60 PART | II ITS users
to the cover key elements of context that can influence user activity, and the
explanation of how elements influence the user’s ability in the actual situation.
Despite the benefits, there are limitations. To be able to use activity theory to
analyze ITS requirements limitations, the designer must have a thorough knowl-
edge of activity theory. A second limitation is the difficulty faced by analysts in
unraveling activity systems and, finally, there is the difficulty of distinguishing
between the levels of activity, actions, and operations. However, the benefits
outweigh these limitations. Using activity theory avoids simple causal explana-
tion of ITS design by describing it as an ensemble of multiple, systematically
interacting elements, including social rules, mediating artifacts, and division
of labor. It also considers the perspectives of different users and their contexts.
Questions
- Why is requirements engineering important for intelligent transport systems?
- What is the best method to use for requirements engineering in intelligent
transport systems?
References
Alvarez, R. (2002). Confessions of an information worker: a critical analysis of information require-
ments discourse. Information and organization, 12 (2), 85–107.
Avison, D. E., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1986). Multiview - an exploration in information systems
development. Australian Computer Journal, 18 (4), 174–179.
Shams-Ul-Arif, Q. K., & Gahyyur, S. A. K. (2009). Requirements engineering processes, tools/
technologies, & methodologies. International Journal of Reviews in Computing, 2 (6), 41–56.
Bano, M., & Zowghi, D. (2015). A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement
and system success. Information and Software Technology, 58 , 148–169.
Bell, T.E., & Thayer, T.A. (1976). Software requirements: are they really a problem? In Proceed-
ings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering (pp. 61–68). IEEE Computer
Society Press.
Bødker, S. (1996). Applying activity theory to video analysis: How to make sense of video data
in HCI. In Context and consciousness: activity theory and human computer interaction
(pp. 147–174). MIT press.
Brazile, R.P., Swigger, K.M., Harrington, B., Harrington, B., & Peng, X. (2002). The International
Collaborative Environment (ICE). In CAINE (pp. 37–40).
Cooke, N. J. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 41 (6), 801–849.
Davis, A. M. (1992). Operational prototyping: a new development approach. IEEE software, 9 (5),
70–78.
Engeström, Y. (1987). An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki:
Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: an activity-theoretical perspective. Com-
puter Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8 (1–2), 63–93.
Fernández, D.M., Lochmann, K., Penzenstadler, B. & Wagner, S. (2011). A case study on the ap-
plication of an artefact-based requirements engineering approach. In 15th annual conference on
evaluation & assessment in software engineering (EASE 2011) (pp. 104–113). IET.