Complete thesis - Murdoch University

with RE characterised as an organisational improvement process (Hoffer et al, 2002) basedon an identified problem. Differences noted include focus (eg overview of process versustechniques as in Kotonya and Sommerville (1997) and Davis (1990)) and context (eg theorganisational orientation in IS-based texts (as in Hoffer et al (2002)), as well as a greaterinclination to identify a broader skill set outside the technical area. In particular, IS-basedtexts acknowledge the importance of generic attributes: analytical and interpersonal as wellas management-oriented skills to support the analysis of a system.With regards to competency levels for RE elements, in general, model curricula advocate acompetency level hovering around Bloom’s level 3 (Application) as the most appropriate forthe completion of undergraduate education (see Table 2.1). The consistency of these findingssuggest that they can be universally applied to units addressing the discipline.Table 2.1: Minor: Bloom’s levels across model curriculaTopics CC-CS CC-IS CC-SEFeasibility Study n/a c (k)Elicitation a a cAnalysis a a aDetermination a n/a cDocumentation a a a/kVerification a n/a aRequirements Management n/a k k/cLegend: k – knowledge; c – comprehension; a – application; n/a – not addressedAlso in this chapter the perspectives through which the knowledge of RE is made availableis examined. Again, the literature of the domain provides a mechanism for identifying these.And again, a discrepancy is noted: a positivist perspective makes few, if any allowances forthe nature of RE, yet is dominant in the texts. The literature of research, on the otherhand, exposes the non-positivist view of RE. At this pole, experience based on practice andcreativity dominate, with an acknowledgement of both the wickedness of the domain andthe cognitive load of becoming competent in it. The transfer from research and practice toacademic texts is hampered by the lack of congruence in the perspectives adopted as well asthe ultimate objective of each – proficiency in applying knowledge (implied in the competencylevels considered appropriate for undergraduate learning) versus conceptual understandingin order to act as agents of change (implied in the focus on generic attributes (both cognitiveand affective) noted in practitioner studies).21