Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Goal-Based Decision Making

Using Goal-Oriented Problem Structuring and Evaluation Visualization for Multi Criteria Decision Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9619))

Abstract

[Context and motivation]: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) are two fields that naturally complement each other for providing decision support. Particularly, GORE techniques complement MCDA in terms of problem structuration and visualization of alternative evaluation, and MCDA techniques complement GORE in terms of alternative elimination and selection. Yet currently, these two fields are only connected in an ad-hoc manner. [Question/Problem]: We aim to establish a clearcut link between GORE and MCDA. [Principal ideas/results]: We propose the Goal-based Decision Making (GDM) framework for establishing a clearcut link between GORE and MCDA. We provide computational support for the GDM framework by means of tool chaining, and illustrate GDM with an insurance case. [Contribution]: With GDM, we contribute (1) The GDM reference model, whereby we relate MCDA concepts and GORE concepts; and (2) The GDM procedural model, whereby we provide a decision making process that integrates GORE modeling and analysis techniques and MCDA methods.

Both authors are members of the EE-Network research and training network (www.ee-network.eu).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://jucmnav.softwareengineering.ca/ucm/bin/view/ProjetSEG/WebHome.

References

  1. Akhigbe, O., Amyot, D., Richards, G.: A framework for a business intelligence-enabled adaptive enterprise architecture. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 393–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Shemmeri, T., Al-Kloub, B., Pearman, A.: Model choice in multicriteria decision aid. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 97(3), 550–560 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Amyot, D., Shamsaei, A., Kealey, J., Tremblay, E., Miga, A., Mussbacher, G., Alhaj, M., Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N.: Towards advanced goal model analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, L.V.S., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012 Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Barron, F.H., Barrett, B.E.: Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manage. Sci. 42(11), 1515–1523 (1996)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Belton, V., Montibeller, G.: Qualitative operators for reasoning maps. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 195(3), 829–840 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Belton, V., Stewart, T.: Problem structuring and multiple criteria decision analysis. In: Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J.R., Greco, S. (eds.) Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, pp. 209–239. Springer, Berlin (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bjeković, M., Proper, H.A., Sottet, J.-S.: Embracing pragmatics. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 431–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8(3), 203–236 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. e Costa, C.A.B., Ensslin, L., Cornêa, É.C., Vansnick, J.C.: Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decisionaid process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 113(2), 315–335 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cummins, J.D., Doherty, N.A.: The economics of insurance intermediaries. J. Risk Insur. 73(3), 359–396 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Elahi, G., Yu, E.: Comparing alternatives for analyzing requirements trade-offs-in the absence of numerical data. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(6), 517–530 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellis-Braithwaite, R., Lock, R., Dawson, R.: Towards an approach for analysing the strategic alignment of software requirements using quantified goal graphs. J. Adv. Softw. 6(1), 119–130 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Elrod, T., Johnson, R.D., White, J.: A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 95(1), 1–19 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, vol. 78. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2005)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghanavati, S., Rifaut, A., Dubois, E., Amyot, D.: Goal-oriented compliance with multiple regulations. In: The Proceedings of RE 2014, pp. 73–82 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W.: Heuristic decision making. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 62, 451–482 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gutman, J.: Means-end chains as goal hierarchies. Psychol. Mark. 14(6), 545–560 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. ITU-T: User requirements notation (URN)–language definition, November 2008. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en

  19. Jonkers, H., Band, I., Quartel, D.: The archisurance case study. White paper, The Open Group (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keeney, R.L.: Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 92(3), 537–549 (1996)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Liaskos, S., McIlraith, S.A., Sohrabi, S., Mylopoulos, J.: Representing and reasoning about preferences in requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. 16(3), 227–249 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Montibeller, G., Belton, V., Ackermann, F., Ensslin, L.: Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 59(5), 575–589 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Neves, L., Dias, L.C., Antunes, C.H., Martins, A.G.: Structuring an MCDA model using SSM: a case study in energy efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 199(3), 834–845 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J.: Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 14(3), 534 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J.: The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Pourshahid, A., Amyot, D., Peyton, L., Ghanavati, S., Chen, P., Weiss, M., Forster, A.J.: Business process management with the user requirements notation. Electron. Commer. Res. 9(4), 269–316 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Saaty, T.L.: Decision making-the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13(1), 1–35 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Solomon, M.R.: Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Thalheim, B.: The theory of conceptual models, the theory of conceptual modelling and foundations of conceptual modelling. In: Embley, D.W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Handbook of Conceptual Modeling, pp. 543–577. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Yu, E.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: The Proceedings of RE 1997, pp. 226–235 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sepideh Ghanavati for her valuable feedback on the usefulness of the GDM framework. Furthermore, the authors thank Sepideh Ghanavati and Daniel Amyot for their guidance on using the jUCMNav tool. This work has been sponsored by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (www.fnr.lu), via the PEARL programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Qin Ma

  2. University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Sybren de Kinderen

Authors
  1. Qin Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sybren de Kinderen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qin Ma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Maya Daneva

  2. Universidad Politècnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Oscar Pastor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ma, Q., de Kinderen, S. (2016). Goal-Based Decision Making. In: Daneva, M., Pastor, O. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9619. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30281-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30282-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation