[IxDA Discuss] A tool for managing use cases / requirements

[Petteri Hiisilä]

Hi,

> There are critically important differences between use
> cases and scenarios.

This is true and may be the reason why the original poster asked for  
a way to link them together so that these different levels of  
granularity of the problem and its solution can be tracked back to  
their origins.

In a "project manager's dream tool" all this can be tracked: human  
goals <--> context scenarios <--> key path scenarios (~ use cases) <-- 
 > design requirements <--> ui framework <--> ui design <-->  
technical requirements <--> technical design <--> technical  
implementation <--> test cases.

In real world it of course isn't as straightforward as this. And  
there's much more to technical design than in the above  
simplification. Finally, lots of this can be parallelized to save  
calendar time.

In projects the managers tend to want this linkage more than they  
actually need it. Often, after they have read the User & Domain  
Analysis they have the links they need in their head, and they can  
contaminate other managers by letting them read the U&DA too. Almost  
everybody from marketing to even HR have found it useful in their  
regular work too. When you put human motivations on the table it all  
starts to make sense.

As a little disclaimer: I'm using terms in a way that About Face  
uses. Many of our IxD terms need to be (re)defined before using,  
because different groups have already defined them before and after  
us. The namespace is limited.

Thanks,

Petteri

Katie Albers kirjoitti 24.3.2007 kello 4:34:

> There are critically important differences between use
> cases and scenarios.
>
> Use cases are at the system/requirement level, e.g.
> "Users will be able to order items. The steps in
> ordering an item are...."and then you go into the
> press this, type that, display this message
> enumeration.
>
> Scenarios put use cases into human context "Jane wants
> to find an item requested by a friend so she goes to
> [our site]and then..."
>
> The two are about interaction from different angles
> and that difference is at a level where you can go
> merrily down the pure use case path...which will tend
> to lead to system-oriented development, or enhance the
> user-centeredness of the product by doing both.
>
> Katie
> another IxD who came to it from usability
>
>
> --- Petteri Hiisilä <petteri.hiisila at ixdesign.fi>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeff Axup kirjoitti 24.3.2007 kello 0:27:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm working on a project where we're entering into
>> a large
>>> requirements
>>> analysis stage. This will involve a large number
>> of use cases
>>> (often called
>>> scenarios). The use cases need to be directly tied
>> to corresponding
>>> requirements. There will be high and low level use
>> cases, with some as
>>> subsets of others. Additionally, they need to be
>> tied to user roles
>>> (and
>>> personas at times), and there will often be a
>> many-to-one pairing
>>> between
>>> roles and uses cases, and requirements and use
>> cases. So a static
>>> tree model
>>> probably won't work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> TV dinner still cooling?
> Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/

--
  Petteri Hiisilä
  Senior Interaction Designer
  iXDesign / +358505050123 /
  petteri.hiisila at ixdesign.fi

  "Simple is better than complex.
   Complex is better than complicated."
   - Tim Peters