Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC

Having developed, used and evaluated some of the early IBIS-based approaches to design rationale (DR) such as gIBIS and QOC in the late 1980s/mid-1990s, we describe the subsequent evolution of the argumentation-based paradigm through software support, and perspectives drawn from modeling and meeting facilitation. Particular attention is given to the challenge of negotiating the overheads of capturing this form of rationale. Our approach has maintained a strong emphasis on keeping the representational scheme as simple as possible to enable real time meeting mediation and capture, attending explicitly to the skills required to use the approach well, particularly for the sort of participatory, multi-stakeholder requirements analysis demanded by many design problems. However, we can then specialize the notation and the way in which the tool is used in the service of specific methodologies, supported by a customizable hypermedia environment, and interoperable with other software tools. After presenting this approach, called Compendium, we present examples to illustrate the capabilities for support security argumentation in requirements engineering, template driven modeling for document generation, and IBIS-based indexing of and navigation around video records of meetings

Rationale Management Challenges in Requirements Engineering

Rationale and rationale management have been playing an increasingly prominent role in software system development mainly due to the knowledge demand during system evaluation, maintenance, and evolution, especially for large and complex systems. The rationale management for requirements engineering, as a commencing and critical phase in software development life cycle, is still under-exploited. In this paper, we first survey briefly the state-of-the-art on rationale employment and applications in requirements engineering. Secondly, we identify the challenges in integrating rationale management in requirements engineering activities in order to promote further investigations and define a research agenda on rationale management in requirements engineering.

Managing the requirements engineering process

Process management is a crucial issue in developing information or computer systems. Theories of software development process management suggest that the process should be supported and managed based on what the process really is. However, our learning from an action research study reveals that the requirements engineering (RE) process differs significantly from what the current literature tends to describe. The process is not a systematic, smooth and incremental evolution of the requirements model, but involves occasional simplification and restructuring of the requirements model. This revised understanding of the RE process suggests a new challenge to both the academic and industrial communities, demanding new process management approaches. In this paper, we present our understanding of the RE process and its implications for process management.<br /

Lightweight Interaction Modeling in Evolutionary Prototyping

The paper discusses a systematic integration of evolutionary and exploratory prototyping of interactive systems by a lightweight use of formal methods. Formal models guide the development of the underdesigned evolutionary prototype. In combination with techniques from Design Rationale, they implement theexploration and assessment of possible solutions to open design questions. Models and corresponding tool support are used to express design options and to make them more accessible to a broader audience by the creation of parallel model-guided throwaway extensions of the current evolutionary prototype. They are also used to describe design constraints (for example, in terms of tasks or in terms of actions on artifacts) and to assess design options against these criteria. The suggested approach is demonstrated through an example design scenario that shows an intertwining of different design activities and discusses the role of formal models. In particular, the scenario describes a coupling of HOPS models, QOC diagrams, and Java prototypes

Sensemaking on the Pragmatic Web: A Hypermedia Discourse Perspective

The complexity of the dilemmas we face on an organizational, societal and global scale forces us into sensemaking activity. We need tools for expressing and contesting perspectives flexible enough for real time use in meetings, structured enough to help manage longer term memory, and powerful enough to filter the complexity of extended deliberation and debate on an organizational or global scale. This has been the motivation for a programme of basic and applied action research into Hypermedia Discourse, which draws on research in hypertext, information visualization, argumentation, modelling, and meeting facilitation. This paper proposes that this strand of work shares a key principle behind the Pragmatic Web concept, namely, the need to take seriously diverse perspectives and the processes of meaning negotiation. Moreover, it is argued that the hypermedia discourse tools described instantiate this principle in practical tools which permit end-user control over modelling approaches in the absence of consensus

Collaborative design : managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives

This paper focuses on two characteristics of collaborative design with respect to cooperative work: the importance of work interdependencies linked to the nature of design problems; and the fundamental function of design cooperative work arrangement which is the confrontation and combination of perspectives. These two intrinsic characteristics of the design work stress specific cooperative processes: coordination processes in order to manage task interdependencies, establishment of common ground and negotiation mechanisms in order to manage the integration of multiple perspectives in design

Design rationale for the regulatory approval of medical devices

Design rationale is a methodology aimed at capturing and representing design decisions according to a designated structure. Additionally, these design decisions and their underlying arguments can be made available for examination at a later date. The literature review identified that there is currently a lack of information describing the use of design rationale methods and computational support tools with the medical device domain. Furthermore, the review of literature has also recognised that there are no existing guidelines available for medical device manufacturers and regulatory authorities to follow in order to capture and represent the design decisions in the case of medical devices. Medical devices are instruments which are used for diagnosis, screening, monitoring, or the treating of patients suffering from disease, injury, or disability. Medical devices are products that require rigorous regulation before they can be placed onto the market. If problems are encountered with a device once it has been placed onto the market, the device is recalled by the relevant regulatory authority. Device recalls can often result in the device manufacturers having to evaluate the design decisions that were made during the product development stages in order to address the reported problems and implement a solution. As a result, medical device manufacturers can incur unexpected rework and/or redesign costs, and in even more severe circumstances, incur high litigation costs. This research; reviews the state-of-the-art in design rationale and identifies its key capabilities, analyses design rationale’s feasibility for use with the medical device domain, identifies the regulatory approval processes for medical devices and compares them, analyses the possibilities of utilising design rationale with the regulatory approval of medical devices, and develops a set of guidelines. The guidelines detail the necessary steps that are required to capture and represent the design decisions for medical devices. The utility of this contribution has been verified through the process of validation with experts and researchers.Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Counci