Skip to main content
Log in

A Critical Systems Approach to Elicit User-Centric Business Intelligence Business Requirements

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes an action research study where the researcher developed and tested an alternative business requirements elicitation approach that enables reflection on business intelligence business requirements from a social/organisational perspective and, accordingly, surfaces user-centric requirements that support development of systems that are technically good and effectuate organisational improvement. It is based on critical systems heuristics, a framework that facilitates participative discourse to surface contributing and consequential factors of a planned social system, i.e. relevant sources of motivation; expertise; inflicting and controlling boundaries; and sources of moral and political justification acting as guardians for all that will be impacted upon by the adjusted social reality caused by the new system. Such an approach is valuable to developers of business intelligence systems; it complements traditional requirements gathering approaches. Present-day organisations require efficacious decision-making capabilities to succeed—business intelligence systems enable efficacious decisions. However, business intelligence systems often fail, at great expenses to organisations. They fail due to social/organisational infeasibility, rather than technical insufficiency; they fail when developers lack adequate understanding of users’ business requirements. Appropriate business requirement specifications entail more than definitions of functional, non-functional and technical attributes of new systems. Business requirements must also capture the social/organisational context of a system, i.e. the impact that it will inevitably have on users and the organisational environment, so as to ensure that it ultimately bring about improvement. The approach developed in this study enables elicitation of user-centric business requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Avison D, Fitzgerald G (2006) Information systems development: methodologies, techniques & tools. McGraw-Hill, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2011) Autobiographical retrospectives: learning your way to 'action to improve' - the development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology. Int J Gen Syst 40:487–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2011.571437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Holwell S (1998) Information, systems, and information systems: making sense of the field. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg B, Shaw D (2008) Using process-oriented holonic (PrOH) modelling to increase understanding of information systems. Inf Syst J 18:447–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00308.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Company (2014a) Business requirements specification template. Unpublished internal document

  • Company (2014b) Detailed business process. Unpublished internal document

  • De Leon L, Rafferty PD, Herschel R (2012) Replacing the annual budget with business intelligence driver-based forecasts. Intell Inf Manag 4:6–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Delanty G (2011) Varieties of critique in sociological theory and their methodological implications for social research. Ir J Sociol 19:68–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresner Advisory Services L (2012) Wisdom of the Crowd™ Business Intelligence Market Study (R) www.yellowfinbi.com/Document.i4?DocumentId=159663. Accessed 15 May 2014

  • Ezell B, Crowther K (2007) Philosophical issues and their implications for the systems architect. Found Sci 12:269–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-007-9108-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL, Jackson MC (1991) Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner SR (1998) Building the data warehouse. Commun ACM 41:52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner (2011) Business intelligence adoption trends, 2011. http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=256&mode=2&PageID=2350940&ref=WorkGroupWidgetContent&resId=1852916. Accessed 15 May 2013

  • Gartner (2013) Gartner says business intelligence/analytics is top area for CFO technology investment through 2014. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2488616. Accessed 6 November 2013

  • Green R, Mazzuchi T, Sarkani S (2010) Communication and quality in distributed agile development: an empirical case study. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 61:322–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang MI, Hongjiang X (2007) The effect of implementation factors on data warehousing success: an exploratory study. J Inf Inf Technol Organ 2:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Inmon B (2005) World-class business intelligence. DM Rev 15:60–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Inmon B (2006) DW 2.0 DM Review 16:8–25

  • Inmon WH, Imhoff C, Sousa R (2001) Corporate information factory. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Işik Ö, Jones MC, Sidorova A (2013) Business intelligence success: the roles of BI capabilities and decision environments. Inf Manag 50:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball R, Ross M (2010) The Kimball group reader: relentlessly practical tools for data warehousing and business intelligence. Wiley, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Koelsch G (2016) Requirements writing for system engineering. Apress. Distributed to the Book trade worldwide by Springer, New York, p 2016

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leffingwell D (1997) Understanding User Needs. Softw Dev 5:51–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Liautaud B, Hammond M (2001) E-business intelligence: turning information into knowledge into profit. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstedt D (2002) Method and system of data warehousing and building business intelligence using a data storage model

  • MacCormack A (2001) Product-development practices that work: how internet companies build software. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 42:75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Maté A, Trujillo J, Franch X (2014) Adding semantic modules to improve goal-oriented analysis of data warehouses using I-star. J Syst Softw 88:102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.10.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J (1984) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook. Hills, Beverly

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (1980) Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology. J Appl Syst Anal 7:41–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Naur P, Randell B (eds) (1969) Software Engineering: Report on a Conference, Garmisch, Germany. Scientific Affairs Division, NATO, Brussels

  • Newman WM, Lamming MG (1995) Interactive system design. Addison-Wesley, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates BJ (2006) Researching information systems and computing. SAGE, London and Thousand Oaks 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Popovič A, Jaklič J, Hackney R, Coelho PS (2012) Towards business intelligence systems success: effects of maturity and culture on analytical decision making. Decis Support Syst 54:729–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson H, Robinson B (2007) The mysterious case of the missing paradigm: a review of critical information systems research 1991–2001. Inf Syst J 17:251–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00230.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer P, Sommerville I, Viller S (1997) Requirements process improvement through the phased introduction of good practice. Softw Process: Improve Pract 3:19–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shukla AK, Saxena A (2013) Which model is best for the software project "a comparative analysis of software engineering models". Int J Comput Appl 76:18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville I (1996) Software process models ACM. Comput Surv 28:263–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville I (2011) Software engineering, 9th edn. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stair RM, Reynolds G (2008) Principles of business information systems. Thomson Learning

  • Thorne S (2000) Data analysis in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs 3:68–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.3.3.68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning. Haupt, Bern

  • Ulrich W (1998) Systems thinking as if people mattered: critical systems thininking for citizens and managers. University of Lincolnshire and Humberside, Lincoln School of Management

  • Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc 54:325–342. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2005) A brief introduction to critical systems heuristics (CSH). http://wulrich.com/downloads/ulrich_2005f.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014

  • Ulrich W (2013) Critical systems thinking. In: Gass SI, Fu MC (eds) Encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Springer, New York, pp 314–326

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Venter C, Goede R (2017) The use of critical systems heuristics to surface and reconcile Users' conflicting visions for a business intelligence. System. Syst Pract Action Res 30:407–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9401-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeoh W, Koronios A (2010) Critical success factors for business intelligence systems. J Comput Inf Syst 50:23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeoh W, Popovič A (2016) Extending the understanding of critical success factors for implementing business intelligence systems. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67:134–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Wildemuth BM (2016) Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a portion of the author’s PhD study that was done under supervision of Prof R Goede of the North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carin Venter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Venter, C. A Critical Systems Approach to Elicit User-Centric Business Intelligence Business Requirements. Syst Pract Action Res 32, 481–500 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9468-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9468-5

Keywords

Navigation