Requirements Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 345–362 | Cite as

GDIA: Eliciting information requirements in emergency first response

Original Article

Abstract

Good information is vital for first responders in an emergency. However, although information systems can provide vast amounts of data, the information requirements of emergency first responders in complex, dynamic, ad hoc, and stressful environments cannot be systematically captured by existing requirement engineering approaches. This paper outlines the unique features of emergency response operations first and then drives an emergency-response-specific method to suit those features. The method is named as goal-directed information analysis (GDIA), which is based on but easier to use than an approach, goal-directed task analysis. We argue that goals are implicit and thus difficult to be captured from first responders because of the features of the emergency operations. GDIA starts from scenarios and has seven clearly defined and repeatable steps, including task analysis, which then leads to a simpler and more accurate analysis of the goal structure, before the rest of the hierarchy, including decisions and information requirements, is completed. A case study is presented using this GDIA approach to retrieve information requirements for four types of key fire fighters responding to a fire in a high-risk building environment. This work led to several real applications in the emergency service area, indicating the success of the approach.

Keywords

Information requirements elicitation Emergency response Goal-directed information analysis Situational awareness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was financially supported by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) in the UK through the SafetyNET Project (TP/3/PIT/6/I/16993). Appreciation also goes to the Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Services and the UK Fire Protection Association for their support of this research and allowing the authors to conduct interviews, field studies, and training observations with them. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions that improved the quality of this paper significantly.

References

  1. 1.
    Ali R, Dalpiaz F, Giorgini P (2010) A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modelling and analysis. Requir Eng 15:439–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berrouard D, Cziner K, Boukalov A (2006) Emergency scenario user perspective in public safety communications systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd information systems for crisis response and management conference (ISCRAM2006), Newark, NJ, USA, 14–17 May, pp 386–396Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boeije H (2002) A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant 36(1):391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Leoni M, De Rosa F, Marrella A, Mecella M, Poggi A, Krek A, Manti F (2007) Emergency management: from user requirements to a flexible P2P architecture. In: Proceedings of the 4th information systems for crisis response and management conference (ISCRAM2007), Delft, Netherlands, 13–16 May, pp 271–279Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diehl S, Neuvel JMM, Zlatanova S, Scholten HJ (2006) Investigation of user requirements in the emergency response sector: the Dutch case. In: Second symposium on Gi4DM, Goa, India, 25–26 September, CD ROM, pp 6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endsley MR, Bolstad CA, Jones DG, Riley JM (2003a) Situation awareness oriented design: from user’s cognitive requirements to creating effective supporting technologies. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 47th annual meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA, 13–17 October, pp 268–272Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Endsley MR, Bolte B, Jones DG (2003) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to human-centered design. Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hancock B, Windridge K, Ockleford E (2007) Introduction to qualitative research. Trent RDSU Focus Group, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffman RR, Militello LG (2008) Perspectives on cognitive task analysis: historical origins and modern communities of practice. Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Javed Y, Norris T, Johnson D (2010) A design approach to an emergency decision support system for mass evacuation. In: Proceedings of the 7th international ISCRAM conference, Seattle, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Javed Y (2012) Design and evaluation of mass evacuation support systems using ontologies for improved situation awareness, PhD thesis, Page 90, Massey University, Albany, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Javed Y, Norris T, Johnson D (2012) Evaluating SAVER: measuring shared and team situation awareness of emergency decision makers. In: Proceedings of the 9th international ISCRAM conference, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jennex ME (2007) Modeling emergency response systems. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2007). Big Island, Hawaii, 3–6 January, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones DG, Endsley MR (2005) Goal-directed task analysis. In: Hoffman RR, Crandall B, Klein G, Jones DG, Endsley MR (eds) Protocols for cognitive task analysis. Advanced decision architectures collaborative technology alliance, US Army Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landgren J (2006) Making action visible in time-critical work. In: Proceedings of ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Canada, pp 201–210Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lapouchnian A (2005) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an overview of the current research. http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/4499428/goal-oriented-requirements-engineering-an-overview-of-the-current-research
  17. 17.
    Maguire M, Bevan N (2002) User requirements analysis: a review of supporting methods. In: Proceedings of the IFIP 17th world computer congress. Montreal, Canada, 25–29 August, pp 133–148Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pitula K, Radhakrishnan T (2011) On eliciting requirements from end-users in the ICT4D domain. Requir Eng 16:323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robillard J, Sambrook RC (2008) USAF emergency and incident management systems: a systematic analysis of functional requirements. In: White paper for United States Air Force Space Command. http://www.uccs.edu/~rsambroo/Research/EIM_REQS.pdf
  21. 21.
    Rolland C, Souveyet C, Achour CB (1998) Guiding goal modelling using scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1055–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roth EM, Patterson ES, Mumaw RJ (2002) Cognitive engineering: issues in user-centred system design. In: Marciniak JJ (ed) Encyclopedia of software engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, NY, pp 163–179Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seyff N, Maiden N, Karlsen K, Lockerbie J, Grunbacher P, Graf F, Ncue C (2009) Exploring how to use scenarios to discover requirements. Requir Eng 14:91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sommerville I, Cliff D, Calinescu R, Keen J, Kelly T, Kwiatkowska M, Mcdermid J, Paige R (2012) Large-scale complex IT systems. Commun ACM 55(7):71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: RE 2001. IEEE Computer Society, pp 249–262Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Lamsweerde A (2009) Requirements engineering: from system goals to UML models to software specifications. Wiley, New York, pp 259–279Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang L (2007) On-site information sharing for emergency response management. J Emerg Manag 5(5):55–64Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yang L, Prasanna R, King M (2009) On-site information systems design for emergency first responders. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 10(1):5–27MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maiden N, Jones S, Ncube C, Lockerbie J (2011) Using i* in requirements projects: some experiences and lessons. In: Yu E, Giorgini P, Maiden N, Mylopoulos J (eds) Social modeling for requirements engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 155–186Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zave P, Jackson M (1997) Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 6(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.Joint Centre for Disaster ResearchMassey UniversityWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations