Software Faults That Led to the Loss of Human Lives
2. Sharp, H. and Finkelstein, A. and Galal, G. (1999) Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Database & Expert Systems Applications (DEXA). (pp. pp. 387-391). IEEE Computer Society Press
3. Process of laddering
Laddering can be conducted in different directions: downward to seek explanation and upwards to elicit goals and values, or sideways to provide further examples at the same level.
I decided to concentrate on single direction upward laddering. The average interview took about 45 minutes during which I took handwritten notes, rather than tape recording in the majority of cases. Although the research of Reynolds and Gutman (1998) tended to elicit short responses (in this case perhaps because the focus was on identity meaning and values), the responses were wordy; so whenever it was possible to record the responses, it was helpful to be able to listen to them after the interview to search for meaning and explanation.
Data-collection procedures and processing Means-end theory was designed to explain the relationship between goods and consumers.
In this case, it was used to explain the relationship between physical artefacts in the organisational built environment and the organisational actors. In the original defi nition a good is defi ned by a series of attributes which yield consequences when the good is used.
The importance of these consequences is based on their ability to satisfy personally motivating values and goals of people. So in means-end theory, the relationship between attributes and values is also indirect but the consequences can be quite broad. It can encompass everyday activities but also consequences that are more functional or psychosocial in nature. In addition, means-end is more ‘bottom up’ in its approach in the sense that the meaning an artefact has for the individual is investigated
3. Process of laddering
Laddering can be conducted in different directions: downward to seek explanation and upwards to elicit goals and values, or sideways to provide further examples at the same level.
I decided to concentrate on single direction upward laddering. The average interview took about 45 minutes during which I took handwritten notes, rather than tape recording in the majority of cases. Although the research of Reynolds and Gutman (1998) tended to elicit short responses (in this case perhaps because the focus was on identity meaning and values), the responses were wordy; so whenever it was possible to record the responses, it was helpful to be able to listen to them after the interview to search for meaning and explanation.
Data-collection procedures and processing Means-end theory was designed to explain the relationship between goods and consumers.
In this case, it was used to explain the relationship between physical artefacts in the organisational built environment and the organisational actors. In the original defi nition a good is defi ned by a series of attributes which yield consequences when the good is used.
The importance of these consequences is based on their ability to satisfy personally motivating values and goals of people. So in means-end theory, the relationship between attributes and values is also indirect but the consequences can be quite broad. It can encompass everyday activities but also consequences that are more functional or psychosocial in nature. In addition, means-end is more ‘bottom up’ in its approach in the sense that the meaning an artefact has for the individual is investigated