The Role Clarity Framework to Improve Requirements Gathering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorrect and incomplete requirements have been reported as two of the top reasons for information systems (IS) project failures. In order to address these concerns, several IS analysis and design studies have focused on understanding the business needs and organizational factors prior to specifying the requirements. In this research, we add to the existing incremental solutions, such as the work system method and goal-oriented requirements engineering, by proposing the Role Clarity Framework drawn from the theories of “role dynamics” and “goal setting and task performance” in organization studies. The Role Clarity Framework consists of three main concepts related to any organizational role: expectations, activities, and consequences. Based on the interactions among different roles, this framework demonstrates how the business goals and activities of each role, as played out by IS users, are formed and/or changed in the organization. Finally, the Role Clarity Framework helps IS analysts to improve their communication with users and anticipate changes in their requirements, thus improving the gathering of requirements for IS design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it