Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the human context in requirements elicitation

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

Abstract

The human context within which a software system will operate is fundamental for its requirements. It may not appear to be very much related to the system, but it is very relevant in achieving its successful adoption. However, requirements engineers have usually a background in Software Engineering and are not trained to elicit this kind of information. This situation raises the need for analytical tools to deal with these features. These tools should enable collaborative work between requirements engineers, who use them in development, social practitioners, who provide the knowledge and processes underlying these tools, and the customers, who know the domain and intended application of the projects. The framework presented in this paper is based on the socio-psychological Activity Theory and its analysis of human contexts. It includes a repository of social properties and a process to perform this elicitation using it. The paper illustrates its application through a case study on the impact of a new system in the organization of a firm.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Lamsweerde A (2000) Requirements Engineering in the Year 00: a research perspective. In: Proceedings 22nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE-2000). ACM Press, pp 5–19

  2. Nuseibeh BA, Easterbrook SM (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings 22nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE-2000). ACM Press, pp 35–46

  3. Bødker S, Grønbæk K (1996) Users and designers in mutual activity: an analysis of cooperative activities in system design. In: Engeström Y, Middleton D (eds) Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press, pp 130–158

  4. Goguen JA, Linde C (1993) Techniques for requirements elicitation. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE 1993), pp 152–164

  5. Hughes J, King V, Rodden T, Andersen H (1994) Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design. In: Proceedings of ACM 1994 conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW 1994). ACM Press, pp 429–439

  6. Cheng BHC, Atlee JM (2007) Research directions in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings future of software engineering (FOSE’07), IEEE Computer Society, pp 285–303

  7. OMG (2007) OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Infrastructure, V2.2. 4 Feb 2009, http://www.omg.org

  8. OMG (2007) OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, V2.2. 4 Feb 2009, http://www.omg.org

  9. van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings 5th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE 2001), pp 249–262

  10. Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20:3–50

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Dubois E, Du Bois P, Dubru F, Petit M (1994) Agent-oriented requirements engineering: a case study using the ALBERT language. In: Proceedings 4th international working conference on dynamic modelling and information systems (DYNMOD’94), pp 205–238

  12. Castro J, Kolp M, Mylopoulos J (2002) Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Inf Syst 27(6):365–389

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind and society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  14. Clancey WJ, Sachs P, Sierhuis M, van Hoof R (1998) Brahms: simulating practice for work systems design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 49(6):831–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaptelinin V, Nardi BA, Macaulay C (1999) The Activity Checklist: A tool for representing the ‘space’ of context. Interactions 6(4):27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fuentes-Fernández R, Gómez-Sanz JJ, Pavón J (2007) Model integration in agent-oriented development. Int J Agent Oriented Softw Eng 1(1):2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leontiev N (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

  18. Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding. Orienta-Konsultit

  19. Kuutti K, Arvonen T (1992) Identifying potential CSCW applications by means of activity theory concepts: a case example. In: Proceedings ACM 1992 conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW 1992), pp 233–240

  20. OMG (2006) Object Constraint Language, Version 2.0. 1 May 2006, http://www.omg.org

  21. Schmidt DC (2006) Model-driven engineering. IEEE Comput 39(2):25–31

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sierra JL, Fernández-Valmayor A, Fernández-Manjón B (2008) From documents to applications using markup languages. IEEE Softw 25(2):68–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuentes R, Gómez-Sanz JJ, Pavón J (2005) Requirements elicitation for agent-based applications. In: Proceedings 6th international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE-2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3950. pp 40–53

  24. Fuentes-Fernández R, Gómez-Sanz JJ, Pavón J (2009) Requirements elicitation and analysis of multiagent systems using activity theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 39(2):282–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fuentes-Fernández R, Gómez-Sanz JJ, Pavón J (2007) Managing contradictions in multi-agent systems. IEICE Trans Inf Syst E90-D(8):1243–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sommerville I (2005) Integrated requirements engineering: a tutorial. IEEE Softw 22(1):16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Rawas A, Easterbrook S (1996) Communication problems in requirements engineering: a field study. In: Proceedings of the conference on professional awareness in software engineering (PASE’96), pp 47–60

  28. Bittner K, Spence I (2002) Use case modeling. Addison-Wesley Professional

  29. Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Yu E (1999) From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Commun ACM 42(1):31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kavakli E (2002) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a unifying framework. Requirements Eng 6(4):237–251

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Sutcliffe AG, Maiden NAM, Minocha S, Manuel D (1998) Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1072–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Martins LEG, Daltrini BM (1999) An approach to software requirements elicitation using precepts from activity theory. In: Proceedings 14th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering (ASE’99), pp 15–23

  33. Collins P, Shukla S, Redmiles D (2002) Activity theory and system design: a view from the trenches. Comput Supported Coop Work 11(1):55–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zurita G, Nussbaum M (2007) A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory for mobile CSCL. Br J Educ Technol 38(2):211–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. International Telecommunication Union (1999) Recommendation Z.100 (11/99). CCITT Specification and Description Language

  36. Haxthausen AE, Peleska J (2002) A domain specific language for railway control systems. In: Proceedings 6th biennial world conference on integrated design and process technology (IDPT 2002), p 7

  37. van Deursen A, Visser J (2000) Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography. ACM Sigplan Notice 35(6):26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Parnas DL, Weiss DM (1987) Active design reviews: principles and practices. J Syst Softw 7(4):259–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Potts C, Takahashi K, Antón AI (1994) Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Softw 11(2):21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jacobson I (2000) The road to the unified software development process. Cambridge University Press, London

  41. Goguen J, Jirotka M (1994) Requirements engineering: social and technical issues. Academic Press, San Diego, CA

  42. Muller MJ (2003) Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In: Jacko JA, Sears A (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp. 1061-1082

  43. Viller S, Sommerville I (1999) Social analysis in the requirements engineering process: from ethnography to method. Integrating ethnography into the requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings 4th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE 1999), pp 6–13

  44. Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein ACW (1992) ViewPoints: a vehicle for method and tool integration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on computer-aided software engineering (CASE-92), pp 50–60

  45. Hausmann JH, Heckel R, Taentzer G (2002) Detection of conflicting functional requirements in a use case-driven approach: a static analysis technique based on graph transformation. In: Proceedings 24th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2002), pp 105–115

  46. Easterbrook S (1994) Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation. In: Jirotka M, Goguen J. (eds) Requirements engineering: social and technical issues. Academic Press, San Diego, CA pp 41–65

  47. Boehm B, Bose P, Horowitz E, Lee MJ (1995) Requirements negotiation and renegotiation aids: a theory-w based spiral approach. In: Proceedings 17th international conference on software engineering (ICSE-17), pp 243–254

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Rubén Fuentes-Fernández, Jorge J. Gómez-Sanz & Juan Pavón

Authors
  1. Rubén Fuentes-Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge J. Gómez-Sanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Pavón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rubén Fuentes-Fernández.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fuentes-Fernández, R., Gómez-Sanz, J.J. & Pavón, J. Understanding the human context in requirements elicitation. Requirements Eng 15, 267–283 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-009-0087-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-009-0087-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation