Substantiating Agent-Based Quality Goals for Understanding Socio-Technical Systems

  • Sonja Pedell
  • Tim Miller
  • Leon Sterling
  • Frank Vetere
  • Steve Howard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7068)


In this paper we propose a method for using ethnographic field data to substantiate agent-based models for socially-oriented systems. We use the agent paradigm because the ability to represent organisations, individuals, and interactions is ideal for modelling socio-technical systems. We present the results of in-situ use of a domestic application created to encourage engagement between grandparents and grandchildren separated by distance. In such domains, it is essential to consider abstract and complex quality requirements such as showing presence and sharing fun. The success of such domestic technologies is based on the meaningful realisation of these difficult-to-define quality goals. Our method addresses the need to adequately inform these quality goals with field data.

We substantiate the quality goals with field data collected by introducing an application into the home of three families. The field data adds an understanding of what sharing fun means when “filled” with concrete activities. The quality goals served as a template to explore and represent the rich field data, while the field data helped to formulate the requirements for a more complex and refined technology. This paper’s contribution is twofold. First, we extend the understanding of agent-oriented concepts by applying them to household interactions. Second, we make a methodological contribution by establishing a new method for informing quality goals with field data.


Socially-oriented requirements ethnography quality goals 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ballagas, R., Kaye, J.J., Ames, M., Go, J., Raffle, H.: Family communication: phone conversations with children. In: Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 321–324. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blakemore, K.: Social Policy: an Introduction. Open University Press (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-functional requirements in software engineering (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evjemo, B., Svendsen, G.B., Rinde, E., Johnsen, J.A.K.: Supporting the distributed family: the need for a conversational context. In: Proceedings of the NordiCHI 2004, pp. 309–312. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia, A., Medinilla, N.: The ambiguity criterion in software design. In: International Workshop on Living with Uncertainties (IWLU 2007), ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gause, D.: User driven design – the luxury that has become a necessity, a workshop in full life-cycle requirements management. In: ICRE 2000, Tutorial T7 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guizzardi, R., Perini, A.: Analyzing requirements of knowledge management systems with the support of agent organizations. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society 11(1), 51–62 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howard, S., Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B.: Pervasive computing in the domestic space. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11(5), 329–333 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchinson, H., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B.B., Druin, A., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Evans, H., Roussel, N.: Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 17–24. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iqbal, R., James, A., Gatward, R.: Designing with ethnography: An integrative approach to CSCW design. Advanced Engineering Informatics 19(2), 81–92 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jureta, I., Faulkner, S.: Clarifying goal models. In: Grundy, J., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of ER. CRPIT, vol. 83, pp. 139–144 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leonardi, C., Mennecozzi, C., et al.: Knocking on elders’ door: investigating the functional and emotional geography of their domestic space. In: Proceedings of OZCHI 2009, pp. 1703–1712. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paay, J., Sterling, L., Vetere, F., Howard, S., Boettcher, A.: Engineering the social: The role of shared artifacts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67(5), 437–454 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pavón, J., Arroyo, M., Hassan, S., Sansores, C.: Agent-based modelling and simulation for the analysis of social patterns. Pattern Recognition Letters 29(8), 1039–1048 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Romero, N., Markopoulos, P., Baren, J., Ruyter, B., Ijsselsteijn, W., Farshchian, B.: Connecting the family with awareness systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11(4), 312 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sterling, L., Taveter, K.: The Art of Agent-Oriented Modelling. MIT Press (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Viller, S., Sommerville, I.: Ethnographically informed analysis for software engineers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53(1), 169–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zafiroglu, A., Chang, M.: Digital homes on wheels: designing for the unimagined home. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11(5), 395–402 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonja Pedell
    • 1
  • Tim Miller
    • 2
  • Leon Sterling
    • 3
  • Frank Vetere
    • 1
  • Steve Howard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Software EngineeringUniversity of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of ICTSwinburne UniversityVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations