Resolving cognitive conflict in requirements definition: a blackboard-based model and system architecture

Many IS managers consider requirements definition to be one of the most difficult phases in a system analysis and design project. It is also felt that no other phase contributes as much to the potential success or failure of the final product. One of the reasons that a successful requirements analysis is so elusive is because the information needed for an accurate solution is distributed among the individual designers and domain experts that comprise the design team. Inherent in a requirements analysis are two problems: the actual problem of understanding and defining the artifact under design, and the problem of eliciting the ideas and information that each individual possesses and integrating these into a coherent and comprehensive design specification. This paper explores this problem of cognitive conflict within a requirements analysis domain. The characteristics of the problem are examined and a proposed process of resolution is considered. A blackboard-based framework is presented as a possible vehicle for implementing the proposed resolution scheme. The characteristics of the blackboard model are discussed and it's applicable features are examined in detail. The requirements of a system to support requirements analysis are presented along with the design details of BARD, a blackboard assisted requirements definition system. Implications for design and directions for future research are outlined.

[1]  Penny Nii,et al.  Blackboard systems part two: Blackboard application systems , 1986 .

[2]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design , 1979 .

[3]  Edward A. Felgenbaum.  The art of artificial intelligence: themes and case studies of knowledge engineering , 1977, IJCAI 1977.

[4]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  The Effects of Variations in Capabilities of GDSS Designs on Management of Cognitive Conflict in Groups , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Jack Mostow,et al.  Toward Better Models of the Design Process , 1985, AI Mag..

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

[7]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[8]  A. H. Schainblatt,et al.  The Researcher and The Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation , 1965 .

[9]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Technology-Process Fit: Perspectives on Achieving Prototyping Effectiveness , 1991, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering , 1987 .

[11]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings , 1988, MIS Q..

[12]  Allen Newell,et al.  Heuristic programming: ill-structured problems , 1993 .

[13]  Randall Davis,et al.  Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[14]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Dimensions of I/S Planning and Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[15]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  The impact of technological support on groups: An assessment of the empirical research , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[16]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  What is coordination theory , 1988 .

[17]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Development of computer-based information systems: a communication perspective , 1984, CPRS.

[18]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  PLEXSYS-84: An Integrated Development Environment for Informational Systems , 1984, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Timothy Paul Cronan,et al.  System development: an empirical study of user communication , 1984, DATB.

[20]  Stuart E. Madnick,et al.  Lessons learned from modeling the dynamics of software development , 1989, CACM.

[21]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[22]  James F. Stay.  HIPO and Integrated Program Design , 1976, IBM Syst. J..

[23]  G. Huber.  The Nature and Design of Post-Industrial Organizations , 1984 .

[24]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design , 1991, CACM.

[25]  Ron Weber,et al.  System designers' user models: a comparitive study and methodological critique , 1983, CACM.

[26]  Patricia J. Guinan,et al.  Patterns of Excellence for Is Professionals: An Analysis of Communication Behavior , 1988 .

[27]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. , 1979 .

[28]  John G. Burch.  Systems analysis, design, and implementation , 1992 .

[29]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  Issues in information systems planning , 1986, Inf. Manag..

[30]  John D. Musa.  Software Engineering: The Future of a Profession , 1985, IEEE Software.

[31]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[32]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  Management misinformation systems , 1967 .

[33]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  An evaluation of empirical research in managerial support systems , 1990, Decis. Support Syst..

[34]  R. Mayntz.  [Rezension] Strauss, Anselm: Negotiations - Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978) , 1980 .

[35]  B. A. Sheil,et al.  The Psychological Study of Programming , 1981, CSUR.

[36]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  A Blackboard Architecture for Control , 1985, Artif. Intell..

[37]  R. Walton.  Interpersonal peacemaking : confrontations and third-party consultation , 1969 .

[38]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  A Retrospective View of the Hearsay-II Architecture , 1977, IJCAI.

[39]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Groupware: some issues and experiences , 1991, CACM.

[40]  Kate M. Kaiser,et al.  User-Analyst Differences: An Empirical Investigation of Attitudes Related to Systems Development1 , 1982 .

[41]  Edward A. Feigenbaum,et al.  The Art of Artificial Intelligence: Themes and Case Studies of Knowledge Engineering , 1977, IJCAI.

[42]  Stephen S. Yau,et al.  A survey of software design techniques , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[43]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[44]  J. M. Kittross.  The measurement of meaning , 1959 .

[45]  H. Blumer,et al.  Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method , 1988 .

[46]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations , 2011 .

[47]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Computer support of groups: theory-based models for GDSS research , 1991 .

[48]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic Meeting Support: The GroupSystems Concept , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[49]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Successful application of communication techniques to improve the systems development process , 1989, Inf. Manag..

[50]  H. Penny Nii,et al.  Blackboard systems: the blackboard model of problem solving and the evolution of blackboard architectures , 1995 .

[51]  Richard C. Waters,et al.  Automatic programming: myths and prospects , 1988, Computer.

[52]  Ken Orr,et al.  Methodology: the experts speak , 1989 .

[53]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  MIS Problems and failures: a sociotechnical perspective part I: the cause , 1977 .

[54]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition , 1986 .

[55]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Development of computer-based information systems: A communication framework , 1986, DATB.

[56]  H. Penny Nii,et al.  Blackboard Systems, Part One: The Blackboard Model of Problem Solving and the Evolution of Blackboard Architectures , 1986, AI Mag..

[57]  Atul Prakash,et al.  Software Engineering: Problems and Perspectives , 1984, Computer.

[58]  Alan M. Davis,et al.  Impacts of life cycle models on software configuration management , 1991, CACM.

[59]  B. Adelson,et al.  The Role of Domain Expenence in Software Design , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[60]  Vasudevan Jagannathan,et al.  The First Workshop on Blackboard Systems , 1989, AI Mag..