Reference no: EM13729811

The Case for this Module invites you to look at the idea of requirements analysis as an expression of more than just a rather mechanical elicitation of "needs" -- as, in fact, a potentially politically charged process in which social and technical criteria are likely to become intermixed. The following articles generally sums up the standard process of requirements analysis in the context of stakeholder needs.

Gottesdiener, E. (2008). YAGNI Your requirements documentation. EBG Consulting, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.ebgconsulting.com/IIBA-Agile/YAGNI_Your_Requirements_Documentation_E_Gottesdiener.pdf

Sauter, V. (2007) Feasibility. Retrieved from https://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/feasibility.htm

Ambler, S. W. (2011). Agile requirements modeling. Agile Modeling. Retrieved from https://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/agileRequirements.htm

The US government has a major interest in website usability, as a result of a mandate given to it by the Americans with Disabilities Act. DHHS has issued fairly specific guidelines for how usability might be assessed and tested, including the use of specific personas. The site can be used to illustrate and augment knowledge of how requirements are used in systems development.

Usability.gov (N.D.) Evaluate your current site: Usability methods. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.usability.gov/methods/analyze_current/index.html. Please review all subsections: Evaluate Your Current Site; Learn About Your Users; Task Analysis; Personas; Scenarios; Measurable Usability Goals

Case Assignment
Read the assigned readings, supplemented if you wish with material from the optional readings and perhaps the supplementary background as well, and even other outside reading you might find by yourself to be useful. Then write a short paper stating your position on the question:

"What are the main data collection techniques to elicit requirements? Is one better than another? What is the preferred method?"

Your paper should be short (5-6 pages, not including cover sheet and references) and to the point. It is to be structured as a point/counterpoint argument, in the following manner.

You are expected to:

Begin this paper by stating your position on this question clearly and concisely
Citing appropriate sources, present the reasons why you take this position. Be sure to make the most effective case you can.
Then present the best evidence you can, again citing appropriate sources, against your position -- that is, establish what counterarguments can be made to your original position.
Finally, review your original position in light of the counterarguments, showing how they are inadequate to rebut your original statement.
By the end of your paper, you should be able to unequivocally re-affirm your original position.

You will be particularly assessed on:

Your ability to see what the module is all about and to structure your paper accordingly.
Your informed commentary and analysis -- simply repeating what your sources say does not constitute an adequate paper.
Your ability to apply the professional language and terminology of systems design and analysis correctly and in context; you are expected to be familiar with this language and use it appropriately.
Your effective and appropriate use of in-text citations to the assigned readings and other source material to support your arguments. Refer to the TUI Course Guidelines and or the Purdue University APA formatting and style guide (see optional readings for Module 1) for the proper formats. General Case and SLP Paper Writing Guidelines
Assignment Expectations (50 points total)
Length: Follow the number of pages required in the assignment excluding cover page and references. Each page should have about 300 words.

Assignment-driven criteria (25 points): Demonstrates clear understanding of the subject and addresses all key elements of the assignment.

Critical thinking (10 points): Demonstrates mastery conceptualizing the problem. Shows analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of required material.

Scholarly writing (5 points): Demonstrates writing proficiency at the academic level of the course; addresses the Learning Outcomes of the assignment.

Quality of references (4 points) and assignment organization (3 points): Uses relevant and credible sources to support assertions. Assignment is well organized and follows the structure of a well-written paper.

Citing sources (3 points): Uses in-text citations and properly formats references in APA style.