Advertisement

Technology-Transfer Requirements Engineering (TTRE) – on the Value of Conceptualizing Alternatives

  • Blagovesta Pirelli
  • Alain Wegmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11158)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a requirements engineering method with a focus on the conceptualization of alternative service offerings. The practical context for our project is based on the first author’s work in a startup. Our proposed method is suitable for exploring market opportunities while specifying a service offering. Our method helps requirements engineering practitioners understand the business and technology worlds by modeling business needs and technical capabilities in the same model.

Keywords

Technology transfer Market-driven requirements engineering Conceptualization Modeling Service design 

References

  1. 1.
    Boman, M., Bubenko Jr., J.A., Johannesson, P., Wangler, B.: Conceptual Modelling. Prentice-Hall, Inc., London (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cleland-Huang, J., Damian, D.: Ready-set-transfer! Technology transfer in the requirements engineering domain. In: 2011 IEEE 19th International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 327–328. IEEE, August 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E.: Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9(2), 284–295 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devine, S.W., Bugnion, E., Rosenblum, M.: Virtualization system including a virtual machine monitor for a computer with a segmented architecture, May 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dos Santos, J.R.F., Albuquerque, A.B., Pinheiro, P.R.: Requirements prioritization in market-driven software: a survey based on large numbers of stakeholders and requirements. In: 2016 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), pp. 67–72. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duarte, C.H.C., Gorschek, T.: Technology transfer-requirements engineering research to industrial practice an open (ended) debate (panel). In: 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 414–415. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gold, R.L.: Roles in sociological field observations. Soc. Forces 36(3), 217–223 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gray, D.E.: Doing Research in the Real World. Sage, London (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maglio, P.P., Spohrer, J.: Fundamentals of service science. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36(1), 18–20 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maglio, P.P., Srinivasan, S., Kreulen, J.T., Spohrer, J.: Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation. Commun. ACM 49(7), 81–85 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J.: Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook. Sage, Beverly Hills (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Artifact types in information systems design science – a literature review. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Popek, G.J., Goldberg, R.P.: Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Commun. ACM 17(7), 412–421 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regev, G., Wegmann, A.: Defining early it system requirements with regulation principles: the lightswitch approach. In: 2004 Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 144–153. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Regnell, B., Brinkkemper, S.: Market-driven requirements engineering for software products. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 287–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 68(1), 1–17 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36(1), 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber, R.: The reflexive researcher. MIS Q. 27(4), v–xiv (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wegmann, A.: On the systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). In: International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wegmann, A., Julia, P., Regev, G., Perroud, O., Rychkova, I.: Early requirements and business-IT alignment with SEAM for business. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2007. pp. 111–114. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zave, P., Jackson, M.: Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 6(1), 1–30 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations