Requirements Engineering

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 114–134 | Cite as

Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas

  • Jaap GordijnEmail author
  • J.M. Akkermans
Original Article


Innovative e-commerce ideas are characterised by commercial products yet unknown to the market, enabled by information technology such as the Internet and technologies on top of it. How to develop such products is hardly known. We propose an interdisciplinary approach, e 3 -value, to explore an innovative e-commerce idea with the aim of understanding such an idea thoroughly and evaluating it for potential profitability. Our methodology exploits a requirements engineering way of working, but employs concepts and terminology from business science, marketing and axiology. It shows how to model business requirements and improve business–IT alignment, in sophisticated multi-actor value constellations that are common in electronic commerce. In addition to the e 3 -value approach methodology, we also present the action research-based development of our methodology, by using one of the longitudinal projects we carried out in the field of online news article provisioning.


Action research Conceptual modelling E-commerce Economic value 



This work has been partly sponsored by the Stichting voor Technische Wetenschappen (STW), project VWI.4949, EU-IST project IST-2001-33144 Obelix and EU-EESD project NNE5-2001-00256 BusMod.


  1. 1.
    Shama A (2001) Dot-coms' coma. J Syst Softw 56(1):101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers EM (1999) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gordijn J (2002) Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Also available from Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loucopoulos P, Karakostas V (1995) System requirements engineering. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein L, Goedicke M (1992) Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 2(1):31–58Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Ann Softw Eng 3:101–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Motschnig-Pitrig R, Nissen HW, Jarke M (1997) View-directed requirements engineering: a framework and metamodel. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE'97), June 1997. Also CREWS Report 97-11Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler M, Scott K (1995) UML distilled: applying the Standard Object Modelling Language. Addison-Wesley Longmann, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I, Booch G (1999) The Unified Modelling Language reference manual. Addison-Wesley Longmann, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Hee KM (1994) Information systems engineering: a formal approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ould MA (1995) Business processes: modelling and analysis for re-engineering and improvement. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davenport TH (1993) Process innovation : reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modeling and Telos. In: Conceptual modelling, databases and CASE: an integrated view of information systems development. Wiley, New York, pp 49–68Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer B (1985) On formalism in specifications. IEEE Softw 2(1):6–26Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiegers KE (1999) Software requirements. Microsoft Press, Redmond, WAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antón AI, Potts C (1998) A representational framework for scenarios of system use. Requirements Eng 3(3/4):219–241Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buhr RJA (1998) Use case maps as architectural entities for complex systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1131–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu ESK, Mylopoulos J (1998) Why goal-oriented requirements engineering. In: Dubois E, Opdahl AL, Pohl K (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (RESFQ 1998). Presses Universitaires de Namur, NamurGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holbrook MB (1999) Consumer value: a framework for analysis and research. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Porter ME (2001) Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Rev March:63–78Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tapscott D, Ticoll D, Lowy A (2000) Digital capital—harnessing the power of business webs. Nicholas Brealy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borst WN, Akkermans JM, Top JL (1997) Engineering ontologies. Int J Hum–Comput Stud 46:365–406Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amyot D, Mussbacher G (2000) On the extension of UML with use case maps concepts. In: Evans A, Kent S, Selic B (eds) UML 2000: The Unified Modeling Language: advancing the standard. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1939. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 16–31Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gordijn J, Akkermans JM, van Vliet JC (2000) Business modelling is not process modelling. In: Liddle SW, Mayr HC (eds) Conceptual modeling for e-business and the web. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1921. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 40–51. Also available from Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gordijn J, Akkermans JM (2001) Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intell Syst – Intelligent e-Business 16(4):11–17Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uschold M, King M, Moralee S, Zorgios Y (1998) The enterprise ontology. Knowl Eng Rev 13(1):31–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kotler P (1988) Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Normann R, Ramírez R (1994) Designing interactive strategy: from value chain to value constellation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davidow WH, Malone MS (1992) The virtual corporation: structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Choi S-Y, Stahl DO, Whinston AB (1997) The economics of doing business in the electronic marketplace. Macmillan Technical, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evans P, Wurster TS (2000) Blown to bits: how the new economics of information transforms strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Timmers P (1999) Electronic commerce: strategies and models for business-to-business trading. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Horngren CT, Foster G (1987) Cost accounting: a managerial emphasis, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gordijn J, Akkermans JM, van Vliet JC, Paalvast ERMR (2000) Selling bits: a matter of creating consumer value. In: Bauknecht K, Madria SK, Pernul G (eds) First international conference on electronic commerce and web technologies (EC-Web 2000). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1875. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 48–62. Also available from Scholar
  35. 35.
    Carroll JM, Rosson MB (1992) Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Trans Inform Syst 10(2):181–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen PA (1999) Action research. Commun ACM 42(1):94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Checkland P, Holwell S (1995) Business processes: modelling and analysis for re-engineering and improvement. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun AIS 2(3):4Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gordijn J, de Bruin H, Akkermans JM (2001) Scenario methods for viewpoint integration in e-business requirements engineering. In: Sprague RH Jr (ed) Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-34). IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA. Also available from Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fox MS, Gruninger M (1998) Enterprise modelling. AI Mag 19(3):109–121Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Geerts G, McCarthy WE (1999) An accounting object infrastructure for knowledge-based enterprise models. IEEE Intell Syst App July/August:89–94Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McCarthy WE (1982) The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Account Rev 554–578Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Baida Z, de Bruin H, Gordijn J (2003) Business cases assessment: from business value to system feasibility. Int J Web Eng Technol (in press)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Bruin H, van Vliet JC (2001) Scenario based generation and evaluation of software architectures. In: Bosch J (ed) Proceedings of the third international conference on generative and component-based software engineering (GCSE 2001). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2186. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 128–139Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fowler M (1997) Analysis patterns. Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1997) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley Longmann, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    BusMod consortium (2001) BusMod Project NNE5-2001-00256: business models in a world characterised by distributed generation. Annex I: Description of work. See also http: //busmod.e3value.comGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Obelix consortium (2001) Obelix Project IST-2001-33144: Ontology-Based ELectronic Integration of CompleX Products and Value Chains: Annex I: Description of work. See also http: //obelix.e3value.comGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1., Centre for e-Business ResearchVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.AKMC Knowledge ManagementKoedijkThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations