Question 1 of 8: Stakeholders

Question 1: Stakeholders (10 points)

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

Part 1 — pets (2 points). Yes. A pet cannot operate a user interface and is not a “user” in the requirements-engineering sense, but it is still a stakeholder because the smart home's automated behaviour materially affects it and it can, in turn, materially affect the system's correct operation (Sommerville's stakeholder definition does not require the party to be human or technically literate). Its interests and constraints are represented by proxy through the home owner, since the pet cannot state a requirement itself.

Part 2 — relatives (3 points). Yes, non-resident relatives belong in the profile as a distinct stakeholder class from the resident “Home owners” and the co-resident “Children of home owners” already listed, because they interact with the system differently: typically as occasional visitors or remote monitors rather than daily occupants. Their interests centre on peace of mind — visibility into whether the senior occupant is safe (fall detection, unusual inactivity alerts, a simple way to check in remotely, e.g. video calling integrated into the same automation platform) — balanced against the senior's own privacy and autonomy, which is the system's stated goal.

Part 3 — a wheelchair-using relative (2 points). This is not a new stakeholder row so much as an additional, explicit constraint attached to the existing “Children of home owners” / relatives row: the automated environment (door widths and thresholds, counter and control-panel reach height, ramp gradients, turning radius in corridors) must satisfy accessibility clearances for a wheelchair user during that relative's visits, not only for the ambulatory home owners. Concretely, any physical automation (doors, gates) needs a wheelchair-compatible clear width and an activation control mounted within a seated reach envelope (broadly consistent with CSA B651 accessible-design reach ranges), and any safety alert must not assume the occupant can stand or move quickly.

Part 4 — an additional stakeholder (3 points). Emergency responders (paramedics / fire department dispatch). Interests: on receiving an automated alert (e.g. a fall or an unanswered check-in), responders need a fast, standardized, unambiguous signal — ideally integrated with municipal 911/dispatch protocols rather than a proprietary notification only the family sees — and, on arrival, reliable information about the occupant's location within the home and any known medical conditions. Constraints: responders need a way to gain physical entry without forcing the door (e.g. an automated, audit-logged lock override triggered only by a verified emergency dispatch, a common life-safety requirement that itself becomes a new functional and security requirement on the system).