Organisational requirements definition for information technology systems

Dobson, John; Strens, Ros

doi:10.1109/icre.1994.292390

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, ORDIT [14] focused on the delegation of responsibilities to agencies, rather than the structural organisational relationships. In contrast, the teleological approach of Loucopoulos and Kavakli [28] focused on deriving goals from the organisational activities, but did not clarify the lines of authority and delegation.…”

Section: The Principles Of Management Control and Access Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On modelling access policies: relating roles to their organisational context

Crook

Ince

Nuseibeh

2005

13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Principles Of Management Control and Access Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On modelling access policies: relating roles to their organisational context

Crook

Ince

Nuseibeh

2005

13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'05)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This leads to problems (1) and (2). Furthermore, there is increasing awareness that requirements are not objective, but emergent (Dobson and Strens, 1994); they are socially constructed by the interactions that take place within the requirements process. Thus we can never be sure that a requirements document is complete and correct in any absolute sense.…”

Section: Components Of a Safety Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliable and accountable system design

Krause

Hesketh

Robertson

1997

The Knowledge Engineering Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few would disagree with the assertion that safe engineering starts from the early stages of system design and should be maintained throughout the lifecycle. Dierent engineering domains have developed, mostly informal, frameworks with which they hope to promote this attitude. An interesting question for the KBS community is whether some of our methods for knowledge representation and reasoning can be used to assist in understanding, representing and interpreting such frameworks. This paper concentrates on what is (arguably) the area of greatest concern: relating system requirements to high level design. We highlight what appear to be the major diculties which face us in this area, using examples from systems which have been built to tackle them.

show abstract

“…There had been a considerable amount of research in order to develop appropriate modeling techniques to the automation of organisations (see, e.g., [1] [7] [20] [21] [28] [41]). Although it is recognised that the success of the automation of organisations depends on the adoption of explicit organisational models, there is a lack of approaches that provide a rigorous description of the meaning of organisational concepts (e.g., role, right, permission, obligation, authority, authorisation, responsibility and delegation).…”

Section: [19] [22] [29] [30] [31] [32]])mentioning

confidence: 99%

Specifying and reasoning with institutional agents

Santos

Pacheco

2003

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law - ICAIL '03

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a logic-oriented framework for institutional agents specification and analysis. Within this framework institutional agents are seen as artificial agents that aggregate a set of (real) agents, being capable to act (by means of real agents' actions) and to whom deontic qualifications may be associated. In order to analyse how institutional agents interact with the external world, the following aspects are characterised: how the obligations flow from the institutional agent to the real agents that support him, and how the actions of the latter count as actions of the former. The fundamental concept supporting these aspects is the concept of role.Institutional agents are specified and analysed by means of a firstorder role based deontic/action modal logic. The analysis is automated by means of a tableaux theorem proving method extended with additional rules to deal with the proposed classical action and deontic modalities.

show abstract

Organisational requirements definition for information technology systems

Cited by 26 publications

References 3 publications

On modelling access policies: relating roles to their organisational context

On modelling access policies: relating roles to their organisational context

Reliable and accountable system design

Specifying and reasoning with institutional agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About