RAD is a software development methodologySampling of this case study is a convenience sampling at a Thai casual dining restaurant in UK.Group Interviews with 12 restaurant staff members (total 16 people) including the restaurant manager, waiting staff and chef.
A2 annotation approach
ANNOTATION OF JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE APPROACHES Created by Traitet Th.Project: E-menu on iPad for Thai restaurant Created Date 11 Aug 2012Topic: Annotation Revised Date 3 Sep 2012 Revision No. 1.0Content: Annotation of justifications of the approaches Document Name A02-001
2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE A PPROA CHES Content of this document 1. Relationships between research objectives, approaches and outcomes 2. Justification of approaches • Approach for doing research • Approach for software development • Approach for gathering requirements • Approach for collecting data
1 ) R EL AT IO N SH IP BET W EEN R ESEAR C HO BJ EC T IVES, APPR O AC H ES AN DO U T C OM ES 3
1) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, APPROACHES AND OUTCOMES Relationships among Research Objectives, Approaches and Outcomes Case Study Methodology No Objectives Approaches Outcomes Literature Review To identify key issues Key issues relating to relating to development Critical evaluation (To identify key issue) 1 development of e-menu of producing the range of literature application e-menu prototype RAD Methodology List of requirements, e- (Software Development) To investigate the system Direct observation and menu prototype and 2 requirements and develop Rapid Application (RAD) system analysis and the e-menu prototype Development design documentsDirect Observation Group Interviews (To investigate (To collect data and requirements & To evaluate users evaluate system) Group interviews and develop prototype) 3 perceptions of the final Users perceptions content analysis e-menu prototype Data Collection To make Recommendations recommendations Reflection of software Content Analysis 4 regarding development regarding e-menu development processes (Data Analysis) of e-menu prototype development The main approach employed for this research was a “Case Study” methodology.
6 2) JUSTIFICATION OF APPROACHES Approaches Objectives Case Study To employ this researchRapid Application Development (RAD) To develop a software prototype Direct Observation To gather business requirements Qualitative approaches To collect data by direct observation (Group interviews)
2 . 1 ) J U S T I F I C AT I O N O F A P P R O A C H E 7 TO EMPLOY RESEARCH The “Case Study” Methodology No Compared item Case Study Quantitative Approach Providing holistic and in-depth explanations of the 1 Yes No behavioural problems 2 Suitable for conducting evaluation research Yes No Appropriate for a descriptive research question, such 3 Yes No as what or how. 4 Time-consuming Yes No (Kemanusiaan 2007; Baxter and Jack 2008) The Case Study approach was selected as a research methodology because it is appropriate for the research question and enables understanding of in-depth business requirements of a casual dinning restaurant. However, it is necessary to make an effective action plan to prevent the time-consuming issue.Research Question: How can a prototype of an electronic menu (e-menu) application be developed for the casual dining restaurant industry to meet business requirements?
2 . 2 ) J U S T I F I C AT I O N O F A P P R O A C H E 8 F O R S O F T WA R E D E V E L O P M E N T The "RAD (Rapid Application Development)" Approach RAD withNo Compared Item Waterfall Agile Description Prototyping Waterfall approach clearly separates development1 Traditional approach Yes No No processes, and doesnt return to a previous stage. (Khan et al. 2011) Iterative process can improve a quality of application Uses iterative process2 No Yes Yes and increase customer satisfaction (Hoffer, George and Valacich 2008). Agile and RAD use a iterative process, which is Software is likely fit with business3 No Yes Yes flexible when a requirement is changed (Kendal needs. 2011). RAD is an experimental method, which may result in4 Experimental approach No No Yes insufficiently understand the overall business requirements (Khan et al. 2011). Iterative process able to increase the overall cost and Able to increase the overall cost5 No Yes Yes time. For example, after requirements are changed, a and implementation time project will need more time to develop (Cobb 2011). A large project needs a lot of developers and much time to implement. It is difficult to observe at a6 Appropriate for a large project Yes Yes No customer site and make a prototype at a short time (Meso and Jain 2011) The RAD approach was selected as a software development methodology because it is suitable for narrow project scope with a small implementation team (Gantt head 2010).
2 . 3 ) J U S T I F I C AT I O N O F A P P O R A C H 9 T O G AT H E R R E Q U I R E M E N T S The “Direct Observation” Approach Indirect Observation e.g.No Compared item Direct observation recording video Provide insight into the users, their tasks and business1 Yes No requirements.2 Clear understanding of problem areas Yes No3 Time-consuming Yes No Effective to gather both implicit and explicit4 Yes No requirements5 Interrupt staff when they are working Yes No (Kriwaczek 2006) This research chose Direct Observation to gather requirements because it enabled the learner to understand clearly the business processes and requirements. However, the learner decided to work as a waiter to reduce the interruption of staff, and had used the action plan to manage the project and time. (See details in the Project Action plan file)
2 ) J U S T I F I C AT I O N O F A P P R O A C H E 10 T O C O L L E C T D ATA The “Group Interview” Approach No Compared item Interview Questionnaire 1 Biased by researchers Yes No 2 Make clear in unambiguous question Yes No 3 Prevent missing important information Yes No 4 High response rates likely Yes No 5 Data collection can be time-consuming. No Yes 6 Data Analysis can be time-consuming Yes No 7 Reliability of data Yes NoCountermeasure 8 Interviewees have to spend more time Yes No (Wisker 2008; Flick 2009; Seale 2012) The group interview was selected as an approach to collect data of users’ perceptions on the e-menu prototype because it is an effective method to understand users’ perceptions. Users can also provide useful recommendations and in-depth additional requirements information to produce an e-menu application in the future, whereas using questionnaires is more difficult to get useful feedback and additional requirements from stakeholders. However, the learner changed the plan to complete the final prototype & interviewed earlier to spend more time for documentation.
11 CONCLUSIONThe main issue of this research was that both the case study and directobservation were time-consuming. However, this research employed thoseapproaches to understand in-depth business processes and requirements.Therefore, an action plan or Gantt chart was necessary for managing schedulesand tasks in order to carry out research within definite time.Furthermore, RAD methodology with prototyping was also a good approach toreduce implementation time. It also enabled the developer to work more closelywith stakeholders for gathering requirements and receiving feedback. Therefore,the final prototype could be developed close to business requirements.Finally, group interviews could provide useful recommendations and feedback onthe e-menu prototype to produce e-menu application in the future.
12 REFERENCES BAXTER, Pamela and JACK, Susan (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. [online]. The Qualitative Report. 13(4), 544-559. Article from Nova South Eastern University last accessed 3 September 2012 at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf. GANTTHEAD (2010). Rapid Application Development process. [online]. Last accessed 3 September 2012 at: http://www.gantthead.com/content/processes/11306.cfm. KEMANUSIAAN, Jurnal (2007). Case study as a research method. [online]. Last accessed 3 September 2012 at: http://eprints.utm.my/8221/1/ZZainal2007-Case_study_as_a_Research.pdf. KRIWACZEK, Frank (2006). HCI: Requirements Analysis. [online]. Last accessed 3 September 2012 at: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~frk/frank/da/hci/Requirements%20Analysis%20handout.pdf. WISKER, Gina (2008). The postgraduate research handbook: Methods in brief. 2nd ed., New York, Palgrave Macmillan.