درس: مهندسي نيازمندي هااستاد: دكتر عبداله زاده

دانشجو: خيرالنسا مرچانتIntegrating Creativity into Requirement

Processes:Experience with an Air Traffic Management

System

Introduction

RE is a creative process in which stakeholders & designers work together to create ideas for new system expressed as requirements.

This paper describe RESCUE a scenario-driven requirement engineering process that includes workshops that integrate creativity techniques with different types of use case & system context modeling.

Here report 3 creativity workshop with RESCUE requirement process to discover new requirement & ideas for MSP (Multi-Sector Planning)

2- RESCUE & Creativity workshops: RESCUE=Requirement Engineering With Scenario

for User Centered Engineering. RESCUE is concurrent engineering process in which

different modeling & analysis process take place in parallel.

The purpose of the workshop is to surface requirements & design ideas needed for use case specification.

RESCUE was designed to separate the creativity workshops from practical requirements activities such as use case specification, requirement acquisition & requirement management.

2.1- Previous Creativity work: Creative thinking Brainstorming CPS (Creative Problem Solving) RAD/JAD workshops Osborn CPS (but no applications of CPS Model to

requirement processes). Roberson , Nguyen & Mich et al.Requirement

domain (but has no exploit of creativity theories or models).

Results: Requirement practitioners lack processes & models that be applied to guide their creative processes.

2.2- Creativity workshops in RESCUE: The workshop activities are designed using 3 established

models of creativity from cognitive & social pshychology. Boden model for each workshop encouraged one of the 3

basic creativity types :

-1 Exploratory –2 combinatorial –3 transformational creativity

creativity types used in Boden model were used to select different creativity techniques for achieving incubation & illumination during convergence & divergence.

Poincare model provided finer-grain processes-incubation & illumination to achieve divergence & convergence.

The CPS model processes provided a coarse-grain structure of repeating ideas divergence & convergence during periods.

Results: the workshop succeeded in establishing a core set of requirements & ideas for DMAN that integrated with structured models used in RESCUE (fig1).

3- The MSP creativity workshops: The works shops were held on sep’203,oct’03 &

nov’03. 3.1 The first Creativity workshop Inputs: context diagram, use case diagram, use case

precis for MSP System by 2 software engineers based on existing MSP reports.

Output: use case precis that were elaborated with story boards.

First day system-wide & use specific brainstroming, constraint identification & removal ,and group brainstroming assuming the removal of selected constraints.

Second day stakeholders listen to experts generated MSP ideas using analogical mapping between traffic & highway management. The ideas were integrated into story boards that elaborated the priority MSP use cases identified by stakeholders.

3.2 The Second Creativity workshop Inputs: use case diagrams & precis updated by the first

workshop by 2 MSP system engineers. Output: use case precis that were again revised & elaborated

with story boards & revised system context diagram. Stakeholders listened to 2 expert presentation :

(a) contract negotiation for generating new MSP ideas about airspace using analogical mappings.

(b) on fusion cooking to demonstrate combinatorial creativity.

3.3 The Third Creativity workshop Inputs: same as in second creativity workshop

+output of second workshop use case diagram + precis.

Output: two 5m-long story boards that structured ideas generated during 3 workshops.

1-day expert presentation on information visualizations to generate candidate MSP representations.

2-day Professional scriptwriter presented the process for writing film scripts to develop rich MSP storyboards integrated results for 1st & 2nd workshops & 1st-day of 3rd workshop.

3.4 Exploratory Creativity with Analysis The analogies were selected to focus on different but key

elements of MSP domain. The first analogy with intelligent highways which shared

surface similarities with ATM as both are in the transport domain .

The 1st workshop experts gave 45 min presentation on intelligent highway systems. Its aim was to encourage the participants to consciously & unconsciously form analogical mapping.

In 2nd workshop experts gave a 45 min presentation on software contract litigation processes (incubation) before facilities guided groups discovery & externalization of analogical mapping, then stakeholders worked in 3 groups of 3 to discover new ideas using mapping (illumination).

3.5 Combinational Creativity Combinational Creativity is a creation of new ideas from

combining & synthesizing existing ideas.3.6 Transformational Creativity In transformational creativity people change the solution space

in a way that things that were considered impossible are now possible.

