Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation

If you order your cheap custom paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation paper at affordable prices with cheap custom writing service!

Abstract

There are several traditional methods of requirements elicitation and business rule capture utilized by organizations when embarking on systems development projects. Although many technical based requirements can be determined through research of available technology, standards organizations, or existing systems, most functional requirements and business processes can only be learned through interaction with the intended end users of the system under development. Surveys, interviews and questionnaires can be effective, but are often time consuming methods of requirements gathering, and often miss the big picture. Using these methods often do not allow for group discussion, consensus and validation of requirements. In recent years, a more common approach is the use of Joint Application Design (JAD). The JAD method allows for collaboration of a pre-selected population of end users, managers, and analysts with the intent of reaching an accurate and timely consensus on system requirements and business rules. This paper will focus on both advantages and pitfalls of using JAD for software development projects, and provide case studies and recommendations. The overall findings conclude that JAD is an efficient, necessary method of requirements elicitation for most systems projects.

Table of Contents

Order College Papers on Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation

Introduction4

Discussion7

JAD Session Participants7

Preparing for JAD Sessions11

Conducting JAD Sessions1

Post JAD Session Activities16

Case Study The Boeing Company16

Lessons Learned0

Conclusion1

References

Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation

Introduction

One of the traditional approaches to the requirements phase for systems projects is to assemble a systems analysis team responsible for conducting individual or small group interviews, and create, distribute and interpret questionnaires and surveys. Depending on the magnitude of the project, this often involves time and cost consuming travel to acquire input from the right people. Once the interview phase is complete, the analysis team typically reassembles to hash out the various user viewpoints, and coordinate back and forth with individual users to resolve perceived discrepancies. In the next step, the analysts produce a systems requirements document, usually consisting of various "shall" statements gathered during the interview process. In my experience as a systems analyst, it is not uncommon for these initial documents to be readily accepted by the end users, only to discover significant flaws down the line.

A common downfall with the traditional methodology described above often occurs during the system design phase. Analysts are rarely given enough time to learn the user's functions adequately enough to accomplish their task. After the requirements document has been accepted, analysts will often design what they believe is the user's overall perception of the system, with little or no collaboration with them. Analysts will often use their own creativity to develop screen layouts, various reports, and processing. However, when the system design document is released, the analysis team is often faced with the rude awakening that they have not produced what the end users really want. When this occurs, projects often fall behind schedule, and the entire requirements elicitation process needs to be revisited, often with grueling, rushed, closed-door meetings with users in an attempt to recover and get it right.

In contrast, Joint Application Design allows the appropriate setting to gather all key players together early in the process, and on a continual basis as necessary. There may be more time up-front needed for training and preparation of JAD sessions, which will be discussed in detail in a subsequent section, but the end result usually pays off by allowing the analysts to design the system right the first time.

JAD is defined as "a process whereby highly structured group meetings or miniretreats involving system users, system owners, and analysts occur in a single room for an extended time" (Whitten, 18, p. 66). It is a method of collaboration among system users, technical staff, managers, and systems analysts that can be useful throughout several phases of the systems development lifecycle. Originally developed by IBM in 177, it has gone through several iterations, and currently applies across industry, application, and hardware boundaries (August, 11).

The overall intent of JAD sessions is to accomplish the front-end tasks of the systems development lifecycle. These include defining objectives, obtaining detailed system requirements, and external design (screens, data elements, reports, processing). The sessions also provide an appropriate forum to document system business rules. A business rule is defined as an established practice of an organization indirectly related to particular functions of the system. For example, a user of a medical information system attempting to log into a patient's medical record may be denied access if an incorrect password is entered more than two times consecutively.

Initially, this paper will focus on the methods for selecting the appropriate mix of participants for JAD sessions based on subject area and objectives. This involves the determination of the number of technical and functional domain experts and the role of the systems analysts and support staff. An in-depth discussion of facilitation support, techniques and qualifications will also be included.

Next, the paper will focus on planning and conducting JAD sessions. This will include orientation of the analysis staff, preparing draft analysis products for JAD session discussion points, logistics considerations, orientation of end users (otherwise known as subject matter experts), the use of CASE tools, and wrap-up procedures. Throughout this discussion, examples of real-world JAD experiences will be incorporated to point out success stories and lessons learned.

The paper will also provide discussion on the team-building aspects of JAD, and how established customer-based workgroups facilitate consensus and ownership of requirements. This discussion will lead directly to the advantages of JAD for the more advanced stages of the systems development lifecycle. Requirements are a moving target, and naturally evolve over time. An established workgroup can help the systems analyst manage these requirements as systems projects move into the design phase. Additionally, the JAD members can provide ongoing validation of analysis and design products as they evolve throughout the systems development lifecycle.

Another section of this paper provides a case study of how the Boeing Company used the JAD philosophy during the development of the 777 aircraft in the 10s. Although this example is a slightly different twist on the JAD methodology, the techniques used by the organization are of relevance.

Finally, the paper will summarize the advantages and pitfalls of using JAD, and provide guidelines for deciding when to incorporate JAD as a method of requirements elicitation. The summary will also include detailed recommendations for using JAD, and how this methodology can be most effective throughout multiple phases of project analysis and design.

Discussion

JAD Session Participants

Critical to the success of JAD sessions is the appropriate selection of participants. This section provides an explanation of the types of people who should be included, and what roles they play. Included are the project sponsor, users and managers, systems analysts, scribes, observers, and a facilitator.

During the initial conception and proposal stages of system projects, there are usually one or more participants who stand out as sponsors, or chief proponents. If the project is internal to an organization, the sponsor is likely a high level manager. If the organization is acting on a consultant basis, then the sponsor is likely a high ranking client representative. These individuals are often directly responsible for approval of the project, releasing the necessary funding, and have a stake in its success. The sponsor is also the primary decision-maker in terms of project direction, and delegating lower level issues to other project team members for resolution. In addition, the sponsor is accountable to appointing the appropriate end users to participate in project JAD sessions. According to Jeffrey L. Whitten in Systems Analysis and Design Methods, "The role of the sponsor is to give full support to the systems project by encouraging designated users to willingly and actively participate in the JAD session(s)" (Whitten, 18, p. 66).

It is also a common practice for the project sponsor to kick off JAD sessions by presenting an overview of the project. In my experience, I have found that these opening remarks can have a crucial role in the success of the JAD session. If the sponsor displays enthusiasm for the project, focuses on the benefits the users will realize upon it's successful completion, and explains the importance of their role in the process, then the end-user participants will be more likely to take the session seriously.

Another obvious role in JAD sessions is that of the end-users, or subject matter experts. It is crucial that the appropriate mix of users possessing the right skill sets be included on the participant roster. Careful consideration must be given to the time line for notifying users of their participation, and what the expectations are with regard to time commitment. Hopefully, this approach will minimize the disruption of the workflow in their respective departments, and will allow managers time to make staffing adjustments during the JAD session. The project sponsor, or individual responsible for choosing user participants, must be careful to ensure that each person selected for the session has the business knowledge to provide a valuable contribution. This knowledge may include expertise on the organization's legacy system, business processes, and legislative mandates that may influence the system design.

The next participant type in JAD sessions is that of the Systems Analyst. Typically two to three analysts that have been assigned to work on the project will participate in the sessions. Prior to the JAD sessions, these analysts are responsible for researching the project background, familiarizing themselves with the objectives of the sessions, and gaining an understanding of the current direction of the project. Their primary role in the sessions is to listen and capture requirements and business rules articulated by the user participants. Although most JAD sessions are led by a professional facilitator, whose role will be discussed later in this section, the systems analysts often assist in guiding discussions. The analysts are usually more familiar with the subject area, and are responsible for capturing the appropriate data, and ultimately responsible for producing the JAD output documents (August, 11).

The scribe is another important member of the JAD session. His or her responsibility is to record meticulous notes during the session. This often includes making on-line changes to analysis documents that are discussed during the session. The scribe must also be a proficient user of CASE tools used for analysis. I have found that one of the pitfalls of JAD sessions is that the importance of this role is often underestimated. Many JAD planners make the mistake of assigning the role of scribe to clerical assistants who do not have a background with the project. If the subject area being discussed is complex in nature, it is impossible for these scribes to understand what, and how much information to capture. It is therefore highly recommended that an analyst assigned to the project perform the duties of the scribe.

The next significant role in JAD sessions is that of the facilitator. The larger the session, the more crucial the role of the facilitator becomes. A professionally trained facilitator brings organization and structure to the sessions, and is responsible for getting discussions started, obtaining full participation, keeping discussions within scope and on the topic, and resolving "people" issues.

