Fundamental
Custodial Data Access D Fundamental External Response I
Stimulus A Activity
Activity
B D
External Entity
Data Store Mixed Data Access Q External Entity
BB Custodial
Response G S Stimulus X BB
Fundamental Stimulus J
Activity Mixed
Stimulus W
V Activity
Custodial Response P External
E Response K
External Response X Custodial Response O
External Entity
CC Custodial
Data Access Y Mixed Data Access N External Entity
Data Store
AA
T
Section 2. Analysis
1) Establish Canberra Disability Services’ Purpose
2) Discover Canberra Disability Services’ Events
3) Construct a Table of Events and Responses
4) Build Activity Tables
5) Create Event-Activity Related DFD’s and E-R Diagrams
6) Transform Event-Activity Related DFD’s into Abstract DFD’s
7) Create Documentation for all Activities
SAaM Methodology 1
2 Richard Lucas UCAN
The Seven Steps
he procedure here begins with uncovering the purpose of a system and ends with documenting all
T activities. In between are steps that uncover the events, activities, and information, abstracts these.
Remember that it is only those are required to meet the purpose of the system that are so analyzed.
SAaM Methodology 3
Step 1 – Establish Purpose
The first and most important task in analysis is to determine what the purpose of the system is. Like the
next three steps, Uncovering Events, Constructing a Table of Events and Responses, and Building Activity
Tables (one for each Event), it is crucial that the Purpose be determined primarily by the User of the System.
How do you do this? Well, it turns out that the ones in the best position to know is the domain expert user.
This methodology does not include the vagaries of Purpose gathering but the analyst should not construe
that Purpose gathering is an easy or trivial process.
Where there are apparent differences between the stated Purpose and an Event then either, the Purpose
ought to be modified to include the new Event (and subsequent Activities) or, have the Event excluded for
those to be considered.
In accordance with the methodology the table of Events and Responses ought to have columns for Event,
Event Type, Response, and Response Type. See Lectures on A Methodology for Systems Analysis for the
meanings of these terms.
In accordance with the methodology these Tables of Activities ought to have a heading indicating which
Event is being modelled as well as columns for each Activity, Activity Type, Response, and Response Type.
See Lectures on A Methodology for Systems Analysis for the meanings of these terms.
Where it is not possible for this to be done because there are too many stimuli and responses
to come from and go to a particular External Entity then these data flows should be left blank.
At this stage the Entity-Relationship Diagram starts to take shape with the data stores in the
DFDs containing groups of data structures which are equivalent to entities in the E-RD. It
is natural to want to normalize the E-RD but this is not absolutely necessary until the next
section. As well, the data dictionary should be starting to be built.
SAaM Methodology 5
Step 6 – Transform Event Related Primitive DFD’s into
Abstract DFDs
Section1 – Remove Event and Technology References
So far the steps have been fairly procedural with the analyst’s principle task being recording,
classifying, and clarifying what the user describes. Now it is the job of the analyst to examine
the DFDs and extract from them the essence of the system. This involves a practical application
of the methodology explained in Lectures on A Methodology for Systems Analysis.
In particular, Event references are eliminated entirely from the DFDs and the Activities have
their labels changed to remove any reference to both External Entities and technology.
Now, the Entity-Relationship Diagram needs to be checked so that it conforms to the level of
normalization required for the model (at least 3rd normal form – 3NF, possibly higher) as well
as being both complete and consistent for the model of the system.
The data flows for these DFDs are modelled using the descriptions:
Part 1. Profile
Part 2. Example Forms
The Service (as it is usually called by our clients) is managed by Kim Putnam, who is herself a professional
care-giver. She has two full-time staff, one of whom also works as a care-giver, the other is an office
assistant. Kim has asked you to build a system with a prototype for The Service. Her immediate concern is
the management of records on clients and on care-givers. She is currently using a manual system borrowed
from a colleague in Canada (which has some peculiarities not appropriate to Australia). The information
on the forms (examples follow) is mostly that required by government agencies. Both the content and the
layout of existing forms must be used in the proposed system. Except, of course, for the obvious differences
between here and Canada.
