Eliciting user requirements using Appreciative inquiry

Empirical Software Engineering - Tập 16 - Trang 733-772 - 2011
Carol K. Gonzales1, Gondy Leroy1
1School of Information Systems and Technology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, USA

Tóm tắt

For decades and still today, software development projects have failed because they do not meet the needs of users, are over-budget, and abandoned. To help address this problem, the user requirements elicitation process was modified based on principles of Appreciative Inquiry. Appreciative Inquiry, commonly used in organizational development, aims to build organizations, processes, or systems based on success stories using a hopeful vision for an ideal future. In four studies, Appreciative Inquiry was evaluated for its effectiveness with eliciting user requirements in different circumstances. In the first two studies, it was compared with brainstorming, a traditional approach, with end-users (study 1) and proxy-users (study 2). The third study was a quasi-experiment comparing the use of Appreciative Inquiry in different phases in the software development cycle (study 3). The final (fourth) study combined all lessons learned using Appreciative Inquiry in a cross-case comparison study of 3 cases to gain additional understanding of the requirements gathered during various project phases. In each of the four studies, the requirements gathered, developer and user attitudes, and the Appreciative Inquiry process itself were evaluated. Requirements were evaluated for their quantity and type regardless of whether they were implemented or not. Attitudes were evaluated for commitment to the requirements and project using process feedback. The Appreciative Inquiry process was evaluated with differing groups, projects, and project phases to determine how and when it is best applied. Potentially interceding factors were also evaluated including: team effectiveness, Emotional Intelligence, and perceived stress. Appreciative Inquiry produced positive results for the participants, the requirements obtained, and the general requirements eliciting-process. Appreciative Inquiry demonstrated benefits to the requirements gathered by increasing the number of unique requirements as well as identifying more quality-based (non-functional) and forward-looking requirements. It worked best when there was time for participants to reflect on the thought-provoking questions and when the facilitator was knowledgeable of the subject-matter and had extra time to extract and translate the requirements. The participants (end-users and developers) expressed improved project understanding. End-users participated consistently with immediate buy-in and enthusiasm, especially those users who were technically-inhibited. We conclude that Appreciative Inquiry can augment existing methods by presenting a positive and future aspect for a proposed system resulting in improved user requirements.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Avital M (2004, June 14–16). Bolstering knowledge management systems with appreciative Inquiry. Proceedings of the European Conference in Information Systems, Finland Avital M (2005) Innovation in information systems education 1: accelerated systems analysis and design with Appreciative Inquiry—an action learning approach. Comm Assoc Inform Syst 15:289–314 Avital M, Boland RJ, Cooperrider DL (eds) (2008) Designing information and organizations with a positive lens (vol. 2). Elsevier Science, Oxford Avital M, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K (2009) Introduction to designing information and organizations with a positive lens. Inf Organ 19(3):153–161 Azuma M (2004) Applying ISO/IEC 9126-1 quality model to quality requirements engineering on critical software. Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Requirements for High Assurance Systems Kyoto, Japan Barney S, Aurum A, Wohlin C (2008) A product management challenge: creating software product value through requirements selection. J Syst Arch 54(6):576–593 Baroudi JJ, Olson MH, Ives B (1986) An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Commun ACM 29(3):232–238 Baskerville R (1999) Investigation information systems with action research. Comm Assoc Inform Syst 2 Baskerville R, Myers MD (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice—foreward. MIS Quart 28(3):329–335 Bergvall-Kareborn B, Holst M, Stahlbrost A (2008) Creating a new leverage point for information systems development. In: Avital B, Cooperrider (eds), Designing information with a positive lens (vol. 2). Elsevier, pp 75–95 Boegh J (2008) A new standard for quality requirements. IEEE Software 25(2):57–63 Browne GJ, Ramesh V (2002) Improving information requirements determination: a cognitive perspective. Inf Manage 39(8):625 Bushe G, Coetzer G (1995) Appreciative Inquiry as a team-development intervention: a controlled experiment. J Appl Behav Sci 31(1):17 Cameron K, Dutton J, Quinn R (eds) (2003) Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 24:385–396 Cooperrider, Whitney, Stavros (2008) Appreciative Inquiry handbook for leaders of change, 2nd edn. Crown Custom, Brunswick Cooperrider, Srivastva (1987) Appreciative Inquiry in organizational life. Res Organ Change Dev 1:129–169 Davies R, Marcella S, McGrenere J, Purves B (2004) The ethnographically informed participatory design of a PD application to support communication. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility Dieste O, Juristo N, Shull F (2008) Understanding the customer: what do we know about requirements elicitation? IEEE Softw 25:11–13 Farzan R, DiMicco JM, Millen DR, Dugan C, Geyer W, Brownholtz EA (2008) Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the Twenty-sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Gallegos F, Senft S, Manson D, Gonzales C (2004). Information technology control and audit (2nd ed.). Auerbach Gartner (2009) Requirements form the foundation of software quality. (7/13/2009). Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=921522 Glinz M (2008) A risk-based, value-oriented approach to quality requirements. IEEE Softw 25:34–41 Gonzales C, Leroy G, De Leo G (2009a) Requirements engineering using Appreciative Inquiry for an online community of caregivers of children with autism. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Honolulu, HI. March 9–12 Gonzales C, Leroy G, DeLeo G (2009b) Augmentative and alternative communication technologies. In: Cruz-Cunham MM, Tavares A, Simões R (eds) Handbook of research on developments in e-health and telemedicine: technological and social perspectives. Medical Information Science Reference Guinan P, Bostrom RP (1986) Development of computer-based information systems: a communication framework. SIGMIS Database 17(3):3–16 Hammond SA (1998) The thin book of Appreciative Inquiry (2nd ed). Thin Book Hartwick J, Barki H (1994) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Manage Sci 40(4):440–465 Herrmann A, Paech B (2009) Practical challenges of requirements prioritization based on risk estimation. Empirical Software Engineering 14(6):644–684 Hickey AM, Davis AM (2004) A unified model of requirements elicitation. J Manage Inf Syst 20(4):65 Hsu JS-C, Chan C-L, Liu JY-C, Chen H-G (2008) The impacts of user review on software responsiveness: moderating requirements uncertainty. Inf Manage 45(4):203–210 ISO/IEC (2007). Software engineering—Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Quality requirements: ISO/IEC Kauppinen M, Vartiainen M, Kontio J, Kujala S, Sulonen R (2004) Implementing requirements engineering processes throughout organizations: success factors and challenges. Inf Softw Technol 46(14):937–953 Kirk RE (1995) Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company (Division of Thomson Publishing), Pacific Grove Kollock P (1999) The economies of online cooperation: gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In: Smith M, Kollock P (eds) Communities in cyberspace. Routledge, New York, pp 220–239 Lenaghan J, Buda R, Eisner AB (2007) An examination of the role of Emotional Intelligence in work and family conflict. J Manag Issue 19(1):20 Leroy G, De Leo G (2008) Mobile communication and data gathering software for autistic children and their caregivers. Paper presented at the Positive Design: Technology + Design + Management = Creating New Models of Possibility for All. Retrieved from http://beta.cgu.edu/Faculty/leroyg/Papers/Leroy-De-Leo-Positive-Design-2008.pdf McConnell S (1996) Rapid development: taming wild software schedules. Microsoft Press Miles MB, Huberman MA (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks Moynihan T (2000) ‘Requirements—uncertainty’: is it best formulated as a latent, aggregate or profile construct? Eur J Inf Syst 9(2):82 Olfman L, Bostrom RP (1992) Innovative teaching materials and methods for systems analysis and design. SIGMIS Database 23(2):7–12 Procaccino D, Verner JM, Overmyer SP, Darter ME (2002) Case study: factors for early prediction of software development success. Inf Softw Technol 44(1):53–62 Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) (2001). Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage Schneider GM, Martin J, Tsai WT (1992) An experimental study of fault detection in user requirements documents. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 1(2):188–204 Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Hall LE, Haggerty DJ, Cooper JT, Golden CJ et al (1998) Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Pers Individ Differ 25(2):167–177 Siau K, Tan X (2006) Using cognitive mapping techniques to supplement UML and UP in information requirements determination. J Comput Inf Syst 46(5):59 Van de Ven AH (2007) Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods (Vol. 5), vol 5, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks