This document provides justifications for the approaches used in a research project to develop an e-menu prototype for a Thai restaurant. It discusses: 1) The relationship between research objectives, approaches, and outcomes using a case study methodology. 2) The justification for using a case study methodology, RAD software development, direct observation for requirements gathering, and group interviews for data collection. Reasons included enabling an in-depth understanding of business needs and processes. 3) The document concludes the approaches allowed for a deep understanding of requirements but were time-consuming, requiring an action plan for effective time management.

1. ANNOTATION OF
JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE
APPROACHES
Project: E-menu on iPad for Thai restaurant
Topic: Annotation
Content: Annotation of justifications of the approaches
Created by Traitet Th.
Created Date 11 Aug 2012
Revised Date 3 Sep 2012
Revision No. 1.0
Document Name A02-001

2. JUSTIFICATION OF THE APPROACHES
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
2
Content of this document

3. 1) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES, APPROACHES AND
OUTCOMES
3

4. 1) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES,
APPROACHES AND OUTCOMES
4
No Objectives Approaches Outcomes
Relationships among Research Objectives, Approaches and Outcomes
The main approach employed for this research was a “Case Study” methodology.
Literature Review
(To identify key issue)
RAD Methodology
(Software Development)
Case Study Methodology
Direct Observation
(To investigate
requirements &
develop prototype)
Group Interviews
(To collect data and
evaluate system)
Content Analysis
(Data Analysis)
Data Collection
1
To identify key issues
relating to development
of producing
e-menu prototype
Critical evaluation
the range of literature
Key issues relating to
development of e-menu
application
2
To investigate the system
requirements and develop
the e-menu prototype
Direct observation and
Rapid Application (RAD)
Development
List of requirements, e-
menu prototype and
system analysis and
design documents
3
To evaluate users'
perceptions of the final
e-menu prototype
Group interviews and
content analysis
Users' perceptions
4
To make
recommendations
regarding e-menu
development
Reflection of software
development processes
Recommendations
regarding development
of e-menu prototype

5. 2) JUSTIFICATION OF APPROACHES
5

6. 2) JUSTIFICATION OF APPROACHES
6
Approaches Objectives
Case Study
Rapid Application Development (RAD)
Direct Observation
To develop a software prototype
To gather business requirements
Qualitative approaches
(Group interviews)
To collect data by direct observation
To employ this research

7. 7
2.1) JUSTIFICATION OF APPROACHE
TO EMPLOY RESEARCH
No Compared item Case Study Quantitative Approach
1
Providing holistic and in-depth explanations of the
behavioural problems
Yes No
2 Suitable for conducting evaluation research Yes No
3
Appropriate for a descriptive research question, such
as what or how.
Yes No
4 Time-consuming Yes No
The “Case Study” Methodology
(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?

8. 2.2) JUSTIFICATION OF APPROACHE
FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
8
No Compared Item Waterfall Agile
RAD with
Prototyping
Description
1 Traditional approach Yes No No
Waterfall approach clearly separates development
processes, and doesn't return to a previous stage.
(Khan et al. 2011)
2
Uses iterative process
No Yes Yes
Iterative process can improve a quality of application
and increase customer satisfaction (Hoffer, George
and Valacich 2008).
3
Software is likely fit with business
needs.
No Yes Yes
Agile and RAD use a iterative process, which is
flexible when a requirement is changed (Kendal
2011).
4 Experimental approach No No Yes
RAD is an experimental method, which may result in
insufficiently understand the overall business
requirements (Khan et al. 2011).
5
Able to increase the overall cost
and implementation time
No Yes Yes
Iterative process able to increase the overall cost and
time. For example, after requirements are changed, a
project will need more time to develop (Cobb 2011).
6 Appropriate for a large project Yes Yes No
A large project needs a lot of developers and much
time to implement. It is difficult to observe at a
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).
The "RAD (Rapid Application Development)" Approach

9. 9
2.3) JUSTIFICATION OF APPORACH
TO GATHER REQUIREMENTS
No Compared item Direct observation
Indirect Observation e.g.
recording video
1
Provide insight into the users, their tasks and business
requirements.
Yes No
2 Clear understanding of problem areas Yes No
3 Time-consuming Yes No
4
Effective to gather both implicit and explicit
requirements
Yes No
5 Interrupt staff when they are working Yes No
This research chose Direct Observation to gather requirements
because it enabled the learner to understand clearly the business processes and requirements.
(Kriwaczek 2006)
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)
The “Direct Observation” Approach

10. 10
2) JUSTIFICATION OF APPROACHE
TO COLLECT DATA
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 No
8 Interviewees have to spend more time Yes No
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.
(Wisker 2008; Flick 2009; Seale 2012)
However, the learner changed the plan to complete the final prototype &
interviewed earlier to spend more time for documentation.
Countermeasure

11. CONCLUSION
11
The main issue of this research was that both the case study and direct
observation were time-consuming. However, this research employed those
approaches to understand in-depth business processes and requirements.
Therefore, an action plan or Gantt chart was necessary for managing schedules
and tasks in order to carry out research within definite time.
Furthermore, RAD methodology with prototyping was also a good approach to
reduce implementation time. It also enabled the developer to work more closely
with 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 on
the e-menu prototype to produce e-menu application in the future.

12. REFERENCES
12
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.