Inevitably, in many JAD sessions, the group dynamics will include many personality types. Some participants will be outspoken, opinionated, and in some cases may come across as condescending to others, while other participants may be reserved and reluctant to share ideas. One function of the facilitator is to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute. For this reason, it is often suggested that the facilitator should be independent from the organization, hired as an outside consultant. This allows the facilitator to exercise his or her authority among the group and will less likely be intimidated by rank and seniority among the participants. More discussion on diagnosing and solving people issues is included in a subsequent section of this paper.

A few other minor roles in JAD sessions are also worth mentioning. Often, observers are invited to attend entire are partial sessions. These are individuals who may have an indirect stake in the project and are interested in the discussion. Prior to the session, they are usually directed by the facilitator, or sponsor that their input into the session should be minimal, and they should not attempt to influence any of the discussions. In just about every JAD session I have participated in, this has never worked. Observers almost always lose sight of their place, and take on the role of the end-user participants. Hopefully, a skilled facilitator will manage these situations when they arise.

In addition to observers, technical staff members and functional specialists may be invited to attend JAD sessions. According to Judy August, author of Joint Application Design, "The information systems representative provides guidance and advice within the JAD contest. He or she makes suggestions and provides information about the users' opportunities and trade-offs" (August, 11, p. 41). In other words, users may be unaware of resources and technology available to them, and may tend to create requirements that are more restrictive than necessary. The information systems representative can provide different design or implementation options. The Specialist, on the other hand, is someone who specializes in a discrete area of functionality who may be called in to a session for consultation when that topic is being discussed. He or she may be able to provide insight that the dedicated user participants cannot. For example, a specialist might be someone who has extensive experience with a particular report or inquiry screen, but in the scheme of the entire project, it may not be justified for him or her to attend the entire JAD session (August, 11).

Preparing for JAD Sessions

The primary tasks to preparing for JAD sessions include selecting participants, selecting a location, researching project background, developing draft analysis documents to use for discussion points, training support staff on JAD techniques and methods, and developing and distributing orientation materials to participants. Developing a realistic schedule to complete these tasks is also imperative. An in depth discussion of these tasks follows.

As previously mentioned, sponsor is usually involved in selecting the participants. Once the objectives, scope and areas of functionality to be covered have been defined, the sponsor is responsible for deciding which individuals are most qualified to participate in the JAD session. Rarely will the sponsor handpick each user participant, especially if the JAD session involves several departments and system functions. In many cases the sponsor will delegate that responsibility to individual department managers. It is also noteworthy to mention that end-user participants should be notified as soon as possible once the JAD session has been scheduled. This allows time to arrange for their absence in the workplace, and also affords the opportunity for them to assist the project systems analysts who are busy gathering background information prior to the session.

"Although the number of participants will vary considerably, depending on the size and nature of the system being designed, no more than 15 people should be in the session room at the same time. The best of session leaders cannot possibly manage more than 15 participants effectively" (August, 1, p. 7). Therefore, accounting for the facilitator and other support staff, end-user participants should be held to a maximum of 10-1 people.

Next, there are several factors to consider when selecting a location for JAD sessions, and planning other logistics. Many project managers are tempted to conduct JAD sessions in an in-house conference room, in close proximity to the work areas of many of the participants. The obvious advantage is cost savings. The major drawback is that participants may be interrupted by the demands of their daily routines and may be easily distracted by phone calls or other duties. Therefore, most of the literature on this topic commonly recommends holding JAD sessions off-site at either a hotel or conference facility. These facilities have experienced staff to set up meeting rooms, provide catering, data lines, audio-visual equipment, and business services. "By holding the JAD session at an off-site location, the attendees can concentrate on the issues and activities related to the JAD session and avoid interruptions and distractions that would occur at their regular workplace. Regardless of the location of the JAD session, all attendees should be required to attend and be prohibited from returning to their regular workplace" (Whitten, 18, p. 665).

Since JAD sessions involve systems requirement capture, they usually occur early in the systems development lifecycle. Typically, soon after a project is funded, the initial JAD session is scheduled, and the systems analysts assigned to the project begin the background research to prepare for the session. This usually includes combing through documentation from legacy systems, process and procedure documents, and informal interviews with key end-users. It may also include discussions with the architecture and implementation teams.

Once the initial background is complete, the systems analysts will often begin to draft analysis products that can be used as discussion points during the JAD sessions. These products may include data flow diagrams depicting the current and proposed system processing, shell use cases which outline event by event, the interactions between the user and the system, and sample screen designs. As previously stated, the purpose of these initial set of analysis products is to generate ideas and stimulate discussion during the JAD session. The expectation is that many of the products will require significant changes after the session, and some may be discarded all together.

During the few weeks prior to the JAD session, orientation of all support staff members usually occurs. The facilitator is often a key player in this process. He or she explains the format, timeline, ground rules, and outlines the role of each support member. The analysts, scribes, and technical staff should be given clear direction regarding their responsibilities.

The final preparation task is the orientation of the end-user participants. Frequently, the facilitator and systems analysts will work together to produce an orientation package to be distributed to participants within a week of the JAD session. This package will typically include a synopsis of project background material, scope and objectives, the JAD session agenda outlining the issues to be discussed and the amount of time allotted to each item, definition of terms, sample analysis products, logistic information, and a point of contact list. Another helpful tactic is to hold a teleconference with all participants a few days prior to communicate the expectations for the session, to address any concerns, and to clear up any points of confusion.

Conducting JAD Sessions

At the opening of JAD sessions, the facilitator will introduce the participants and support staff, and typically reviews orientation material, including the agenda, objectives, and an explanation of what participants can expect to gain from the session. Immediately following, the project sponsor will often give a presentation intended to generate enthusiasm among the participants. The sponsor should focus on benefits of the project, how the new system will directly benefit the end-users, and how the JAD session is crucial to the requirements gathering process. The presentation should also reiterate the importance of cooperation and maximum participation.

After all introductory remarks, opening briefings, and background information have been explained, the facilitator will begin discussions following the outlined agenda. "To successfully conduct the session, the leader should follow the following guidelines

•Do not unreasonably deviate from the agenda.

•Stay on schedule (agenda topics are allotted specific time).

•Ensure that the scribe is able to take notes (this may mean having the users and managers restate their points more slowly or clearly).

•Avoid the use of technical jargon.

•Apply conflict resolution skills.

•Allow for ample breaks.

•Encourage group consensus.

•Encourage user and management participation without allowing individuals to dominate the session.

•Make sure that attendees abide by the established ground rules for the session" (Whitten, 18, p. 667).

As mentioned earlier, personality issues will undoubtedly surface during many JAD sessions. Whether these issues are driven by ego sensitivity, political motivation, ulterior motive, or personality clash with another participant, it is the role of the facilitator to diagnose the problem and take appropriate action. In her book Joint Application Design, Judy August offers several conflict resolution techniques for the facilitator. The first is the head-on approach of confronting the individual in an attempt to resolve the situation. When this is approach is not appropriate or threatens make matters worse, August offers other nonverbal, humorous and indirect approaches (August, 11).

Another way to manage people issues and maximize the level of contribution among the session participants is by employing the GroupWare collaboration tool. GroupWare enables each participant to anonymously enter ideas into their own dedicated laptop computer throughout the session. This encourages participation by those who would otherwise keep quiet during discussion. It also alleviates the fear of repercussions for expressing ideas that may be unpopular among upper management. This concept is especially applicable in the military environment. Several JAD sessions I have participated in were conducted for U.S. Department of Defense projects. The user participants often included a wide range of ranks within the military. Because of the military culture and emphasis on rank, it was difficult to realize equal participation among the participants during open discussion sessions. In this case, the GroupWare tool allowed us to overcome this obstacle. The tool also facilitates making priority lists for requirements and other issues, and all information recorded in GroupWare can be used to supplement the meeting notes.

As mentioned in the previous section, draft analysis products such as data flow diagrams, process level use cases, and sample screen designs can be presented to the participants during the session to stimulate discussion and elicit feedback. Discussions about process and interaction with the system will inevitably elicit requirements and draw out business rules. Once again, it is the responsibility of the systems analysts and scribes to capture all pertinent information in a logical, practical format.

The final tasking of a JAD session should be an evaluation of the session. Each participant should be required to fill out a questionnaire to determine what went well, what didn't, improvement suggestions, and effectiveness of discussion points and presentations. Interpretation of these questionnaires can help the analysts develop a lessons learned list to incorporate into future sessions.

Post JAD Session Activities

Immediately following a JAD session, the systems analysts, should organize and document all meeting notes from all sources, format all requirements and business rules captured, and distribute to participants for comment and acceptance. Additionally, the draft analysis products presented during the sessions must be updated to reflect user input. The more long-range outcome of the JAD session may be to produce a Systems Requirements Specifications document that will incorporate all of the information gathered during the session. The end-user participants may be called upon for follow-up teleconferences, or even subsequent JAD sessions for further clarification.

Case Study The Boeing Company

In the early 10s, the Boeing Company, builder of commercial airliners since 17, was facing fierce competition from Airbus and McDonnell Douglas in the 00-50 seat passenger airplane market. Up to this point, Boeing's development process was antiquated, cumbersome, and inefficient, creating production delays, increased cost, and spawning a huge bureaucracy. When the decision was made to develop the 777 aircraft to compete with the other aircraft builders, the leaders at Boeing implemented a new "Design-Build" process to meet the aggressive project schedule. Although this case study does not follow all of the traditional JAD elements discussed in the previous sections of this paper, it is remarkable how the same methodology can be applied across industries. In this case study, the design is for an airplane, rather than a systems application. The design-build process developed by Boeing incorporates JADtype sessions throughout as a method to capture requirements, and the similarity to traditional JAD sessions is notably relevant.

From the beginning of the design phases of the 777, the Boeing management had the foresight to learn from the past. During production of previous Boeing aircraft, one of the major problems causing increased cost and schedule delays was a lack of communication between different divisions within Boeing. For example, one group of engineers would draft designs for the aircraft's wings, while another would draft the design for the main fuselage. Then, during the manufacture process, the two components wouldn't exactly fit or wouldn't be 100 percent compatible, so all engineers were required to return to the drawing board. This realization was what led Boeing management to develop design-build teams (DBTs), which incorporated JAD sessions throughout the design effort.

Each team was responsible for a particular element and included personnel from all disciplines design, manufacturing, operations, procurement, customer support, as well as customer and supplier personnel. The typical team consisted of 15 members and met frequently in JAD sessions to monitor progress and discuss problems.

From the beginning, a belief existed that a critical element of design was to get input from the customer into the design process, and to get the engineers into direct contact with airline personnel. One of the goals was to find out directly from the gate mechanics the information they needed to efficiently service the plane. Teams were formed, and JAD sessions were conducted to communicate directly with airline mechanics and service personnel and get their point of view on the designs.

The initial focus of the DBTs and JAD sessions was to maximize knowledge among the many Boeing engineers. The best way to accomplish this was to combine airline customer services and manufacturers along with engineers. These teams would work in an atmosphere that promoted listening to each other, sharing problems, setting aside self-interests and getting things right the first time. This was of particular importance considering Boeing had committed to a 48-month project duration, with the delivery of the first 777 due to United Airlines in May 15. The normal production duration for a new Boeing plane was 60 months from initial design to rollout.

JAD sessions were scheduled according to the timeline of each DBT. The DBTs were formed by dividing up areas of responsibility in relationship to parts of the plane, such as wings, empennage (tail section), fuselage, and so on. Each of these areas was broken down into sub-areas, and the sub-areas could be broken down even further. One example of a detailed breakdown of DBTs can be tied to the teams responsible for the design and manufacture of the plane's wing. The highest level DBT was the primary Wing DBT. The next level down was divided into the Leading Edge DBT and the Trailing Edge DBT. On the next level, the Trailing Edge DBT was divided into seven additional DBTs as follows Flap Supports, Inboard Flap, Outboard Flap, Outboard Fixed Wing, Flaperon, Aileron, and Inboard Fixed Wing. Each of these teams typically had between 10 and 0 members (Sabbagh, 16).

To keep the lines of communication flowing continuously, JAD sessions occurred frequently throughout the design process. Each session was assigned a leader who would facilitate the meetings, and certain guidelines were enforced. There were set time limits for each speaker, detailed notes and action items were documented, and a responsible party was assigned to each action. In addition, a section of each session was devoted to issue resolution. At this point, certain issues were identified that required the participants to consider and come to a decision. Finally, issues were identified that required input from a higher level of management.

As previously mentioned, airline personnel played a key role in the JAD sessions. In this case study, they are analogous to the end-user participants in traditional JAD sessions described earlier. During the initial sessions, United Airlines offered the most input and feedback. United also committed to purchasing 4 of the 777s even before Boeing made the final decision to build the plane. For this reason, United had the largest stake in the project than any other airline. United, as well as certain members of the press touted the 777 as United's plane. Gordon McKinzie, a United engineer, was invited by Boeing to participate in several sessions. This proved to be a distinct advantage for United since McKinzie was allowed to identify potential problems before the plane was assembled and delivered, in addition to having the opportunity to influence requirements for the plane to suit the needs specific to United.

One potential disaster that was avoided as a result of McKinzie's participation in the JAD sessions referenced the location of the fueling panel. He determined that based on the height of the fuel stands used at United, they would have to hire refuelers that were at least eight feet tall to reach the fuel panels. United also consulted with other airlines, and they all agreed the panel was too high. Boeing immediately conceded this oversight and moved the panel to a reasonable height. Without airline participation in this particular situation, the repercussions of this design flaw could have been tremendous. McKinzie explained that he doesn't know what would have happened if the airplane was delivered and nobody could reach the fuel panel (Sabbagh, 16).

As a testament to the success of the DBTs and JAD methodology at Boeing, United Airlines took delivery of the first 777 on schedule in May 15. The plane included all the features the airline asked for when the 777 was merely on the drawing board during the initial JAD sessions. In addition, the 777 was the first aircraft to be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to fly transatlantic routes from the first day of operation. Needless to say, the leaders at United were pleased with the new plane that they helped to build, and they took pride in the understanding that their participation in the Boeing teams contributed to the overall success of the project.

Lessons Learned

The majority of this paper focuses on the positive aspects of incorporating JAD sessions during the requirements elicitation phase of systems projects. However, if the sessions are not orchestrated or tailored properly, the sessions can easily be doomed to failure. Throughout my past experience functioning as both facilitator and systems analyst in various JAD sessions, I have learned from mistakes, and have kept a running list of points to consider that may improve future sessions. Some of the items are listed below

•Brief the end-user participants on project background and JAD session methodology before the session, and communicate goals and objectives clearly.

•Identify and notify the participants of the session as early as possible, and select back-up participants to account for those who may drop out at the last minute.

•Insist on full participation, and discourage participants from being distracted by their normal daily tasks.

•Make sure analysts are prepared to lead discussions that may be too functional-specific for the facilitator.

•Prepare an agenda that includes carefully thought out discussion topics.

•Employ a scribe that has enough functional knowledge of the subject area to adequately capture notes and requirements.

Conclusion

Many organizations are finding that in order to stay competitive in a global economy, their systems projects must be run efficiently, on schedule, and must ultimately deliver what's been promised. The traditional approaches to requirements elicitation phase of projects involving individual interviews, questionnaires, and numerous hours of analysis and interpretation, are rapidly becoming outmoded. More and more companies are beginning to realize the advantages of JAD sessions and are incorporating them into their existing methodologies. "An effectively conducted JAD session offers the following benefits

•JAD actively involves users and management in the development project (encouraging them to take ownership of the project).

•JAD reduces the amount of time required to develop systems. This is achieved by replacing traditional, time-consuming one-on-one interviewing of each user and manager with group meetings. The group meetings allow for more easily obtaining consensus among the users and managers, as well as resolving conflicting information and requirements" (Whitten, 18, p. 667). If implemented properly, with an experienced and motivated staff, JAD sessions can offer many benefits.

In order to conduct successful JAD sessions, an organization must make the initial investment in time and resources. A significant amount of time, effort and cost is involved during the planning stages. Researching project background, developing preliminary analysis products, selecting and paying for a JAD session location, and committing time for participants away from their daily duties are all factors to consider. If sessions are well planned and executed, the benefit of getting the requirements articulated and documented right the first time, is undoubtedly well worth the initial investment. Many organizations simply cannot afford not to adopt JAD session methodology for complex systems projects.

References

August, J. (11). Joint Application Design, the Group Session Approach to System Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Yourdon Press.

Chin, K. (15). A JAD Experience. Proceedings of the 15 ACM SIGCPR conference on Supporting teams, groups, and learning inside and outside the IS function reinventing IS, 5-6.

Niederman, F. (16). Acquiring Knowledge about Group Facilitation Research Proposition. Proceedings of the 16 conference on ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS conference, 16, 58-67.

Sabbagh, K. (16). Twenty-First-Century Jet, the Making and Marketing of the Boeing 777. New York, NY Scribner.

Whitten, L., Bentley, L. (18). Systems Analysis and Design Methods. Fourth Edition. New York, NY McGraw-Hill.

Please note that this sample paper on Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation, we are here to assist you. Your cheap college paperson Joint Application Design for Requirements Elicitation will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment .cheap custom writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!