Modeling and illustrating requirement prioritization in public e-service development from a value-based perspective

A major problem in e-service development is the prioritization of the requirements of different stakeholders. The main stakeholders are governments and their citizens, all of whom have different and sometimes conflicting requirements. In this paper, the prioritization problem is addressed by combining a value-based approach with an illustration technique. This paper examines the following research question: How can multiple stakeholder requirements be illustrated from a value-based perspective in order to be prioritizable? We used an e-service development case taken from a Swedish municipality to elaborate on our approach. Our contributions are: 1) a model of the relevant domains for requirement prioritization for government, citizens, technology, finances and laws and regulations; and 2) a requirement fulfillment analysis tool (RFA) that consists of a requirement-goal-value matrix (RGV), and a calculation and illustration module (CIM). The model reduces cognitive load, helps developers to focus on value fulfillment in e-service development and supports them in the formulation of requirements. It also offers an input to public policy makers, should they aim to target values in the design of e-services.

Influences of infrastructure and attitudes to health on value of travel time savings in bicycle journeys

In this paper we investigate how attitudes to health and exercise in connection with cycling influence the estimation of values of travel time savings in different kinds of bicycle environments (mixed traffic, bicycle lane in the road way, bicycle path next to the road, and bicycle path not in connection with the road). The results, based on two Swedish stated choice studies, suggest that the values of travel time savings are lower when cycling in better conditions. Surprisingly, the respondents do not consider cycling on a path next to the road worse than cycling on a path not in connection to the road, indicating that they do not take traffic noise and air pollution into account in their decision to cycle. No difference can be found between cycling on a road way (mixed traffic) and cycling in a bicycle lane in the road way. The results also indicate that respondents that include health aspects in their choice to cycle have lower value of travel time savings for cycling than respondents that state that health aspects are of less importance, at least when cycling on a bicycle path. The appraisals of travel time savings regarding cycling also differ a lot depending on the respondents’ alternative travel mode. The individuals who stated that they will take the car if they do not cycle have a much higher valuation of travel time savings than the persons stating public transport as the main alternative to cycling.