Small-Scale Classification Schemes: A Field Study of Requirements Engineering

Small-scale classification schemes are used extensively in the coordination of cooperative work. This study investigates the creation and use of a classification scheme for handling the system requirements during the redevelopment of a nation-wide information system. This requirements classification inherited a lot of its structure from the existing system and rendered requirements that transcended the framework laid out by the existing system almost invisible. As a result, the requirements classification became a defining element of the requirements-engineering process, though its main effects remained largely implicit. The requirements classification contributed to constraining the requirements-engineering process by supporting the software engineers in maintaining some level of control over the process. This way, the requirements classification provided the software engineers with an important means of discretely balancing the contractual aspect of requirements engineering against facilitating the users in an open-ended search for their system requirements. The requirements classification is analysed in terms of the complementary concepts of boundary objects and coordination mechanisms. While coordination mechanisms focus on how classification schemes enable cooperation among people pursuing a common goal, boundary objects embrace the implicit consequences of classification schemes in situations involving conflicting goals. Moreover, the requirements specification focused on functional requirements and provided little information about why these requirements were considered relevant. This stands in contrast to the discussions at the project meetings where the software engineers made frequent use of both abstract goal descriptions and concrete examples to make sense of the requirements. This difference between the written requirements specification and the oral discussions at the meetings may help explain software engineers' general preference for people, rather than documents, as their information sources.

[1]  Peter Naur,et al.  Computing: A Human Activity , 1991 .

[2]  Bill Curtis,et al.  A field study of the software design process for large systems , 1988, CACM.

[3]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  A rational design process: How and why to fake it , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[4]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Taking CSCW seriously , 1992, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

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

[6]  J. Overhage,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The information-seeking practices of engineers: searching for documents as well as for people , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[8]  Carla Simone,et al.  Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design , 1996, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[9]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use , 1997 .

[10]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Of maps and scripts—the status of formal constructs in cooperative work , 1997, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[11]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[12]  Joyce J. Elam,et al.  Inside a software design team: knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration , 1993, CACM.

[13]  Alan H. Bond,et al.  Distributed Artificial Intelligence , 1988 .

[14]  John Seely Brown,et al.  The Social Life of Documents , 1996, First Monday.

[15]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development , 1992, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[16]  David Hakken Work‐Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts , 1989 .

[17]  Elin K. Jacob,et al.  The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library , 1998, Libr. Trends.

[18]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work * , 1992 .

[19]  Colin Potts,et al.  Collaborative conceptual design: A large software project case study , 1996, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[20]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Cognitive Systems Engineering , 2022 .

[21]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification , 1993, ICSE '93.

[22]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  The task-artifact cycle , 1991 .

[23]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Evaluating Opportunities for Design Capture , 1996 .

[24]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  A framework for identifying software project risks , 1998, CACM.

[25]  Geoffrey C. Bowker The Kindness of Strangers: Kinds and Politics in Classification Systems , 1998, Libr. Trends.

[26]  Geoffrey C. Bowker,et al.  Situations vs. standards in long-term, wide-scale decision-making: the case of the International Classification of Diseases , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[27]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  Work-oriented design of computer artifacts , 1989 .

[28]  Nancy G. Leveson Intent Specifications: An Approach to Building Human-Centered Specifications , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[29]  Wes Sharrock,et al.  Project work: The organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering , 1996, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[30]  Ann Peterson Bishop,et al.  Document Structure and Digital Libraries: How Researchers Mobilize Information in Journal Articles , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

[31]  Carla Simone,et al.  Adaptability of classification schemes in cooperation: What does it mean? , 2001, ECSCW.

[32]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[33]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface , 1991 .

[34]  Joost Kircz,et al.  Modularity: the next form of scientific information presentation? , 1998, J. Documentation.

[35]  B. Boehm Software risk management: principles and practices , 1991, IEEE Software.

[36]  Richard G. Mills User requirements , 1975, AFIPS '75.

[37]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Readers' Models of Text Structures: The Case of Academic Articles , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[38]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  People as carriers of experience and sources of commitment: information seeking in a software design project , 2000 .

[39]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Software engineering (5th ed.) , 1995 .

[40]  Hope A. Olson Mapping Beyond Dewey's Boundaries: Constructing Classification Space for Marginalized Knowledge Domains , 1998, Libr. Trends.

[41]  Christopher A. Higgins,et al.  A critical appraisal of task taxonomies as a tool for studying office activities , 1984, TOIS.

[42]  Peter H. Carstensen,et al.  From the social to the systematic , 1996, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[43]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  Six roles of documents in professionals' work , 1999, ECSCW.

[44]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Designing Usable Electronic Text: Ergonomic Aspects Of Human Information Usage , 1994 .