Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A set of prescribed activities for enhancing requirements engineering in the development of usable e-Government applications

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last years, e-Government applications have become indispensable in every country as they help stakeholders carry out tasks with the administration. However, and despite their growing usage, most of these applications are created through a developer-centered approach instead of a user-centered one, using traditional development processes that do not fit well with the diversity of stakeholders and existing legislation that involve e-Government applications today. Besides, usability is an important clue in the development of such solutions, so a user-centered approach, combined with a successful stakeholder and legislation analysis, should be considered overall. This paper is focused on addressing these concerns, and it provides a set of prescribed activities, tasks and products to be carried through a user-centered process in order to design usable web-based e-Government solutions. Specifically, our approach considers requirements engineering activities enhancing usability by analyzing the diversity and interests of the stakeholders involved, as well as the specific legislation as a source of organizational requirements. In addition, a validation is provided through a case study, showing the feasibility of the approach presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gore A (1997) Access America: reengineering through information technology. Diane Publishing Company, Collingdale

    Google Scholar 

  2. United Nations: Global e-Government Survey (2012) New York. United Nations

  3. OECD (2009) Rethinking e-government services, user-centred approach. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Klier J, Klier M, Muschter S (2016) How to manage IS requirements in complex public sector structures: toward an action design research approach. Requir Eng 1–14. doi:10.1007/s00766-016-0245-7

  5. Boyne GA (2002) Public and private management: What’s the difference? J Manag Stud 39(1):97–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. ISO 9241-210 (2010) Ergonomics of human-system interaction—part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems

  7. Petersen K, Feldt R, Mujtaba S, Mattsson M (2008) Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, pp. 68–77

  8. Ambreen T, Ikram N, Usman M, Niazi, M (2016) Empirical research in requirements engineering: trends and opportunities. Requir Eng 1–33. doi:10.1007/s00766-016-0258-2

  9. Ellis-Braithwaite R, Lock, R, Dawson R, King T (2017) Repetition between stakeholder (user) and system requirements. Requir Eng 22:167–190

  10. Johann T, Maalej W (2015) Democratic mass participation of users in requirements engineering? In: Proceedings of the 23rd international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 256–261

  11. Gordon DG, Breaux TD (2014) The role of legal expertise in interpretation of legal requirements and definitions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 273–282

  12. ISO/IEC 12207 (2008) Systems and software engineering—software life cycle processes

  13. Ben Ammar L, Trabelsi A, Mahfoudhi A (2015) Incorporating usability requirements into model transformation technologies. Requir Eng 20(4):465–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Soltana G, Sabetzadeh M, Briand LC (2016) Model-based simulation of legal requirements: experience from tax policy simulation. In: Proceedings of the 24th international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 303–312

  15. Hu G, Pan W, Lu M, Wang J (2009) The widely shared definition of e-Government: an exploratory study. Electron Libr 27(6):968–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Torres L, Pinat V, Acerete B, Pina V (2005) e-Government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. Govern Inf Quart 22(2):217–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yildiz M (2007) e-Government research: reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Govern Inf Quart 24(3):646–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Relyea HC (2002) e-Gov: introduction and overview. Govern Inf Quart 19(1):9–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Means G, Schneider D (2000) MetaCapitalism: the e-business revolution and the design of twenty-first century companies and markets. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. e-Government Act of 2002, USA (2002)

  21. Homburg V, Bekkers V (2002) The back-office of e-Government (managing information domains as political economies). In: Sprague RH (ed) Proceedings of the 35th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 1666–1674

  22. Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional e-Government: a four stage model. Govern Inf Quart 18(2):122–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 26(3):276–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guijarro L (2007) Interoperability frameworks and enterprise architectures in e-Government initiatives in Europe and the United States. Govern Inf Quart 24(1):89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mondorf A, Wimmer MA (2016) Requirements for an architecture framework for Pan-European e-Government Services. In: Proceedings of the international conference on electronic government and the information systems perspective, pp 135–150

  26. Hinkelmann K, Gerber A, Karagiannis D, Thoenssen B, Van der Merwe A, Woitsch R (2016) A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and IT: combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology. Comput Ind 79:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kruchten P (1995) The “4 + 1” view model of architecture. IEEE Softw 12(6):42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  29. Scholl HJ (2002) Applying stakeholder theory to e-Government: benefits and limits. In: V Schmid, Beat, Stanoevska-Slabeva, Katarina, Tschammer (ed) Towards the e-SocietySociety. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series, vol 74. Springer, Boston, pp 735–747

  30. Golden W, Scott M, Hughes M (2004) Implementation strategies for e-Government: a stakeholder analysis approach. In: 12th European conference on information systems, pp 203–215

  31. Martin RL, Montagna JM (2006) Business process reengineering role in electronic government. In: Avison D, Elliot S, Krogstie J, PriesHeje J (ed) Past and Future of Information Systems: 1976-2006 and Beyond. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series, vol 214. Springer, Boston, pp 77–88

  32. Rowley J (2011) e-Government stakeholders—Who are they and what do they want? Int J Inf Manag 31(1):53–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pacheco C, Garcia I (2012) A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation. J Syst Softw 85(9):2171–2181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Willcocks LP (1994) Managing information systems in UK Public Administration: issues and prospects. Public Adm 72(1):13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ballejos LC, Montagna JM (2008) Method for stakeholder identification in interorganizational environments. Requir Eng 13(4):281–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2003) Government IT projects. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

  37. UK Cabinet Office (2002) Common causes of programmed/project failure

  38. Pitangueira AM (2015) Incorporating preferences from multiple stakeholders in software requirements selection—an interactive search-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 382–387

  39. Olbrich S, Simon C (2008) Process modelling towards e-Government—visualisation and semantic modelling of legal regulations as executable process sets. Electron J e-Govern 6(1):43–54

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kotamraju NP, van der Geest TM (2012) The tension between user-centred design and e-Government services. Behav Inform Technol 31(3):261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Alpar P, Olbrich S (2005) Legal requirements and modelling of processes in e-Government. Electron J e-Govern 3(3):107–116

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Mayhew DJ (1999) The usability engineering lifecycle: a practitioner’s handbook for user interface design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Rosson MB, Carroll JM (2002) Usability engineering: scenario-based development of HCI. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Constantine L, Windl H (2003) Usage-centered design: scalability and integration with software engineering. Human–computer interaction: theory and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Abingdon-on-Thames

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bevan N (2009) International standards for usability should be more widely used. J Usability Stud 4(3):106–113

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bevan N (2015) How you could benefit from using ISO standards. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 2503–2504

  48. Hoorn JF (2014) Stakeholder logistics of an interactive system. J Syst Softw 95:52–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Maguire M (2013) Using human factors standards to support user experience and agile design. In: Proceedings of the international conference on universal access in human–computer interaction, pp 185–194

  50. Clemmensen T, Hertzum M, Yang J, Chen Y (2013) Do usability professionals think about user experience in the same way as users and developers do? In: Proceedings of INTERACT, pp 461–478

  51. Sharp H, Finkelsteiin A, Galal G (1999) Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on database and expert systems applications, pp 387–391

  52. ISO/IEC 2015 (2015) Systems and software engineering—software life cycle processes

  53. Tullis T, Albert W (2013) Measuring the user experience. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hammersley M, Atkinson P (2007) Ethnography: principles in practice. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. UXPA (2014) Usability body of knowledge. http://www.usabilitybok.org/ Accessed 12 Feb 2017

  56. Wharton C, Bradford J, Jeffries R, Franzke M (1992) Applying cognitive walkthroughs to more complex user interfaces: experiences, issues, and recommendations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 381–388

  57. Object Manager Group (OMG) (2014) Unified modeling language

  58. Militello LG, Hutton RJB (1998) Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): a practitioner’s toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands. Ergonomics 41(11):1618–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Goodwin P, Wright G (2004) Decision analysis for management judgment. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Detwarasiti A, Shachter RD (2005) Influence diagrams for team decision analysis. Decis Anal 2(4):207–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nielsen J (2004) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  62. IEEE 1028: IEEE Standard for software reviews and audits (2008)

  63. Zaina LAM, Álvaro A (2015) A design methodology for user-centered innovation in the software development area. J Syst Softw 110:155–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Mora M, Denger C (2003) Requirements metrics. IESE-Report No. 096.03/Version 1.0

  65. Davis A, Overmyer S, Jordan K (1993) Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the 1st international software metrics symposium, pp 141–152

  66. Gea JMCd, Nicolás J, Alemán JLF, Toval A, Ebert C, Vizcaíno A (2011) Requirements engineering tools. IEEE Softw 28(4):86–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. ReqMan® (2017) Requirements management. http://www.reqman.de/ Accessed 20 Feb 2017

  68. Byun J, Rhew S, Hwang M, Sugurama V, Park S, Park S (2014) Metrics for measuring the consistencies of requirements with objectives and constraints. Requir Eng 19(1):89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Macías JA (2012) Enhancing interaction design on the semantic web: a case study. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 42(6):1365–1373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rojas L, Macías JA (2013) Bridging the gap between information architecture analysis and software engineering in interactive web application development. Sci Comput Program 78(11):2282–2291

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the funding projects «Flexor» (Grant Number TIN2014-52129-R) granted by the Spanish Government and « eMadrid » (grant number S2013/ICE-2715) granted by the Madrid Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Francisco Tomás y Valiente 11, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Esteban Sánchez & José A. Macías

Authors
  1. Esteban Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José A. Macías
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José A. Macías.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sánchez, E., Macías, J.A. A set of prescribed activities for enhancing requirements engineering in the development of usable e-Government applications. Requirements Eng 24, 181–203 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0282-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0282-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation