The Need for Requirements Engineering in the Development of Clinical Decision-Support Systems: A Qualitative Study

Abstract:

Insufficient requirements analysis has recently been suggested as a problem in clinical decision-support systems development. Therefore, to explore knowledge, practices and attitudes, key professionals in the area from four countries were interviewed regarding the early phases in the development process. For data collection, semi-structured interviews were performed and video-taped. As reference, documentation of the Action Design requirements engineering methodology was used. Two separate qualitative analyses of the data were made. The first was to identify central concepts and attitudes related to requirements engineering. In the second anlysis, concrete circumstances surrounding decisions to use requirements engineering methods were investigated. This paper reports the results of the analyses and discusses changes in the planning and management of clinical decision-support projects in general, and it comments on development methods, using Action Design as reference. It is concluded that studies are needed to further investigate the problems real decision-support projects have to deal with. This knowledge can then be used to develop methods and tools which support design practices where existing structural, procedural and, building on this, technical obstacles are overcome.

Keywords

Decision Support Systems - Requirements Engineering - Systems Development - Qualitative Evaluation - Participatory Design.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Forsythe D. Blaming the user in medical informatics. Knowledge and society 1992; 09: 95-111.
• 2 Heathfield HA, Wyatt J. Philosophies for the design and development of clinical decision support systems. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 1-8.
• 3 Miller RA. Taking inventory of medical decision support software development. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 9-11.
• 4 Musen M. Architectures for architects. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 12-3.
• 5 Swartout W, Balzer R. On the inevitalbe in-terwining of specification and implementation. CACM 1982; 25: 438-10.
• 6 Boehm BW. Guidelines for verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. In: Proceedings of IFIP ‘79. Samet PA. ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1979: 711-9.
• 7 Mittermeir RT, Roussopoulos N, Yeh RT, Ng PA. An integrated approach to requirements analysis. In: Modern software engineering. Ng PA, Yeh RT. eds. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1990: 199-64.
• 8 Martin CF. User-Centered Requirements Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1988
• 9 Gause DC, Weinberg GM. Exploring Requirements: Quality before Design. New York: Dorset House; 1992
• 10 Sommerville I. Software Engineering. London: Addison-Wesley; 1989
• 11 Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitati e Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1990
• 12 Timpka T, Sjöberg C, Johansson M, Nyce JM, Herbert I. Action Design version 1.0. CEC/AIM “DILEMMA” Deliverable D04. Linkoping: The MDA-group, Linköping University; 1992
• 13 Timpka T, Nyce JM, Sjöberg C, Johansson M. Action Design: from modelling to support of the software process. In: Proc. of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering ‘93. San Francisco: ACM Press; 1993: 629-36.
• 14 Timpka T. Knowledge-based decision support for general practitioners; an integrated design. Comp Prog Meth Biomed 1987; 25: 49-60.
• 15 Timpka T, Marmolin H. Expertext systems in ambulatory care. In: Proc. of World Congress of Expert Systems ‘94. New York: Pergamon Press; 1994
• 16 Sandberg Å, Broms G, Grip A. et al. Technological Chance and Co-determination in Sweden. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1992
• 17 Timpka T, Hedblom P, Holmgren H. Action design: Using an object-oriented environment for group process development of medical software. In: Software Engineering in Medical Informatics. Timmers T, Blum BI. eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992: 151-66.
• 18 Goldkuhl G, Röstlinger A. The legitimacy of information systems development: a need for change analysis. In: Proc. of First IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. London: IFIP; 1984
• 19 Sandewall E, Hägglund S, Gustavsson C, Jo-nesjö L, Strömfors O. Stepwise structuring: A life style for flexible software. In: Proc. of National Computer Conference. Anaheim 1983
• 20 Blum BI. Formalism and prototyping in the software process. Information and Decision Technologies 1989; 15: 327-11.
• 21 MacLean A, Young RM, Moran TM. Design rationale: The arguments behind the artifact. In: Proc. of CHI ‘89. Austin, Texas: ACM Press; 1989
• 22 Common Basic Specification 2.0. Generic Model. Birmingham: National Health Services Information Management Centre; 1992
• 23 Sjoberg C. Voices in Design: Argumentation in Participatory De elopments (Licentiate thesis). Linköping: Department of Computer Science, Linköping University; 1994
• 24 Dertouzos ML, Lester RK, Solow RM. Made in America. Regaining the Producti e Edge. The MIT Commission on Industrial Producti ity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1989
• 25 Wobbe W. Anthropocentric production systems. A strategic issue for Europe. FAST FOP 245. Brussells: CEC; 1991
• 26 Hammer M, Champy J. Reengineering the Corporation. New York: Harper Business; 1993
• 27 Zelkowitz M. Principles of Software Engineering and Design. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1979
• 28 Rauterberg M, Strohm O. Work organization and software development. Annual Review of Automatic Programming 1992; 16: 121-8.
• 29 Kensing F, Munk-Madsen A. Participatory design: structure in the toolbox. In: Proc. of PDC ‘92. Cambridge: ACM Press; 1992: 47-54.
• 30 Mumford E. Consensus system design: an evaluation of this approach. In: Design of Computer-Based Information Systems. Syberski N, Grochia E. eds. Groningen: Sijthoff and Noordhof; 1979
• 31 Edstrom A. User influence and success of MIS projects. Human Relations 1977; 30: 589-607.
• 32 Carmel E, Whitaker R, George JF. Participatory design vs Joint Application Design: Trans-Atlantic differences in systems development. CACM 1993; 36: 40-8.
• 33 Slack WV, Bleich HL. Barriers to computing in American hospitals. In: Proc. of Medlnfo ‘93. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992: 178-81.
• 34 Herbsleb JD, Kuwana E. Preseving knowledge in design projects: what de-signers need to know. In: Proc. of InterCHI ‘93. Amsterdam: ACM Press; 1993: 7-14.
• 35 Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in the theory of planning. Policy Science 1973; 04: 155-69.
• 36 Frank R. Cost-benefit analysis in mental health services: a review of the literature. Admin Mental Health 1981; 08: 161-76.
• 37 Sebrechts MM, Deck JG, Black JB. A dia-grammic approach to computer instruction for the naive user. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation 1983; 15: 200-7.
• 38 Smillie RJ. Design strategies for job performance aids. In: Designing Usable Texts. Duffy T, Waller R. eds. Orlando: Academic Press; 1985: 213-14.
• 39 Kirkman J. How “friendly” is your writing for readers around the world. In: Text, Context and Hypertext. Writing with and for the Computer. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1988: 343-64.
• 40 Bansler JP, Boedker K. A reappraisal of structured analysis: design in an organizational context. ACM Trans Inf Syst 1993; 11: 165-91.
• 41 Lawrence DM, Early JF. Strategic leadership in health care. Quality Progress. 1992. April: 45-8.