Traditional techniques for determining system requirements during analysis typically involve
a sequential, top-down approach. This involves identifying key requirements, creating a
requirements document, and refining it based on feedback. An example would be
interviewing and listening. Contemporary techniques tend to be more iterative and flexible.
This approach allows for more frequent feedback and enables teams to adapt to changes. An
example would be prototyping and Focus groups. Radical techniques challenge traditional
assumptions about requirement gathering and management. This approach prioritizes
learning and experimentation and aims to validate assumptions about the product's market.
An example would be questionnaires. Each technique has its strengths and weaknesses, and
its usefulness will depend on the project's context. Each technique has potential drawbacks.
Traditional, such as the Waterfall method, can be inflexible and may not allow for changes
in requirements. Contemporary, such as Agile, can be challenging to implement if the team
is not experienced. This can also result in scope creep. Radical, such as Lean Startup, can be
risky because it involves testing assumptions before investing heavily in development. This
can result in delays if the team needs to pivot or change direction. Choosing the appropriate
technique depends on several factors, including the requirements. Evaluate the project's
requirements and consider if they are well-understood and stable. If they are, the Waterfall
model may be appropriate. If they are likely to change, then a contemporary technique may
be more suitable. Assess the potential risks and benefits of each technique and compare
them. Identify the potential needs and priorities.
Traditional- this is to be done where there is ample sample space and the time is also not a
constraint, the geography is also defined. The drawback is it is time consuming and to be
used when sample size is good & ample time is present.
Contemporary is used when the time is limited and more analysis is required, the sample
size is less, and we are required to get a bird eye view of the situation. The drawback is the
results give the bird's view as based more on analysis and estimate. It is to be used when we
have less time, and we need an overall trend.
Radical- It is the most advanced technique available, when the time is less, and the sample
size is too less. Prototyping helps when we have almost nil sample size and we use similar
patterns to understand the trend, this might not be accurate in practical sense as the variables
may change. To be used when we do not have a sample size but have a similar model which
behaves in likewise fashion. When it comes to systems analysis different techniques are used
to determine systems requirements. Traditional, contemporary, and radical techniques are
three such methods. The traditional technique focuses on gathering information about the
systems' requirements from stakeholders through interviews, surveys, and questionnaires.
The contemporary technique relies on prototyping and iterative design, which involves
developing a working model of the system and refining it through feedback from users. The
radical technique involves brainstorming and creative thinking to generate innovative
solutions that challenge traditional assumptions.Each of these techniques has its strengths
and weaknesses. The traditional technique is useful when dealing with well-understood
problems and stakeholders with clear expectations. However, its drawbacks include the
potential for bias and limited creativity. The contemporary technique is most effective when
dealing with complex or unfamiliar problems, as it allows for rapid prototyping and an
iterative design process that can quickly generate solutions. However, it can be time-
consuming and costly, and feedback from users may not always be reliable. The radical
technique is ideal when dealing with uncertain or ill-defined problems, as it encourages
innovative thinking and promotes out-of-the-box solutions. However, it can be difficult to
implement and may require a significant investment of time and resources. Ultimately, the
decision of which technique to use should be based on a careful assessment of the project's
goals, requirements, and constraints. If you look at a list of reasons for failed projects, you'd
probably see reasons like: scope creep, unclear requirements, insufficient planning, and
insufficient resources. Most of these center around planning. Analysis is another planning
phase for us in the SDLC. For this reason, we call it BUFD -- big up-front design. We try to
get to a perfect state in requirements and the design that follows, then we implement them
without any issues. Or at least we try to in waterfall methods. Agile takes a different
approach. We take a big idea (an epic or feature) at the start of a project, then we break it
down into smaller pieces (a user story). When we're ready to implement the story in our
sprint, we break it down again into a series of tasks. The result is that we actually do more
planning in agile than in waterfall. But, we do it incrementally and we do it just in time
before we build it. In agile, our requirements should be clear, but this isn't always the case. I
worked for a company that developed software for customers, and we were wrought with
issues. This might have been the fault of the customer, the product owner, or the developers.
Maybe all of the above. I say this because there is no silver bullet when it comes to building
systems. During the analysis phase is where the as-is-system is understood and the gathering
of requirements of the to-be-system happens. There are traditional, contemporary, and
radical techniques that can be used to determine the requirements. Traditional – Typically
uses an interview approach, where the system analysist will do some research up front then
conduct interviews with appropriate subject matter experts to understand the issue and gather
the requirements for the new system. This usually is done using a top-down approach with
closed, open, or probing questions. The benefit of this technique is that you are speaking
with all levels and can truly dig down into the system. The drawback is it is time consuming
and if not done correctly can lead to scope creep. Contemporary – This technique typically
works with groups, the reading this week gives an example of Joint Development
Assessment (JAD). Done with a facilitator, usually at an offsite location, your more senior
level subject matter experts attend who understand mission, issues and requirements. In my
experience this is how we have dealt with requirements gathering. The benefit is that it can
be done quicker with less of a scope creep. The drawback is that you have several senior
level individuals out of the lab for a week or two. Radical – I look at this as a greenfield
approach, a complete redesign and thinking of the system. The advantage is you can design
the way you need, but the disadvantage is the cost.
Interviewing and Listening-
Interviewing is one of the traditional ways analysts gather information about an information
systems project. Early in a project, an analyst may spend a large amount of time
interviewing people about their work, the information they use to.
Advantages:
• Interview is a flexible tool.
• It offers a better opportunity rather than the questionnaire to evaluate the validity of the
information gathered.
• It is an effective technique for eliciting information about complex subject.
Disadvantages:
• Long preparation time.
• Take a lot of time and money to conduct.
• Interviews are also useful when the topic you are studying is rather complex, when
whatever you plan to ask requires lengthy explanation, or when your topic or answers to
your questions may not be immediately clear to participants who may need some time or
dialogue with others to work through their responses to your questions