3.6 Research Question Three research questions about the utility of different

creativity techniques are as follows: 1- During exploratory creativity, will brainstorming or

analogical reasoning generate more idea?2- during combinatorial creativity, will direct idea combination

techniques or story boarding generate more ideas?3- During transformational creativity will constraints removal or

presentation of solution space knowledge generate more ideas?

4- Workshops Results Workshop results are summarized in table 2 are as

follows: 1st workshop: 48 new MSP ideas from brainstorming.

Another 18 by removing constraints on MSP system.11 ideas from analogical reasoning with highway systems.2 storyboards for 2 uses cases.

2nd workshop: 13 new MSP ideas from stroming.7 analogical reasoning with software contract litigation.4 new ideas from combined existing ideas.6 storyboard for 6 use cases.

3rd workshop: 11 information visualization for MSP & one rich storyboard of MSP system.(table 2)

4.1 Open Brainstorming

1st workshop :generated 48 ideas,20 of them described abstract goals of MSP, other 20 described MSP requirements & design features,7 specified the scope of MSP & 1 stated the ambition of MSP.

2nd workshop: generated 13 ideas, 4 described abstract goal of MSP,5described MSP requirement & design features, 2 described statement ambition & 2 described specified MSP scope.

4.2- Analogical Reasoning Here stakeholders generated analogical mapping

between actors, objects, actions, goals & constraints in the intelligent highway &MSP domains.

Finally the results were not as successful as expected.

4.3- removing Constraints Removing Constraints led to the generation of new

MSP ideas & opportunities Removing Constraints led stakeholders to consider

the possible advantage & disadvantage of ideas.

4.4- Presenting solution space knowledge In 3rd workshop one of facilitators gave expert

presentation on information visualization techniques. After incubation periods the stakeholders worked in

groups & generated 11 new information visualizations that described how the MSP might present air space information to human actors.

4.5- Combining ideas directly Combining ideas directly using some simple rules for

e.g. a timeline model of the MSP developed to combine existing MSP ideas, or the different time horizons for planning the use of airspace along x-axis or the role of different stakeholders at different horizons along y-axis.

4.6 -Use Cases & Rich Storyboarding Use cases syntax & semantics such as uses & extends

were in sufficient to provide the MSP team with the structure of the MSP concepts & requirements. Therefore rich storyboards were developed guided by the film scriptwriter presentation & demonstration.

In 3rd workshop developed storyboards on 5m-long boards one group was successful & developed a complex storyboard while the other failed because the facilitators decided not to resolve the conflicts actively.

5-The Research Question Revisited All 3 workshops delivered use case description,

information visualization & rich storyboard.The results enable us to answer the 3 research questions in the context of the MSP workshops.

5.1 Exploratory Creativity Brainstroming generated more creative ideas than

analogical reasoning , was more cost-effective & easier to use.

Results from the first 2 workshops revealed that brainstorming produced 61 ideas documented on ideas cards while analogical reasoning produced 18 ideas.

5.2 Combinatorial Creativity Stakeholders generated 8 storyboards and 1 rich storyboards

that was novel and useful while combination generated only 4 new ideas that were not novel and one group deviated from the task to develop a timeline model to combine ideas more effectively.

5.3 Transformational Creativity Removing constraints led to generate more ideas than

presenting solution space knowledge but with qualitative differences.

Presentation of solution knowledge led to 11 simple information visualization sketches with knowledge about goals that informed development of rich storyboards.

Removing constraints to discover new ideas led stakeholders to consider potential advantages & disadvantages of the ideas or ideas themselves which are useful for investigating the MSP systems.

6- Contribution & Future works This paper contributes to RE knowledge in several

ways: It reports what happens when creativity techniques

were used to discover requirements for major European air traffic management system.

Workshop structure, inputs, outputs & techniques provide practitioners with information, justification for designing & running creativity workshops.

Results provide empirical evidence for & against the effectiveness of processes & techniques based on reported creativity models.

Based on the results we implemented the following 4 changes to RESCUE creativity workshop structures:

Adoption of CPS problem solving stages-mess finding, data finding problem finding idea finding, solution finding and acceptance finding to provide finer-grain process guidance to structure each workshop session.

Wider use of storyboards and scenarios to support combinatorial creativity throughout the workshop.

More hands-on facilitation of working groups to resolve conflicts using techniques.

Explanation of analogical mapping to stakeholders to inform idea finding.

Reference

Maiden, Robertson, “Integrating Creativity into Requirements Processes:

Experience with an Air Traffic Management System" , 13th IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering(RE’05),2005.