Given the importance placed on requirements analysis for success in systems development, this paper seeks to illuminate some of the underlying issues common to requirements techniques. This view is offered as a contrast to frameworks that identify an apparent diversity of requirements techniques, on the one hand, and those that portray differences in requirements techniques based on a progressive improvement of these techniques. The central argument of the paper is that most requirements techniques share common characteristics with inscription devices, by translating problematic organizational situations into agreed representations on paper or on computer. These inscriptions are commonly seen as providing legitimate knowledge of the organization that cannot be shown to be ‘correct’ but which act as resources to resolve tensions in requirements formulation and enable information technologies to be implemented successfully in organizations. A consequence of this argument is that portrayals of progressive improvement in requirements techniques have more rhetorical force than historical accuracy, and this assertion is illustrated by comparing SOP (Study Organization Plan), a 1960s requirements methodology, with ‘state-of-the-art’ object-oriented analysis. Finally, given the problematic role of requirements techniques as inscription devices, guidance is given to those engaged in requirements analysis that focuses as much on the context of the application of the requirements technique as the requirements technique itself.
['Chris Westrup']
Knowledge, legitimacy and progress? Requirements as inscriptions in information systems development