Comparing Requirements Analysis Techniques in Business Intelligence and Transactional Contexts
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
Requirements elicitation is a key concern in information technology (IT) projects. Busi-ness intelligence systems (BI) have emerged and are now used widely in organizations. These systems are designed to support manager's decision-making in their business performance moni-toring activities and their requirements are very different from those of transactional systems. But past research did not consider these differences. Therefore, this paper relies on a comparative approach to assess differences in the level of use and perceived effectiveness of requirements analysis techniques in both business intelligence and transactional contexts. An exploratory quali-tative study was conducted with two phases of semi-structured interviews with experienced practitioners. Our results show that 28% of the techniques differ in their level of use or perceived effectiveness, thus demonstrating the specificity of decision makers' needs. Our results reveal the importance of using techniques appropriate to the context to adequately define requirements and improve projects’ success.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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