Skip to main content
Log in

Communication gaps in a tender process

  • Original article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large IT systems are often acquired in a tender process where the customer states the system requirements, a number of suppliers submit their proposals, and the customer selects one of them. Usually the supplier uses an existing system as the basis for his proposal. He adapts it more or less to the customer’s requirements. This paper is a study of a specific tender process. The customer was a Danish municipality that supplied electrical power, water, gas, garbage collection, etc. for around 100,000 households. The customer wanted a new system for meter inspection, invoicing, planning the meter inspector’s routes, etc. We have studied the requirements, how they were perceived by the suppliers, and how they were intended by the customer. The main findings are that the parties didn’t understand each other, although the suppliers sometimes pretended that they did so. One consequence was that the business goals pursued by the customer were not properly achieved. Among the causes of this were an excessively democratic elicitation process and an inadequate use of requirement techniques, particularly use cases. There were also issues that the existing requirement techniques couldn’t deal with, for instance integration with future systems.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albert C, Brownsword L (2002) Meeting the challenges of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products. In: Dean J, Gravel A (eds) ICCBSS 2002, LNCS 2255, pp 10–20

  2. Balk LD, Kedia A (2000) PPT: a COTS integration case study. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering, ICSE 2000, pp 42–49

  3. Boehm B, Abts C (1999) COTS integration: plug and pray? IEEE Computer, Jan 1999, pp 135–138

  4. Bonnerup E (2001) Experiences from government IT projects—how to do it better. Teknologiraadet, March 2001. (In Danish)

  5. Cockburn A (2000) Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley

  6. Constantine L, Lockwood LAD (2001) Structure and style in use cases for user interface design. In: Harmelen MV (ed) Object modeling and user interface design. Addison-Wesley

  7. Feblowitz MD, Greenspan SJ (1998) Scenario-based analysis of COTS acquisition impacts. Requirements Engineering 1998, 3, pp 182–201

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gorton I, Liu A (2002) Streamlining the acquisition process for large-scale COTS middleware components. In: Dean J, Gravel A (eds) ICCBSS 2002, LNCS 2255, pp 122–131

  9. Gotel OCZ, Finkelstein ACW (1994) An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proceedings of the international conference on requirements engineering, ICRE 1994, pp 94–101

  10. Guo J (2002) Interoperability technology assessment. Elsevier Science, Electronic notes, vol 65, no 4

  11. IEEE Guide to Software Requirements specifications. ANSI/IEEE Std. 830–1993 or 1998

  12. Lauesen S (2002) Software requirements—styles and techniques. Addison-Wesley

  13. Lauesen S (2003) Task descriptions as functional requirements. IEEE Software, March/April 2003, pp 58–65

  14. Lauesen S (2004) COTS tenders and integration requirements. In: Proceedings of the 12th international requirements engineering conference, Kyoto, RE 2004, pp 166–175. (An expanded version is accepted for publication in Requirements Engineering Journal, around November 2005)

  15. Lauesen S (2005) User interface design—a software engineering perspective. Addison-Wesley

  16. Lauesen S, Vium JP (2003) Experiences from an EU tender process—successes and failures. (Includes a detailed account for each supplier of his perception of the process, in Danish) http://www.itu.dk/people/slauesen/Papers/Leverandorvalg9.pdf

  17. Lauesen S, Vium JP (2004) Experiences from a tender process. In: Regnell et al (ed) Proceedings of REFSQ’04, Riga, Essener Informatik Beitrage, ISBN 3–922602–91–6, pp 29–46

  18. Liu A, Gorton I (2003) Accelerating COTS middleware acquisition: the i-Mate process. IEEE Software, March/April 2003, pp 72–79

  19. Maiden NA, Ncube C (1998) Acquiring COTS software selection requirements. IEEE Software, March/April 1998, pp 46–56

  20. Ncube C, Dean JC (2002) The limitations of current decision-making techniques in the procurement of COTS software components. In: Dean J, Gravel A (eds) ICCBSS 2002, LNCS 2255, pp 176–187

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Søren Lauesen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lauesen, S., Vium, J.P. Communication gaps in a tender process. Requirements Eng 10, 247–261 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0009-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-005-0009-2

Keywords

Navigation