Requirements Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 63–80 | Cite as

The system reliability analyser tool

  • Andreas GregoriadesEmail author
  • Alistair Sutcliffe
Original Article


This paper describes the design and evaluation of a socio-technical design support system, the system reliability analyser (SRA). The tool is used to validate non-functional system requirements, such as system reliability. It employs a Bayesian belief network (BBN) model to assess system reliability (Pearl in Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible information, 1988) based on a variety of high-level operational scenarios. The tool diagnoses problematic areas in future system models and assists in the identification of their causes. The evaluation of the tool demonstrated that it supported the task it was intended to do. The evaluation also identified usability problems in the current visualisations and illustrated their resolution.


Requirements validation Bayesian belief networks System reliability Information visualisation 



This research has been funded by the EPSRC as part of the SIMP (system integration for major projects) project.


  1. 1.
    Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible information. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B (1992) Representing and using non-functional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Software Eng 18:483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heitmeyer C, Kirby J, Labaw B (1998) Applying the SCR requirements method to a weapons control panel: an experience report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on formal methods in software practice (FMSP’98), Clearwater Beach, Florida, March 1998Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heymans P, Dubois E (1998) Scenario based techniques for supporting the elaboration and the validation of formal requirements. Requirements Eng 3:202–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sutcliffe AG (1997) A technique combination approach to requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’97), Annapolis, Maryland, January 1997. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, District of Columbia, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atwood M, Burns B, Girgensohn A, Lee A, Turner T, Zimmermann B (1995) Prototyping considered dangerous. In: Proceedings of the 5th IFIP international conference on human–computer interaction (Interact ‘95), Lillehammer, Norway, June 27–29, pp 179–184Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sutcliffe A (2002) User-centred requirements engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson LW, Feather M, Harris D (1992) Representation and presentation of requirements knowledge. IEEE Trans Software Eng 18(10):853–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois P, Dubois E, Zeippen J (1997) On the use of a formal representation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’97), Annapolis, Maryland, January 1997. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, District of Columbia, pp 128–137Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potts C, Takahashi K, Smith J, Ota K (1995) An evaluation of inquiry-based requirements analysis for an Internet service. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’95), York, England, March 1995. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, District of Columbia, pp 27–42Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu E, Mylopoulos J (1994) Towards modelling strategic actor relationships for information systems development—with examples from business process reengineering. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on information technologies and systems (WITS’94), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 1994, pp 21–28Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maiden NAM, Sutcliffe AG (1994) Requirements critiquing using domain abstractions. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on requirements engineering (RE’94), Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 1994. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, District of Columbia, ref. HCID94/03, pp 184–194Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gregoriades A, Sutclife A, Shin JE (2002) Assessing the reliability of socio-technical systems. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual INCOSE (international council on systems engineering) conference, Las Vegas, July/August 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeffords R, Heitmeyer C (2003) A strategy for efficiently verifying requirements specifications using composition and invariants. In: Proceedings of the European software engineering conference/ACM GIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering (ESEC/FSE 2003), Helsinki, Finland, September 2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casey K, Exton C (2003) A Java 3D implementation of a Geon based visualization tool for UML. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international ACM conference on the principles and practice of programming in Java (PPPJ 2003), Kilkenny City, Ireland, June 2003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gemino A (2003) Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Require Eng (accepted)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lalioti V (1997) Animation for validation of business system specifications. In: Proceedings of the 30th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-30), the dynamics of business systems engineering, Maui, Hawaii, January 1997, pp 7–10Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lalioti V, Loucopoulos P(1994) Visualisation of conceptual specifications. Inf Syst 19:291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen D, Chen W, Kavi K (2002) Visual requirement representation. J Syst Software 61:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grau A, Kowsari M (1997) A validation system for object-oriented specifications of information systems. In: Manthey R, Wolfengagen V (eds) In: Proceedings of the 1st East-European symposium on advances in databases and information systems (ADBIS‘97), St. Petersburg, Russia, September 1997Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shneiderman B (1996) The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualisations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on visual languages (VL’96), Boulder, Colorado, September 1996, pp 336–343Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carroll J (1995) Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Breuker J, Van Der Velde W (1994) CommonKADS library for expertise modeling. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sutcliffe G (2002) The domain theory: patterns for knowledge and software reuse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Allard K (1996) Command, control, and the common defence (revised edition). National Defence University Press, Washington, District of ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hollnagel E (1993) Human reliability analysis: context and control. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Swain D, Guttmann H (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. United States National Regulatory Commission report NUREG/CR-1278, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, knowledge: signals, signs, and symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 13(3)257–266Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rasmussen J (1990) Human error and the problem of causality in analysis of accidents. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 327(1241):449–462Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norman D (1988) The psychology of everyday things. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Norman D (1999) The invisible computer. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fenton N, Pfleeger SL (1997) Software metrics: a rigorous approach, 2nd edn. International Thomson Computer Press, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fenton N (1999) Applying Bayesian belief networks to critical systems assessment. Crit Syst Club Newslett 8(3):10–13Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fenton N, Neil M (2001) Making decisions: using Bayesian nets and MCDA. Knowl-Based Syst 14:307–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sutcliffe AG, Rugg G (1998) A taxonomy of error types for failure analysis and risk assessment. Int J Hum Comput Interact 10(4)381–406Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leveson N (1995) Safeware: system safety and computers. Addison Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reason J (2000) Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot, UKGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sutcliffe AG, Galliers J, Minocha S (1999) Human errors and system requirements. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’99), Limerick, Ireland, June 1999, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gregoriades A, Sutclife A (2003) Diagnosing reliability problems in socio-technical systems: a visualisation approach. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual INCOSE (international council on systems engineering) symposium, Crystal City, Virginia, June 2003Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Neil M, Fenton N (1996) Predicting software quality using Bayesian belief networks. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual software engineering workshop (SEW21), NASA/Goddard Space Flight Centre, Greenbelt, Maryland, December 1996Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sutcliffe A, Maiden N, Minocha S, Darrel M (1998) Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Software Eng 24(12)1072–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Luxhoj JT (2002) Risk analysis of human performance in aviation maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 16th human factors in aviation maintenance symposium (HFIAM 2002), San Francisco, California, April 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for HCI, Department of ComputationUMISTManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations