Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition: A framework for understanding viewpoint development approaches

  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Requirements definition is a critical activity within information systems development. It involves many stakeholder groups: managers, various end-users and different systems development professionals. Each group is likely to have its own ‘viewpoint’ representing a particular perspective or set of perceptions of the problem domain. To ensure as far as possible that the system to be implemented meets the needs and expectations of all involved stakeholders, it is necessary to understand their various viewpoints and manage any inconsistencies and conflicts. Viewpoint development during requirements definition is the process of identifying, understanding and representing different viewpoints. This paper proposes a conceptual framework for understanding and investigating viewpoint development approaches. Results of the use of the framework for a comparison of viewpoint development approaches are discussed and some important issues and directions for future research are identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greenspan S, Mylopoulos J, Borgida A. On formal requirements modeling languages: RML revisited. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on software engineering. Sorrento, May 1994

  2. Jarke M, Bubenko J, Rolland C, Sutcliffe A, Vassiliou, Y. Theories underlying requirements engineering: an overview of NATURE at Genesis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. San Diego, January 1993

  3. Darke P, Shanks G. Defining system requirements: a critical assessment of the NIAM conceptual schema design procedure. Aust J Inform Syst 1995; 2: 50–62

    Google Scholar 

  4. Robinson M, Bannon L. Questioning representations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on computer-supported cooperative work. Amsterdam, September 1991

  5. Easterbrook S. Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowledge Acquisition 1991; 3: 255–289

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boehm B. Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  7. Klein HK, Hirschheim RA. A comparative framework of data modelling approaches. Comput J 1987; 30: 8–15

    Google Scholar 

  8. Benyon-Davies P. The realities of database design: an essay on the sociology, semiology and pedagogy of database work. J Inform Syst 1992; 2: 207–220

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis, PJ. Linking soft systems methodology with datafocused information systems development. J Inform Syst 1993; 3: 169–186

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marche S. On what a building might not be: a case study. Int J Inform Manage 1991; 1: 55–66

    Google Scholar 

  11. Finkelstein A, Gabbay D, Hunter A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B. Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Trans Software Eng. 1994; 20: 569–578

    Google Scholar 

  12. Batini C, Lenzerini M, Navathe SB. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput Surveys 1986; 18: 323–364

    Google Scholar 

  13. Checkland P. Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  14. Checkland P, Scholes J. Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, Chichester, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  15. Easterbrook, S. Domain modelling with hierarchies of alternative viewpoints. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. San Diego, January 1993

  16. Leite J, Freeman PA. Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans Software Eng 1991; 17: 1253–1269

    Google Scholar 

  17. Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein L, Goedicke M. Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int J Software Knowledge Eng 1992; 2: 31–57

    Google Scholar 

  18. Niskier C, Mailbaum T, Schwabe D. A look through PRISMA: towards pluralistic knowledge-based environments for software specification acquisition. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on software specification and design. Pittsburgh, 1989

  19. Boehm B. Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Software 1984; 1: 75–88

    Google Scholar 

  20. Batini C, Ceri S, Navathe SB. Conceptual database design: an entity-relationship approach. Benjamin Cummings, California, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  21. Spaccapietra S, Parent C. View integration: a step forward in solving structural conflicts. IEEE Trans Software Eng 1994; 6: 258–274

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feather MS. Requirements engineering — getting right from wrong. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European software engineering conference. Milan, 1993

  23. Swatman PA, Swatman PMC. Formal specification: an analytic tool for (management) information systems. J Inform Syst 1992; 2: 121–160

    Google Scholar 

  24. Stamper R. Signs, Organisations, norms and information systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Australian conference on information systems. Wollongong, 1992

  25. Stamper R. Semantics. In: Boland RJ, Hirschheim RA (eds). Critical issues in information systems research. Wiley, Chichester, 1987, pp 43–78

    Google Scholar 

  26. Easterbrook S, Nuseibeh B. Managing Inconsistencies in an evolving specification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE CS Press, Washington, DC, 1995, pp 48–55

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stamper R. Social norms in requirements analysis: an outline of MEASUR. In: Jirotka M, Goguen JA (eds). Requirements engineering. Academic Press, London, 1994, pp 107–139

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gotthard, W, Lockemann PC, Neufeld A. System-guided view integration for object-oriented databases. IEEE Trans Knowledge Data Eng 1992; 4: 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  29. Potts C. Expediency and appropriate technology: an agenda for requirements engineering research in the 1990s. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European software engineering conference. Milan, 1993

  30. Nuseibeh B, Kramer J, Finkelstein A. A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Trans Software Eng 1994; 20: 760–771

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ainsworth M, Cruickshank AH, Wallis PJL, Groves LJ. Viewpoint specification and Z. Inform Software Technol 1994; 36: 43–51

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kotonya G, Sommerville I. Viewpoints for requirements definition. IEE Software Eng J 1992; 375–387 (November)

  33. Avison DE, Wood-Harper AT. Multiview: an exploration in information systems development. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lewis PJ. Identifying cognitive categories: the basis for interpretative data analysis within soft systems methodology. Int J Inform Manage 1993; 13: 373–386

    Google Scholar 

  35. Flood RL, Jackson MC. Creative problem solving: total systems intervention. Wiley, Chichester, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hsia P, Samuel J, Gao J, Kung D, Toyoshima Y, Chen C. Formal approach to scenario analysis. IEEE Software 1994; 33–41 (March)

  37. Potts C, Takahashi, K, Anton, A. Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Software 1994; 21–32 (March)

  38. Ross DT. Structured Analysis (SA): a language for communicating ideas. IEEE Trans. Software Eng 1977; 3: 16–34

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ross DT. Applications and extensions of SADT. Computer 1985; 18: 25–34

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ross DT, Schoman KE. Structured analysis for requirements definition. IEEE Trans. Software Eng 1977; 3: 6–15

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mullery G. CORE: a method for controlled requirement specification. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on software engineering. IEEE CS Press, Washington, DC, 1979, pp. 126–135

    Google Scholar 

  42. Finkelstein A, Kramer J. TARA: tool-assisted requirements analysis. In: Loucopoulos P, Zicari R (eds). Conceptual modelling, databases, & CASE: an integrated view of information systems development. Addison-Wesley, Reading. MA, 1991, pp 413–432

    Google Scholar 

  43. Darke P, Shanks G. The use of viewpoint development to enhance requirements definition within the NIAM conceptual design procedure. Department of Information Systems working paper 11/95. Monash University, Melbourne, 1995

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Monash University, Caulfield East, PO Box 197, 3145, Melboume, Australia

    Peta Darke & Graeme Shanks

Authors
  1. Peta Darke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graeme Shanks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peta Darke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Darke, P., Shanks, G. Stakeholder viewpoints in requirements definition: A framework for understanding viewpoint development approaches. Requirements Eng 1, 88–105 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01235904

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01235904

Keywords

Search

Navigation