Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 35–61 | Cite as

Small-Scale Classification Schemes: A Field Study of Requirements Engineering

  • Morten Hertzum


Small-scale classification schemes are used extensively in the coordination of cooperative work. This study investigates the creation and use of a classification scheme for handling the system requirements during the redevelopment of a nation-wide information system. This requirements classification inherited a lot of its structure from the existing system and rendered requirements that transcended the framework laid out by the existing system almost invisible. As a result, the requirements classification became a defining element of the requirements-engineering process, though its main effects remained largely implicit. The requirements classification contributed to constraining the requirements-engineering process by supporting the software engineers in maintaining some level of control over the process. This way, the requirements classification provided the software engineers with an important means of discretely balancing the contractual aspect of requirements engineering against facilitating the users in an open-ended search for their system requirements. The requirements classification is analysed in terms of the complementary concepts of boundary objects and coordination mechanisms. While coordination mechanisms focus on how classification schemes enable cooperation among people pursuing a common goal, boundary objects embrace the implicit consequences of classification schemes in situations involving conflicting goals. Moreover, the requirements specification focused on functional requirements and provided little information about why these requirements were considered relevant. This stands in contrast to the discussions at the project meetings where the software engineers made frequent use of both abstract goal descriptions and concrete examples to make sense of the requirements. This difference between the written requirements specification and the oral discussions at the meetings may help explain software engineers' general preference for people, rather than documents, as their information sources.

classification schemes conceptual design cooperative work coordination requirements engineering requirements specification small-scale classification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albrechtsen, Hanne and Elin J. Jacob (1998): The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library. Library Trends, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 293–312.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, Ann P. (1999): Document Structure and Digital Libraries: How Researchers Mobilize Information in Journal Articles. Information Processing & Management, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boehm, Barry W. (1991): Software Risk Management: Principles and Practices. IEEE Software, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowker, Geoffrey C. (1998): The Kindness of Strangers: Kinds and Politics in Classification Systems. Library Trends, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 255–292.Google Scholar
  5. Bowker, Geoffrey and Susan L. Star (1991): Situations vs. Standards in Long-Term, Wide-Scale Decision-Making: The Case of the International Classification of Diseases. In J.F. Nunamaker and R.H. Sprague (eds.): Proceedings of the 24th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol.IV, Koloa, Hawaii, January 8–11, 1991. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 73–81.Google Scholar
  6. Bowker, Geoffrey C. and Susan L. Star (1999): Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, John S. and Paul Duguid (1996): The Social Life of Documents. First Monday, vol. 1, no. 1, (consulted June 3, 2002).Google Scholar
  8. Button, Graham and Wes Sharrock (1996): Project Work: The Organisation of Collaborative Design and Development in Software Engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll, John M., Wendy A. Kellogg and Mary B. Rosson (1991): The Task-Artifact Cycle. In J.M. Carroll (ed.): Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 74–102.Google Scholar
  10. Carstensen, Peter H. and Carsten Sørensen (1996): From the Social to the Systemic. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtis, Bill, Herb Krasner and Neil Iscoe (1988): A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large systems. Communications of the ACM, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1268–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillon, Andrew (1991): Readers' Models of Text Structures: The Case of Academic Articles. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 913–925.Google Scholar
  13. Dillon, Andrew (1994): Designing Usable Electronic Text: Ergonomic Aspects of Human Information Usage. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Ehn, Pelle (1989): Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm, Sweden: Arbetslivscentrum.Google Scholar
  15. Eodice, Michael T., Renate Fruchter and Larry J. Leifer (1999): Towards a Theory of Engineering Requirements Definition. In B. Lindemann and V. Meerkamm (eds.): Proceedings of the ICED 99 International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. III, Munich, Germany, August 24–26, 1999. Garching, Germany: Technische Universität München, pp. 1541–1546.Google Scholar
  16. Finkelstein, A., J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, L. Finkelstein and M. Goedicke (1992): Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, Harold (1967): 'Good' Organizational Reasons for 'Bad' Clinic Records. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 186–207.Google Scholar
  18. Grudin, Jonathan (1996): Evaluating Opportunities for Design Capture. In T.P. Moran and J.M. Carroll (eds.): Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 453–470.Google Scholar
  19. Hertzum, Morten (1999): Six Roles of Documents in Professionals' Work. In S. Bødker, M. Kyng and K. Schmidt (eds.): ECSCW'99: Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 12–16, 1999. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluver, pp. 41–60.Google Scholar
  20. Hertzum, Morten (2000): People as Carriers of Experience and Sources of Commitment: Information Seeking in a Software Design Project. New Review of Information Behaviour Research, vol. 1, pp. 135–149.Google Scholar
  21. Hertzum, Morten and Annelise M. Pejtersen (2000): The Information-Seeking Practices of Engineers: Searching for Documents as well as for People. Information Processing & Management, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Higgins, Christopher A. and Frank R. Safayeni (1984): A Critical Appraisal of Task Taxonomies as a Tool for Studying Office Activities. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keil, Mark, Paul E. Cule, Kalle Lyytinen and Roy C. Schmidt (1998): A Framework for Identifying Software Project Risks. Communications of the ACM, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kircz, Joost G. (1998): Modularity: The Next Form of Scientific Information Presentation? Journal of Documentation, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 210–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leveson, Nancy G. (2000): Intent Specifications: An Approach to Building Human-Centered Specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moran, Thomas P. and John M. Carroll (eds.) (1996): Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Naur, Peter (1965): The Place of Programming in a World of Problems, Tools, and People. In W. Kalenich (ed.): Proceedings of the IFIP Congress 65. Washington, DC: Spartan Books, pp. 195–199 [Reprinted 1992 in P. Naur: Computing: A Human Activity. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  28. Nuseibeh, Bashar, Jeff Kramer and Anthony Finkelstein (1994): A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 760–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olson, Hope A. (1998): Mapping Beyond Dewey's Boundaries: Constructing Classificatory Space for Marginalized Knowledge Domains. Library Trends, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
  30. Parnas, David L. and Paul C. Clements (1986): A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 251–257.Google Scholar
  31. Pejtersen, Annelise M. and Hanne Albrechtsen (2000): Ecological Work Based Classification Schemes. Advances in Knowledge Organization, vol. 7, pp. 97–110.Google Scholar
  32. Potts, Colin and Lara Catledge (1996): Collaborative Conceptual Design: A Large Software Project Case Study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 415–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rasmussen, Jens, Annelise M. Pejtersen and L.P. Goodstein (1994): Cognitive Systems Engineering. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, Kjeld (1999): Of Maps and Scripts: The Status of Formal Constructs in Cooperative Work. Information and Software Technology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt, Kjeld and Liam Bannon (1992): Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 1, nos. 1–2, pp. 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt, Kjeld and Carla Simone (1996): Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW System Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 5, nos. 2–3, pp. 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon, Herbert A. (1973): The Structure of Ill Structured Problems. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, nos. 3–4, pp. 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simone, Carla and Marcello Sarini (2001): Adaptability of Classification Schemes in Cooperation: What Does It Mean? In W. Prinz, M. Jarke, Y. Rogers, K. Schmidt and V. Wulf (eds.): ECSCW 2001: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Bonn, Germany, September 16–20, 2001. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  39. Sommerville, Ian (1996): Software Engineering. Fifth Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. Star, Susan L. (1989): The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. In L. Gasser and M.N. Huhns (eds.): Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. II. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
  41. Star, Susan L. and James R. Griesemer (1989): Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 387–420.Google Scholar
  42. Walz, Diane B., Joyce J. Elam and Bill Curtis (1993): Inside a Software Design Team: Knowledge Acquisition, Sharing, and Integration. Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morten Hertzum
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Human-Machine InteractionRisø National LaboratoryDenmark

Personalised recommendations