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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Scheme 1.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.

References

  1. 1.

    Shama A (2001) Dot-coms' coma. J Syst Softw 56(1):101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rogers EM (1999) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York

  3. 3.

    Gordijn J (2002) Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Also available from http://www.cs.vu.nl/~gordijn/

  4. 4.

    Loucopoulos P, Karakostas V (1995) System requirements engineering. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, UK

  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):31–58

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sommerville I, Sawyer P (1997) Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Ann Softw Eng 3:101–130

    Article  Google 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 97-11

  8. 8.

    Fowler M, Scott K (1995) UML distilled: applying the Standard Object Modelling Language. Addison-Wesley Longmann, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I, Booch G (1999) The Unified Modelling Language reference manual. Addison-Wesley Longmann, Reading, MA

  10. 10.

    van Hee KM (1994) Information systems engineering: a formal approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ould MA (1995) Business processes: modelling and analysis for re-engineering and improvement. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Davenport TH (1993) Process innovation : reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    Google 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 49–68

  14. 14.

    Meyer B (1985) On formalism in specifications. IEEE Softw 2(1):6–26

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wiegers KE (1999) Software requirements. Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA

  16. 16.

    Antón AI, Potts C (1998) A representational framework for scenarios of system use. Requirements Eng 3(3/4):219–241

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Buhr RJA (1998) Use case maps as architectural entities for complex systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1131–1155

    Article  Google 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, Namur

  19. 19.

    Holbrook MB (1999) Consumer value: a framework for analysis and research. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Porter ME (2001) Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Rev March:63–78

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Tapscott D, Ticoll D, Lowy A (2000) Digital capital—harnessing the power of business webs. Nicholas Brealy, London

  22. 22.

    Borst WN, Akkermans JM, Top JL (1997) Engineering ontologies. Int J Hum–Comput Stud 46:365–406

    Google 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 16–31

  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 http://www.cs.vu.nl/~gordijn/

  25. 25.

    Gordijn J, Akkermans JM (2001) Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intell Syst – Intelligent e-Business 16(4):11–17

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Uschold M, King M, Moralee S, Zorgios Y (1998) The enterprise ontology. Knowl Eng Rev 13(1):31–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kotler P (1988) Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation and control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Normann R, Ramírez R (1994) Designing interactive strategy: from value chain to value constellation. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Davidow WH, Malone MS (1992) The virtual corporation: structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Choi S-Y, Stahl DO, Whinston AB (1997) The economics of doing business in the electronic marketplace. Macmillan Technical, Indianapolis, IN

  31. 31.

    Evans P, Wurster TS (2000) Blown to bits: how the new economics of information transforms strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Timmers P (1999) Electronic commerce: strategies and models for business-to-business trading. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Horngren CT, Foster G (1987) Cost accounting: a managerial emphasis, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google 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 http://www.cs.vu.nl/~gordijn/

  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):181–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen PA (1999) Action research. Commun ACM 42(1):94–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Checkland P, Holwell S (1995) Business processes: modelling and analysis for re-engineering and improvement. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun AIS 2(3):4

    Google 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 http://www.cs.vu.nl/~gordijn/

  40. 40.

    Fox MS, Gruninger M (1998) Enterprise modelling. AI Mag 19(3):109–121

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Geerts G, McCarthy WE (1999) An accounting object infrastructure for knowledge-based enterprise models. IEEE Intell Syst App July/August:89–94

  42. 42.

    McCarthy WE (1982) The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Account Rev 554–578

    Google 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 128–139

  45. 45.

    Fowler M (1997) Analysis patterns. Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, MA

  46. 46.

    Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1997) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley Longmann, Reading, MA

    Google 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.com

  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.com

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaap Gordijn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gordijn, J., Akkermans, J. Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Eng 8, 114–134 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-003-0169-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Action research
  • Conceptual modelling
  • E-commerce
  • Economic value