Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Higher Quality Requirements: Supporting Joint Application Development with the Nominal Group Technique

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Miscommunication among systems developers and users has plagued systems requirements determination under conventional approaches and has contributed to several systems failures. Joint Application Development (JAD) was introduced to alleviate this problem by bringing together developers, users, and managers in face-to-face workshops designed to produce higher quality requirements. However, JAD sessions are conducted under the freely interacting group structure, which makes them susceptible to many of the classical problems commonly encountered during group deliberations. In this paper we present a case for integrating JAD and the nominal group technique (NGT), a group protocol that was designed to solve problems similar to those encountered in JAD. We tested our proposition in a laboratory experiment consisting of 24 group sessions, in which professional JAD facilitators led a diverse group of business professionals, managers, and advanced business students in specifying high-level requirements (under JAD and with the integrated techniques) for a simulated IS problem. The neutral and objective measures of their effects on the quality of the resulting requirements indicate that the combination of these group process structures seems to neutralize the negative impacts of group dynamics often experienced in JAD sessions, and contributes to improvements in the quality of the requirements.

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. D.C. Andrews, JAD: A crucial dimension for rapid applications development, Journal of Systems Management 42(3) (1991) 23–27, 31.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Antunes, On the design of group decision processes for electronic meeting rooms, CLEI Electronic Journal (Special Issue) 2(1) (1999).

  3. J.E. Bailey and S.W. Pearson, Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction, Management Science 29(5) (1983) 530–545.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. Beale, Why information systems fail: A case study, Internal Auditor 53(4) (1996) 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M.G. Beruvides, Group decision support systems and consensus building issues electronic media, Computers in Industrial Engineering 29(1–4) (1995) 601–605.

    Google Scholar 

  6. F.P. Brooks, Jr., No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering, IEEE Computer 20(4) (1987) 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T.A. Byrd, K.L. Cossick and R.W. Zmud, A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques, MIS Quarterly 16(3) (1992) 117–138.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Carmel, R.D. Whitaker and J.F. George, PD and joint application design: A transatlantic comparison, Communications of the ACM 36(6) (1993) 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Carmel, J.F. George and J.F. Nunamaker, Examining the process of electronic-JAD, Journal of End User Computing 7(1) (1995) 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R.J. Chapman, The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment techniques, International Journal of Project Management 16(6) (1998) 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.D. Cougar, M.E. Coulter and R.W. Knapp, Advanced Systems Development/Feasibility Techniques (Wiley, New York, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  12. E.J. Davidson, Joint Application Design (JAD) in practice, The Journal of Systems and Software 45(3) (1999) 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D.L. Dean et al., Enabling the effective involvement of multiple users: Methods and tools for effective software engineering, Journal of Management Information Systems 14(3) (1997–1998) 179–222.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A.L. Delbecq, A.H. van de Ven and D.H. Gustafson, Group Techniques for Program Planning (Greenbriar Press, 1986).

  15. A.R. Dennis, G.S. Hayes and R.M. Daniels, Jr., Business process modeling with group support systems, Journal of Management Information Systems 15(4) (1999) 115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J.L. Dodd and H.H. Carr, Systems development led by end-users, Journal of Systems Management 45(8) (1994) 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. Frankel, NGT + MDS: An adaptation of the nominal group technique for ill-structured problems, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 23(4) (1987) 543–551.

    Google Scholar 

  18. W.W. Gibbs, Software's chronic crisis, Scientific American 271(3) (1994) 86–95.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Hanna, Farewell to waterfalls? Software Magazine 15(5) (1995) 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T.R. Henrich and T.J. Greene, Using the nominal group technique to elicit roadblocks to MRP II implementation, Computers and Industrial Engineering 21(1–4) (1991) 335–338.

    Google Scholar 

  21. E.S. Ho, Y.J. Lai and S.I. Chang, An integrated group decision-making approach to quality function deployment, IIE Transactions 31(6) (1999) 553–567.

    Google Scholar 

  22. I.L. Janis, Groupthink (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982).

  23. M.A. Janson, C.C. Woo and L.D. Smith, Information systems development and communicative action theory, Information and Management 25(2) (1993) 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L.M. Jessup, T. Connolly and J. Galegher, The effects of anonymity on gdss group process with an idea-generating task, MIS Quarterly 14(3) (1990) 313–321.

    Google Scholar 

  25. K.C. Kang and M.G. Christel, Issues in requirements elicitation, SEI-92-TR-012, Carnegie Mellon University (1992).

  26. M.C. Kettelhut, JAD methodology and group dynamics, Information Systems Management 10(1) (1993) 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M.C. Kettelhut, Using JAD for strategic initiatives, Information Systems Management 14(3) (1997) 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  28. L.J. Korhonen, Nominal group technique, in: Adult Learning Methods, ed. M.W. Galbraith (Krieger Publishing Company, 1990) pp. 247–259.

  29. A.L. Lederer, Information requirements analysis, Journal of Systems Management 32(12) (1981) 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Y.I. Liou and M. Chen, Using group support systems in joint application development for requirements specifications, Journal of Management Information Systems 8(10) (1993/1994) 805–815.

    Google Scholar 

  31. R. Marble, Casebook for Systems Analysis and Design: FSS, Inc. (Mitchell-McGraw Hill, 1992).

  32. M.L. Markus and M. Keil, If we build it they will come: Designing information systems that users want to use, Sloan Management Review 35(4) (1994) 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J.E. McGrath, Groups: Interaction and Performance (Prentice-Hall, 1984).

  34. M.L. Metersky, A decision-oriented approach to system design and development, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 23(4) (1993) 1024–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. Miles, Getting bright ideas from your team (Part 1), Computer Decisions 15(2) (1983) 192, 194–195.

    Google Scholar 

  36. C.M. Moore, Group Techniques for Idea Building (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. Newman and D. Robey, A social process model of user–analyst relationships, MIS Quarterly 16(2) (1992) 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  38. R. Ocker et al., The effects of distributed group support and process structuring on software requirements development teams: Results on creativity and quality, Journal of Management Information Systems 12(3) (1995–1996) 127–153.

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. Purvis and V. Sambamurthy, An examination of designer and user perceptions of JAD and the traditional IS design methodology, Information and Management 32(3) (1997) 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  40. S.P. Schuman, What to look for in a group facilitator, Quality Progress 29(6) (1996) 69–72.

    Google Scholar 

  41. B.Y. Stephenson, L.K. Michaelsen and S.G. Franklin, An empirical test of the nominal group technique in state solar energy planning, Group and Organization Studies 7(3) (1982) 320–334.

    Google Scholar 

  42. A. Teltumbde, A framework for evaluating ERP projects, International Journal of Production Research 38(16) (2000) 4507–4520.

    Google Scholar 

  43. J.S. Valacich, A.R. Dennis and T. Connolly, Idea Generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57(3) (1994) 448–467.

    Google Scholar 

  44. A.H. van de Ven and A.L. Delbecq, The effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes, Academy of Management Journal 17(4) (1974) 605–621.

    Google Scholar 

  45. I. Vessey and S.A. Conger, Requirements Specification: Learning object, process and data methodologies, Communications of the ACM 37(5) (1994) 102–112.

    Google Scholar 

  46. J. Wood and D. Silver, Joint Application Development (Wiley, New York, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  47. R.W. Zmud, W.P. Anthony and R.M. Stair Jr., The use of mental imagery to facilitate information identification in requirements analysis, Journal ofManagement Information Systems 9(4) (1993) 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  48. N. Zuech, Identifying and ranking opportunities for machine vision in a facility, Industrial Engineering 24 (1992) 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Statistics and Management Science, University of Alabama, 367 Alston Hall, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 35487, USA

    Evan W. Duggan

  2. Department of Decision Sciences, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-3083, USA

    Cherian S. Thachenkary

Authors
  1. Evan W. Duggan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cherian S. Thachenkary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duggan, E.W., Thachenkary, C.S. Higher Quality Requirements: Supporting Joint Application Development with the Nominal Group Technique. Information Technology and Management 4, 391–408 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025134318528

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025134318528

Search

Navigation