Beyond this, the system should support the preparation of the fortnightly payroll. This involves the produc-
tion of a report. The care-givers are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Each care-giver turns in a slip of paper
(hand-written) for each contact with a client; the slip details the nature of the contact, the client, and the
care-giver. This determines the care-giver’s fee. These slips are totalled and cross-checked at every second
thursday. Currently this takes three employee-days. At the moment the slips are stored in the client’s file.
Data may be entered into the system by Kim or her two assistants. Owing to confidentiality requirements
certain client data may be entered by only Kim. or her care-giving qualified assistant. The office assistant
is responsible for entering all data on the care-givers although Kim can if there is a pressing need to do so.
Each care-giver can access data on their clients but only their clients.. Kim and her assistance may access
any information about any client. No other person may access any information whatsoever. The system
must provide for security and appropriate restrictions of access. Reports are prepared periodically, some
weekly, others monthly, quarterly, annually, or as needed.
None of the staff are particularly computer-literate but the ACT government has agreed to supply the
technology required to build the system. This is subject to the normal limits of the kinds of equipment the
government supplies to its own staff.
List of forms:
Individual’s Name:
—————————————————-
DSMIII Diagnosis: —————————————————-
Name:
Name:
11) Pets:
Name: Care:
Name: Care:
Signature: —————————————-
Signature:
—————————————-
Date: Progress:
—/—/— ————————————————————————————
Signature: —————————————-
( ) High
( ) Medium
( ) Low
Individual: Staff:
———————————————- ——————
Start Date: —/—/— Target Date: —/—/— Terminated Date: —/—/—
Method/Procedure: —————————————————————————————-
After having established a list of Events then the next task is to work out what the system
should give back to the environment as a response. In other words what does the user of the
system expect the system to deliver? This response may be made up of many parts.
11. Time to Complete the Shift Comment Log 11.1 Shift Comment Log
Acknowledgement
12. A Care Giver Completes a Family Interview 11.1 Family Interview Report
16. A Care Giver Completes a Progress Review 16.1 Client Progress Review Report
16.2 Progress Review Summary
Report
18. Kim Requests a Client’s File Access 18.1 Kim Requests a Client’s File
Summary Report Access Summary Report
19. Kim Hires a New Care Giver 11.1 New Care Giver Employment
Acknowledgement
1.5 Select Client’s Primary Care Giver 1.5.1 Client Care Details (Custodial)
(Custodial)
1.6 Notify Client of Primary Care Giver 1.6.1 2nd Interview Notice
(Fundamental) (External)
1.7 Notify Care Giver of New Client 1.7.1 2nd Interview Notice (External)
(Fundamental) 1.7.2 Client Care Details (External)
1.7.3 Preliminary Service Objectives
(External)
1.7.4 Client Acceptability Notice
(External)
Identifying External Entities as the source of the stimuli. Where does the Event
come from? Remember that it is because of the stimuli that we are aware of the
occurrence of an Event .
Recall that it may not be possible to render the complexity of the stimuli and responses into
a single descriptive names.
The data flows for these DFDs are modelled using the descriptions,
for stimuli -
for responses -
where nn is the number of the Event in the Table of Events. If the descriptive
names of an Event is short then the descriptive name can be added to give the
more complete, and hopefully helpful, label:
for stimuli -
for responses -
< ExternalEntityN ame > Response f rom Event nn + < descriptivename >
Data Dictionary
In particular, the Event processors are eliminated entirely and the Activity processors have
their labels changed to remove any reference to both External Entities and technology.
Now the Entity-Relationship Diagram needs to be checked so that it conforms to the level of
normalization required for the model (at least 3rd normal form – 3NF, possibly higher) and is
both complete and consistent for the model of the system.