درس: مهندسي نيازمندي ها استاد: دكتر عبداله زاده دانشجو: خيرالنسا مرچانت

1. درس: مهندسي نيازمندي ها استاد: دكتر عبداله زاده دانشجو: خيرالنسا مرچانت Integrating Creativity into Requirement Processes:Experience with an Air Traffic Management System

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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?

12. 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)

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Reference • Maiden, Robertson, “Integrating Creativity into Requirements Processes: Experience with an Air Traffic Management System" , 13th IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering(RE’05),2005.