Requirements Elicitation and Complex Systems Modeling: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Emergency Situations

  • Elaine Alves de CarvalhoEmail author
  • Alessandro Jatobá
  • Paulo Victor Rodrigues de Carvalho
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10257)


Information systems are important technological allies on the organization context. In emergency situations, they can be even more necessary. Classical information system specification approaches do not focus in relevant aspects of sociotechnical relations. They adopt simplified ways to represent reality and do not consider functional interactions between equipment, procedures and human resources of sociotechnical systems. In consequence, technological devices become insufficient in the capacity to respond to disaster situations.

The focus of this work is to propose a discussion that contributes to create a heuristic approach to better define system requirements. The goal is to combine context modeling methods and human factors to model complex interactions in emergency situations.


Information system Emergency situation Complex system modeling Requirement elicitation 


  1. 1.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guarnieri, F., Travadel, S.: Engineering thinking in emergency situations: a new nuclear safety concept. Bull. At. Sci. 70(6), 79–86 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katina, P., Keating, C.B., Jaradat, R.M.: System requirements engineering in complex situations. Requirements Eng. 19, 45–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koen, B.V.: Definition of the Engineering Method. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J., Donaldson, M.S.: To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffman, R.R., Woods, D.D.: Studying cognitive systems in context: preface to the special section. Hum. Factors 42(1), 1–7 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollnagel, E.: Barriers and Accident Prevention. Ashgate, Aldershot (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hollnagel, E., Hounsgaard, J., Colligan, L.: FRAM – The Functional Resonance Analysis Method – A Handbook for the Practical Use of the Method. Centre for Quality, Southern Region of Denmark (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.: Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Ratón (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pavard, B., Dugdale, J.: The contribution of complexity theory to the study of sociotechnical cooperative systems. In: Minai, A.A., Bar-Yam, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Unifying Themes in Complex Systems, pp. 39–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comput. Sci. - Res. Dev. 23(2), 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vicente, K.J.: Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work, 1st edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vieira, F.K.: O Uso da Teoria Geral dos Sistemas para Análise e Investigação de Acidentes Aeronáuticos. Ph.D. thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro- COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Alves de Carvalho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alessandro Jatobá
    • 1
  • Paulo Victor Rodrigues de Carvalho
    • 1
  1. 1.Post-Graduate Program in Informatics, Núcleo de Computação EletrônicaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations