Abstract
ARMOR is a graphical language for modeling business goals and enterprise architectures. In previous work we have identified problems with understandability of goal-oriented concepts for practicing enterprise architects. In this paper we replicate the earlier quasi-experiments with experts in requirements engineering, to see if similar problems arise. We found that fewer mistakes were made in this replication than were made in the previous experiment with practitioners, but that the types of mistakes made in all the concepts were similar to the mistakes made in our previous experiments with enterprise architects. The stakeholder concept was used perfectly by our sample, but the goal decomposition relation was not understood. The subjects provided explanations for understandability problems that are similar to our previous hypothesized explanations. By replicating some of our earlier results, this paper provides additional support for the generalizability of our earlier results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abrahão, S., Insfran, E., Carsí, J.A., Genero, M.: Evaluating requirements modeling methods based on user perceptions: A family of experiments. Information Sciences 181(16), 3356–3378 (2011)
Anton, A.I.: Goal-based requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 136–144. IEEE (1996)
Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)
Business Motivation Model: Business motivation model version 1.0. (2007) (September 22, 2009), Standard document: http://www.omg.org/spec/BMM/1.0/PDF
Caire, P., Genon, N., Moody, D., et al.: Visual notation design 2.0: Towards user-comprehensible re notations. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (2013)
Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X.: On the use of i* for architecting hybrid systems: A method and an evaluation report. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 38–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Engelsman, W., Quartel, D.A.C., Jonkers, H., van Sinderen, M.J.: Extending enterprise architecture modelling with business goals and requirements. Enterprise Information Systems 5(1), 9–36 (2011)
Engelsman, W., Wieringa, R.: Understandability of goal-oriented requirements engineering concepts for enterprise architects. In: Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Quix, C., Rolland, C., Manolopoulos, Y., Mouratidis, H., Horkoff, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 105–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Engelsman, W., Wieringa, R.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering and enterprise architecture: two case studies and some lessons learned. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Horkoff, J., Yu, E.: Evaluating goal achievement in enterprise modeling–an interactive procedure and experiences. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Understanding understandability of conceptual models - what are we actually talking about? - supplement. Tech. rep., UniversitÃts- und Landesbibliothek, Postfach 151141, 66041 SaarbrÃcken (2013), http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2013/5441
Jureta, I., Faulkner, S.: An agent-oriented meta-model for enterprise modelling. In: Akoka, J., et al. (eds.) ER Workshops 2005. LNCS, vol. 3770, pp. 151–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P.: Comparing goal modelling languages: An experiment. In: Sawyer, P., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2007. LNCS, vol. 4542, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Moody, D.: The ”physics” of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. Requirements Engineering 15(2), 141–175 (2010)
Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative enterprise modeling: experiences and recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9. Van Haren Publishing (2009)
The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing (2012)
van Lamsweerde, A.: From system goals to software architecture. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 25–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Yu, E.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 226–235. IEEE Computer Society Press (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Engelsman, W., Wieringa, R. (2014). Understandability of Goal Concepts by Requirements Engineering Experts. In: Indulska, M., Purao, S. (eds) Advances in Conceptual Modeling. ER 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8823. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12256-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12256-4_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12255-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12256-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)