what-when-how
In Depth Tutorials and Information
2 = Strong opposition, that is, the proposal will most likely bring detrimental
effects in achieving the objective
1 = Strongest opposition, that is, the proposal will definitely bring detrimental
effects in achieving the objective
For example, in the above “define quality attributes” design task, the proposal from the
product manager is to define performance and usability. Her proposal will be measured
by each stakeholder against every objective attribute. Table 8.2 describes the measure-
ment results, which are either calculated by numeric value in case of a natural attribute
or stakeholders' perspectives in case of a support-versus-opposition attribute.
8.3.4.2.3 Step 6a—Argument Generation and Exchange
In generating the negotiation arguments, claims and data are collected from the
baseline process representing technical decisions. Warrant, backing, qualifiers, and
rebuttals are obtained from the objective hierarchy and stakeholders' perspective
models. Based on Toulmin's definition of structure, the claim is the proposal of the
argument. In our approach, the claim is how a stakeholder proposes to implement
the design task in terms of the sequence of the actions/objects. he data consists
of the initial state of the task—the joint agreement achieved by the design team
before they work on this task. he warrant is the set of the objectives that the team
wants to achieve from this task based on the initial state. herefore, the data actu-
ally validates the feasibility and applicability of the claim, and the warrant justifies
validation between the data and the claim. he backing consists of the attributes of
each objective that further explain the objectives by describing their measurement
criteria and then validating the relationship among the objectives, the proposal, and
the current state of agreement. Qualifier and rebuttal are actually the measurement
results regarding how well the proposal achieves its own objectives and the objec-
tives proposed by the team. he measurement results (qualiier) can indicate the
degree of desire of the stakeholder for the proposal, while the measurement results
(rebuttal) describe the possibility that the proposal (claim) fails.
To build a negotiation argument in this way, stakeholders will have a better
understanding of each other because they share not only their claims but also their
underlining reasons and desires (e.g., perspectives). Figure 8.6 describes an argument
example from an engineer's perspective. As shown in the figure, the claim for the
task “define quality attributes” is to define the attributes of performance and security
for the engineering system. he data describes the initial state (of this task), which
includes design requirements, application constraints, and architecture style. To jus-
tify the use of the data, the warrant has fundamental and intermediate objectives
that state why the claim is proposed. he backing of this argument is the attributes
that further explain the warrant by providing its measurement scales. he measure-
ment result given by the engineer for his/her own objectives is included in a qualifier,
while the measurement result for the team's objectives is the rebuttal that describes
Search WWH ::




Custom Search