Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
•
Innovation and creativity were important for the researchers, with a strong tech-
nical focus and willingness to adopt new software; however, this clashed with the
PCT analysts' conservatism and concerns about control.
•
Collaboration with outside groups/people is fundamental to our users' way of
working. As well as developing new research and tools, academic researchers
were motivated by profile-raising for their organisation (achievement and altru-
ism to help collaborators, rather than power). However, they rarely share details
of analytical work and display trust and confidence in each others' abilities, which
reveals a continuing tension between trust and data security.
The apparent contradiction between internal and external collaboration was
explained in terms of differences between working styles (personal characteristics).
Security and privacy of data emerged as an important value which was added to
the key issues. A common ground value map for the two stakeholder groups is
illustrated in Fig.
6.
The PCT users were motivated by service to the community and responsibilities
to improve health in the local area, and this implied creative solutions and oppor-
tunistic responses to problems. In contrast, academic researchers were motivated by
the achievement in scientific research and this necessitated valuing a systematic and
methodical approach. Sensitivity to our users' emotional responses has guided the
RE process.
Values analysis was influential in shaping our view of user requirements. One
illustration is the divergence between the two stakeholder groups. The researchers'
values were oriented towards security in data management policies with trust in
data analysis processes. They were concerned with accurate, well documented and
repeatable scientific processes, indicating non-functional requirements (NFRs) such
as reliability, consistency and accuracy in processes, as well as privacy and secu-
rity for data and results from statistical analysis. Health analysts in contrast were
more concerned with creative problem solving, and being responsive to local needs.
Privacy and accuracy were not important values, so their NFRs were flexibility, ease
of use and rapid response times. The conflicting NFRs were resolved by producing
a configurable system, offering the researchers workflows controlling system func-
tions in a consistent and repeatable manner, while the health analysts had access
Public Health
Public Health
Analysts
Public Health
Analysts
Researchers
Researchers
Researchers
Researchers
Analysts
Creative
Opportunistic
Service
Altruism
Responsibility
Privacy
Security
Systematic
Achievements
Co-op
eration?
Trust
Fig. 6
Va l u e ma p f o r
negotiating the common
ground between the
ADVISES stakeholders
Search WWH ::
Custom Search