxtaposing Design Representations for Creativity

Sutcliffe¹

2010

Human Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that the influence of design rationale on creativity is best achieved by concurrent use of scenarios, prototypes and models. A framework of cognitive affordances is introduced to discuss the merits and limitations of each representation. The paper concludes by discussing how different representations might complement each other in creative scenario-based design.Keywords: scenarios, prototypes, cognitive affordances, design representations. INTRODUCTIONIt is often argued that creative design is best supported by examples of good design, thought probes, and stimulating artifacts (Cross, 2000;Gaver, Beaver, & Benford, 2003). In contrast, the methodical engineering approach to design emphasizes a systematic process, models, and the reuse of design knowledge, criticizing less systematic approaches as "craft" (Dowell & Long, 1998). Design rationale may provide a middle ground between the two approaches as an easy-to-use notation that can stimulate creativity while preserving some of the generality and rigor of models. I will investigate the contributions that different design representations can make to the creative design process from the viewpoint of cognitive reasoning processes. The relative merits of design rationale, scenarios, models, and prototypes are investigated in terms of their roles in the design process and cognitive affordances.The integrated use of different representations will be illustrated by the scenario-based requirements analysis method (SCRAM; Sutcliffe & Ryan, 1997). SCRAM advocates a combination of design rationale, scenarios, and early prototypes as a means of effective requirements analysis and design exploration. More recently we have used a merge of SCRAM and scenario-based design (Carroll, 2002) with a similar combination of design representations in eScience health informatics domains (Sutcliffe et al., 2007). The following section of this paper describes the properties of different design representations. Next, I discuss how the representations can support creative reasoning, with the following section elaborating the theme by investigating cognitive affordances. Then I review how representations can be integrated into the design requirements discovery process. Integration is illustrated with the SCRAM method, followed by a brief review of other approaches to creative design support. The paper DESIGN REPRESENTATIONSThis section reviews the role of the more common design representations in creative design from a human-computer interaction (HCI) perspective and from the more analytic view of software engineering.

show abstract

User-Centred Requirements Engineering

Cited by 118 publications

References 112 publications

Rethinking Experiments in a Socio-Technical Perspective: The Case of Software Engineering

Rethinking Experiments in a Socio-Technical Perspective: The Case of Software Engineering

Semantic wiki for quality management in software development projects

Juxtaposing Design Representations for Creativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About