Evaluating End User Development as a Requirements Engineering Technique for Communicating Across Social Worlds During Systems Development

Requirements engineering is a key activity in systems development. This pa - per examines six systems development projects that have used end user development (EUD) as a requirements engineering technique for communicating across social worlds. For this purpose, we employed the theoretical lens of design boundary object in order to focus on functional and political ecologies during the development process. Four fea - tures were investigated: (1) the capability for common representation, (2) the capabil - ity to transform design knowledge, (3) the capability to mobilise for design action, and (4) the capability to legitimise design knowledge across social worlds. We concluded that EUD means a high degree of end user involvement and takes advantage of end us- ers' know-how. It has the ability to capture requirements and transfer them into the fi - nal information system without the need to make an explicit design rationale available to the systems developers. However, systems developers have little or no influence on busi - ness requirements. Their role is mainly as technical experts rather than business devel- opers. The systems developers took control and power of technical requirements, while requirements that relate to business logic remained with the end users. Consequently, the systems developers did not act as catalysts in the systems development process.

[1]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  End-user software engineering , 2004, Commun. ACM.

[2]  Jo Ellen Moore,et al.  The Focus of Research in End User Computing: Where Have We Come Since the 1980s? , 2002, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[3]  H. W. Rittel,et al.  Second-generation design methods , 1984 .

[4]  John A. McDermid,et al.  Requirements analysis: orthodoxy, fundamentalism and heresy , 1994 .

[5]  Cinzia Cappiello,et al.  End-User Development of Mobile Mashups , 2013, HCI.

[6]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Understanding Representation in Design , 1998, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[7]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering , 1991 .

[8]  Jane E. Klobas,et al.  The role of spreadsheet knowledge in user-developed application success , 2005, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  Daniela Fogli,et al.  End-User Development: The Software Shaping Workshop Approach , 2006, End User Development.

[10]  Timothy Paul Cronan,et al.  Applications development by end-users: can quality be improved? , 2000, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  Carol V. Brown,et al.  The management of end-user computing: status and directions , 1993, CSUR.

[12]  S. L. Star,et al.  Cooperation Without Consensus in Scientific Problem Solving: Dynamics of Closure in Open Systems , 1993 .

[13]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  The fundamental nature of requirements engineering activities as a decision-making process , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[14]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  The Effects of Distributed Group Support and Process Structuring on Software Requirements Development Teams: Results on Creativity and Quality , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[15]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[16]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[17]  Howie Goodell.  End-user computing , 1997, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[18]  Piero Mussio,et al.  End users as unwitting software developers , 2008, WEUSE '08.

[19]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[20]  Andraž Cej,et al.  Agile software development with Scrum , 2010 .

[21]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Emerging principles for requirements processes in organizational contexts , 2008, Ingénierie des Systèmes d Inf..

[22]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  Improving requirements elicitation: an empirical investigation of procedural prompts , 2007, Inf. Syst. J..

[23]  Mark John Taylor,et al.  End‐user computing and information systems methodologies , 1998, Inf. Syst. J..

[24]  James Martin,et al.  Rapid Application Development , 1991 .

[25]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Margaret Tan,et al.  Spreadsheet development and ‘what-if’ analysis: quantitative versus qualitative errors , 1999 .

[27]  Kevin McDaid,et al.  Test-driven development: can it work for spreadsheets? , 2008, WEUSE '08.

[28]  Mary Shaw,et al.  The state of the art in end-user software engineering , 2011, ACM Comput. Surv..

[29]  Malcolm Eva,et al.  Requirements acquisition for rapid applications development , 2001, Inf. Manag..

[30]  Raymond R. Panko,et al.  AN EXPERIMENT IN COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE SPREADSHEET ERRORS , 2001 .

[31]  G Weinberger,et al.  End-user computing. , 1985, Computers in healthcare.

[32]  Fredrik Karlsson.  Using two heads in practice , 2008, WEUSE '08.

[33]  Raymond R. Panko,et al.  What we know about spreadsheet errors , 1998 .

[34]  Philippe Kruchten,et al.  The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction , 1998 .

[35]  Finn Kensing,et al.  PD: structure in the toolbox , 1993, CACM.

[36]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill , 1992, Usability - Turning Technologies into Tools.

[37]  Stephen G. Powell,et al.  The Art of Modeling with Spreadsheets , 2003 .

[38]  Stephen G. Powell,et al.  The Art of Modeling with Spreadsheets: Management Science, Spreadsheet Engineering, and Modeling Craft , 2003 .

[39]  S. Ditlea,et al.  Spreadsheets can be hazardous to your health , 1987 .

[40]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[41]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[42]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Boundary Objects in Design: An Ecological View of Design Artifacts , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[43]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  ACRE: selecting methods for requirements acquisition , 1996, Softw. Eng. J..

[44]  M. Cameron Jones,et al.  Web Mash-ups and Patchwork Prototyping: User-driven technological innovation with Web 2.0 and Open Source Software , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[45]  G. Bowker,et al.  The multiple bodies of the medical record : Toward a sociology of an artifact , 1996 .

[46]  Yvonne Dittrich,et al.  Combining Tailoring and Evolutionary Software Development for Rapidly Changing Business Systems , 2007, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[47]  Preben Mogensen,et al.  Towards a Provotyping Approach in Systems Development , 1992, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[48]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[49]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Systems Thinking, Systems Practice , 1981 .

[50]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Design at Work , 1992 .