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