Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing task practicing and prototype fidelities when applying scenario acting to elicit requirements

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

Abstract

Identifying accurate user requirements early in the design cycle is of the utmost importance in system development. The purpose of this study of requirements elicitation was to compare the results of involving the user early in the design cycle using a low-fidelity prototype with the results of involving the user after a high-fidelity prototype was available. Three groups of potential users applied the method of Scenario Acting. Participants in the first group were given a working prototype of a human capital development system. The participants of the second group were given a detailed description of proposed features of the system and were told to practice on a paper prototype or with current methods, such as an Internet browser. These groups then practiced the tasks for some time before participating in the Scenario Acting. The third group received a brief description of the objectives of the system and did not practice the tasks. The results of the study showed that the use of the high-fidelity prototype was not helpful for eliciting requirements when working with users. However, the second group, taking time to practice the tasks given a low-fidelity paper prototype outperformed the others. Furthermore, the analysis of the Scenario Acting sessions revealed that two sessions were better than one, especially for participants of the group working with a low-fidelity prototype. An analysis of the topic of requirements showed that there was no difference between the groups on the domain tasks (here, human capital development), but the group practicing on the high-fidelity prototype commented more on its ease of use and usefulness than the other two. By comparison, the group practicing on low-fidelity prototype had more comments on the practice of the work and output of the tasks.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Charette RN (2005) Why software fails [software failure]. IEEE Spectr 42(9):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. El Emam K, Koru AG (2008) A replicated survey of IT software project failures. IEEE Softw 25(5):84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lamsweerde A (2000) Requirements engineering in the year 00: a research perspective. In: Ghezzi C, Jazayeri M, Wolf AL (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on software engineering. ACM, Limerick, Ireland, pp 5–19

  4. Kamata MI, Tamai T (2007) How does requirements quality relate to project success or failure? In: Sutcliffe A, Jalote P (eds) Requirements engineering conference, 2007. RE’07. 15th IEEE international, Delhi, pp 69–78

  5. Boehm B, Papaccio P (1988) Understanding and controlling software costs. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(10):1462–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction design—beyond human–computer interaction. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng BHC, Atlee JM (2007) Research directions in requirements engineering. In: Briand LC, Wolf AL (eds) Future of software engineering, 2007. FOSE’07. IEEE Computer Society Washington, Washington, DC, pp 285–303

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Olsson E, Johansson N, Gulliksen J, Sandblad B (2005) A participatory process supporting design of future work, vol 2005-018. Uppsala University, Uppsala

  9. Kujala S (2003) User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol 22(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ehn P (1988) Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  11. Iacucci G, Iacucci C, Kuutti K (2002) Imagining and experiencing in design, the role of performances. In: Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on human–computer interaction. ACM, Aarhus, Denmark, pp 167–176

  12. Svanæs D, Seland G (2004) Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-Fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. In: Dykstra-Erickson E, Tscheligi M (eds) Proceedings of CHI. ACM, Vienna, Austria, pp 479–486

  13. Seland G (2006) System designer assessments of role play as a design method: a qualitative study. In: Morch A, Morgan K, Bratteteig T, Ghosh G, Svanæs D (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human–computer interaction: changing roles. ACM, Oslo, Norway, pp 222–231

  14. Suri JF, Marsh M (2000) Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer product design. Appl Ergon 31(2):151–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim Y-K, Pangam A, Periyasami S, Aneja S (2006) Comparative analysis of high- and low-fidelity prototypes for more valid usability evaluations of mobile devices. In: Morch A, Morgan K, Bratteteig T, Ghosh G, Svanæs D (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human–computer interaction: changing roles. ACM, Oslo, Norway, pp 291–300

  16. Hall R (2001) Prototyping for usability of new technology. Int J Hum Comput Stud 55(4):485–501

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Luqi VB, Guan Z, Berzins V, Zhang L, Floodeen D, Coskun V, Puett J, Brown M (2004) Requirements-document-based prototyping of CARA software. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf (STTT) 5(4):370–390

    Google Scholar 

  18. Alavi M (1984) An assessment of the prototyping approach to information systems development. Commun ACM 27(6):556–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tudhope D, Beynon-Davies P, Mackay H (2000) Prototyping praxis: constructing computer systems and building belief. Hum Comput Interact 15(4):353–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Garmer K, Ylvén J, Karlsson M (2004) User participation in requirements elicitation comparing focus group interviews and usability requirements for medical equipment: case study. Int J Ind Ergon 33:85–98

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davis A, Dieste O, Hickey A, Juristo N, Moreno AM (2006) Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: Glinz M, Lutz R (eds) Requirements engineering, 14th IEEE international conference. IEEE, Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, pp 179–188

  22. Seyff N, Maiden N, Karlsen K, Lockerbie J, Grünbacher P, Graf F, Ncube C (2009) Exploring how to use scenarios to discover requirements. Requir Eng 14(2):91–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schrage M (2004) Never go to a client meeting without a prototype. IEEE Softw 21(2):42–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Seeber S (2000) Stand und Perspektiven von Bildungscontrolling. In: Seeber S, Krekel EM, van Buer J (eds) Bildungscontrolling. Ansätze und kritische Diskussionen zu Effizienz-Steigerung von Bildungsarbeit, Frankfurt am Main, pp 19–49

  25. Rudd J, Stern K, Isensee S (1996) Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions 3(1):76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith H, Fitzpatrick G, Rogers Y (2004) Eliciting reactive and reflective feedback for a social communication tool: a multi-session approach. In: Designing interactive systems. ACM, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 39–48

  27. Hornbæk K, Frøkjær E (2004) Two psychology-based usability inspection techniques studied in a diary experiment. In: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human–Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’04). ACM, Tampere, Finland, pp 3–12

  28. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kampenes VB, Dybå T, Hannay JE, Sjøberg DIK (2009) A systematic review of quasi-experiments in software engineering. Inf Softw Technol 51(1):71–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Laurence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Hvannberg ET, Law EL-C, Lárusdóttir MK (2007) Heuristic evaluation: comparing ways of finding and reporting usability problems. Interact Comput 19(2):225–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Klein EE, Tellefsen T, Herskovitz PJ (2007) The use of group support systems in focus groups: information technology meets qualitative research. Comput Hum Behav 23(5):2113–2132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Taylor SJ, Bogdan R (1998) Introduction to qualitative research methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Maiden N, Gizikis A (2004) Provoking creativity: imagine what your requirements could be like. IEEE Softw 21(5):68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J (1999) Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. Account Manage Inf Technol 9(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Avison DE, Lau F, Myers MD, Nielsen PA (1999) Action research. Commun ACM 42(1):94–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Iceland, Dunhaga 5, 107, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Gyda Atladottir & Ebba Thora Hvannberg

  2. Maritech, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Sigrun Gunnarsdottir

Authors
  1. Gyda Atladottir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ebba Thora Hvannberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sigrun Gunnarsdottir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebba Thora Hvannberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atladottir, G., Hvannberg, E.T. & Gunnarsdottir, S. Comparing task practicing and prototype fidelities when applying scenario acting to elicit requirements. Requirements Eng 17, 157–170 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0131-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0131-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation