1
Vrije UniversiteitFaculty of Sciences
Department of Computer ScienceSection Information Management & Software Engineering
Subsection Human Computer Interaction, Multimedia & Culture
Johan F. Hoorn and Evelien Kok
Goals are personal,requirements business –
the requirements analysis twist
2
Contents Status Problem Goal Theory Model Field study Results Discussion Questions
M M I 9 9 0 0 9
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
3
Status
Postdoc project: 2001-Aug 2005 Supervisors: Gerrit van der Veer and Hans van Vliet Four international publications, three pending Industries involved
Mens-Machine InteractieJohan F. Hoorn, 2005
4
Problem
Requirements change through business model change
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
Example: goes from non-profit to commercially oriented organization
5
Non-profit?
Serves societyNot self supporting
Commercial?
Serves own goodMakes money
Business model
Politics demands change
Work process slow Work process must be fast
Supporting IT can leavemuch to the user
Supporting IT leaves littleto the user (control!)
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
6
Non-profit Commercial
Business model
Supporting IT can leavemuch to the user
Supporting IT leaves littleto the user (control!)
CapacityManagementSystem (CMS)-Action planning-Shifts (day, night, special)-Holidays
http://www.brilmanbouw.nl/images/verbouwing-planbord2.JPG
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
7
Goal
Pinpoint the factors that lead to a change request so to anticipate them during system design
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
8
Client
Sou
rces
of c
onfli
ct, r
egar
ding
goa
ls
Business goals Personal goals
Requirements change
Stakeholders
Management Workfloor
egotisticvs.
altruistic
egotisticvs.
altruistic
vs.
vs. vs.
Event
Theory
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
9
Agreedrequirements
Relevance
unexplainedchange
Profit Quality Career Loyalty
egotistic
altruisticbusiness
personalGoals
Adapted from Hoorn & Van der Veer, 2003a; 2003b
Hypothesis:Changes in the relevanceof goals, goal orientation(ego vs. altru), andbusiness or personalview, change the agreementto the requirements
Model
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
10
Field study
Ethnography, task analysis by Evelien, who works at Concern Information Management Police
- Goals (business and personal in the flavors egotistic and altruistic), categorized for relevance (relevant vs. irrelevant) - Requirements on the CMS (must and won’t)
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
11
Four groups of police officers (novice CMS users) rated agreement to goals and requirements, each from a different point of view:
Group 1 – Business egotistic goalsGroup 2 – Business altruistic goalsGroup 3 – Personal egotistic goalsGroup 4 – Personal altruistic goals
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
12
Example items:
BE Relevant scale (#items= 12)I find it important that my corps spends more money onallocating personnelcompletely disagree disagree agree agree completelydisagree a little a little agree0 -------------- 1 -------------- 2 -------------- 3 -------------- 4--------------5
Schedules are definite 48 hours in advance Requirements Must scale (#items= 12)
completely disagree disagree agree agree completelydisagree a little a little agree0 -------------- 1 -------------- 2 -------------- 3 -------------- 4--------------5
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
13
Scale reliabilities
Questionnaire version PE PA BE BACronbach’s (#) (#) (#) (#)
Relevant scale .71 (2) .86 (3) .84 (4) .83 (3)Irrelevant scale .83 (3) .78 (2) .77 (2) .77 (3)
Requirements Must .98 (3) .67 (2) .74 (2) .67 (2)Requirements Won’t .86 (3) .81 (4) .78 (3) .80 (2)
N=33 n=8 n=8 n=9 n=8
Results
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
14
Grand mean agreement
Relevantgoals
Irrelevantgoals
Mustrequirements
Won’trequirements
Business view (n = 17)
Personal view (n = 16)
3.86 (.73)3.92 (.76)
2.43 (.80)
.73 (.54)
3.09 (.82)
3.39 (.58)
2.70 (.95)
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
0 -
2.58 (1.24)
F(1,30)= 10.19, p= .003, ηp2= .25. Parameter coefficient= .91, t= 3.19, p< .004
Egotistic vs. altruistic is insignificant!
15
Discussion (1)
When stakeholders expressed their agreement to the goals to achieve with the system, they did this from a personal point of view
However, the focus switched to the point of view of the business when it came to expressing agreement to the system’s requirements that were gathered to serve these goals
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
16
Tricky bit in requirements engineering and task analysis:
- You ask for their goals- You specify requirements to serve these goals- You go back to the workfloor- They agree more or less to what you propose- And then while using the system they start complaining that it does not serve them well
Discussion (2)
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
Requirements change!
17
Questions?
Johan F. Hoorn, 2005
Top Related