Advertisement

The QDAcity-RE method for structural domain modeling using qualitative data analysis

  • Andreas Kaufmann
  • Dirk Riehle
Original Article

Abstract

The creation of domain models from qualitative input relies heavily on experience. An uncodified ad-hoc modeling process is still common and leads to poor documentation of the analysis. In this article we present a new method for domain analysis based on qualitative data analysis. The method helps identify inconsistencies, ensures a high degree of completeness, and inherently provides traceability from analysis results back to stakeholder input. These traces do not have to be documented after the fact. We evaluate our approach using four exploratory studies.

Keywords

Domain modeling Domain model Requirements engineering Requirements elicitation Qualitative data analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Katharina Kunz, Florian Schmitt and Benjamin Mempel for their valuable contributions executing the exploratory studies. We would also like to thank all anonymous interview partners as well as Siemens Healthcare, Deutsche Bahn and the openETCS project for participating in our studies and providing valuable feedback to improve our method. Finally, thanks to Hannes Dohrn, Maximilian Capraro, Michael Dorner, Nikolay Harutyunyan and Daniel Knogl for workshopping this paper to improve its presentation, and to Ann Barcomb for proofreading.

References

  1. 1.
    Achouri C (2015) Human resources management: eine praxisbasierte Einführung. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balzert H (2010) Lehrbuch der softwaretechnik: Basiskonzepte und requirements engineering. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bazeley P (2013) Qualitative data analysis: practical strategies. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker M (2009) Personalentwicklung-bildung, förderung und organisationsentwicklung in theorie und praxis. 5. erw. Aufl. Stuttgart. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, S 546Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blaauboer F, Sikkel K, Aydin MN (2007) Deciding to adopt requirements traceability in practice. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl AL, Sindre G (eds) Advanced information systems engineering. Springer, pp 294–308Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolloju N, Leung FS (2006) Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with uml. Commun ACM 49(7):108–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broy M (2013) Domain modeling and domain engineering: Key tasks in requirements engineering. In: Münch J, Schmid K (eds) Perspectives on the future of software engineering. Springer, pp 15–30Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byrd TA, Cossick KL, Zmud RW (1992) A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Q 16:117–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carvalho L, Scott L, Jeffery R (2005) An exploratory study into the use of qualitative research methods in descriptive process modelling. Inf Softw Technol 47(2):113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chakraborty S, Dehlinger J (2009) Applying the grounded theory method to derive enterprise system requirements. In: 10th ACIS international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligences, networking and parallel/distributed computing, 2009. SNPD’09. IEEE, pp 333–338 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chakraborty S, Rosenkranz C, Dehlinger J (2015) Getting to the shalls: facilitating sensemaking in requirements engineering. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst TMIS 5(3):14Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charmaz K (2014) Constructing grounded theory. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng BHC, Atlee JM (2007) Research directions in requirements engineering. In: 2007 future of software engineering, FOSE ’07. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 285–303. doi: 10.1109/FOSE.2007.17
  14. 14.
    Cleland-Huang J, Gotel OC, Huffman Hayes J, Mäder P, Zisman A (2014) Software traceability: trends and future directions. In: Proceedings of the on future of software engineering. ACM, pp 55–69Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corbin J, Strauss A (2014) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corbin JM, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cruzes DS, Vennesland A, Natvig MK (2013) Empirical evaluation of the quality of conceptual models based on user perceptions: a case study in the transport domain. In: Ng W, Storey VC, Trujillo JC (eds) Conceptual modeling. Springer, pp 414–428Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daoust N (2012) UML requirements modeling for business analysts: steps to modeling success. Technics Publications, DenvilleGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dvir D, Raz T, Shenhar AJ (2003) An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. Int J Proj Manag 21(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM (2010) What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health 25(10):1229–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gibson B, Hartman J (2013) Rediscovering grounded theory. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press, Mill ValleyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL (2009) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gotel O, Cleland-Huang J, Hayes JH, Zisman A, Egyed A, Grünbacher P, Dekhtyar A, Antoniol G, Maletic J (2012) The grand challenge of traceability (v1.0). In: Cleland-Huang J, Gotel O, Zisman A (eds) Software and systems traceability. Springer, pp 343–409Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guion LA (2002) Triangulation: establishing the validity of qualitative studies. Extension Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL. http://www.rayman-bacchus.net/uploads/documents/Triangulation.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2009
  26. 26.
    Halaweh M (2012) Application of grounded theory method in information systems research: methodological and practical issues. Rev Bus Inf Syst (Online) 16(1):27Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halaweh M (2012) Using grounded theory as a method for system requirements analysis. JISTEM J Inf Syst Technol Manag 9(1):23–38Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hofmann HF, Lehner F (2001) Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Softw 18(4):58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hruschka P (2014) Business analysis und requirements engineering: Produkte und Prozesse nachhaltig verbessern. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. ISBN-13: 978-3446438071Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hughes J, Wood-Harper T (1999) Systems development as a research act. J Inf Technol 14(1):83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Insfrán E, Pastor O, Wieringa R (2002) Requirements engineering-based conceptual modelling. Requir Eng 7(2):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kelle U (2010) The development of categories: different approaches in grounded theory. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 191–213Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    King N, Horrocks C (2010) Interviews in qualitative research. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Larman C (2005) Applying UML and patterns: an introduction to object-oriented analysis and design and iterative development. Pearson Education India, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B (1998) Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. CAM J 10(2):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mempel B (2014) Definition einer DSL mittels QDA, Master thesis, self publishedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Myers MD, Newman M (2007) The qualitative interview in is research: examining the craft. Inf Organ 17(1):2–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B (1992) Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(6):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nohl AM (2013) Narrativ fundierte interviews. In: Bohnsack R, Flick U, Lüders C, Reichertz J (eds) Interview und dokumentarische Methode. Springer, pp 13–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering. ACM, pp 35–46Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pidgeon NF, Turner BA, Blockley DI (1991) The use of grounded theory for conceptual analysis in knowledge elicitation. Int J Man Mach Stud 35(2):151–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Poels G, Maes A, Gailly F, Paemeleire R (2005) Measuring the perceived semantic quality of information models. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pohl K, Rupp C (2011) Requirements engineering fundamentals: a study guide for the certified professional for requirements engineering exam-foundation level-IREB compliant. Rocky Nook Inc, San RafaelGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prieto-Díaz R (1990) Domain analysis: an introduction. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 15(2):47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosenberg D, Stephens M (2007) Use case driven object modeling with UML. APress, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rupp C, Queins S et al (2012) UML 2 glasklar: Praxiswissen für die UML-Modellierung. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG, MunichCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rupp C et al (2014) Requirements-Engineering und-Management: Aus der Praxis von klassisch bis agil. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG, MunichCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ryschka J, Solga M, Mattenklott A (2010) Praxishandbuch Personalentwicklung: Instrumente, Konzepte. Springer, BeispieleGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schmidt A, Kunzmann C (2006) Towards a human resource development ontology for combining competence management and technology-enhanced workplace learning. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: OTM 2006 workshops. Springer, pp 1078–1087Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Strauss A, Corbin J et al (1990) Basics of qualitative research, vol 15. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Strübing J (2004) Was ist grounded theory? In: Bohnsack R, Flick U, Lüders C, Reichertz J (eds) Grounded theory. Springer, pp 13–35Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thom N, Zaugg RJ (2009) Moderne Personalentwicklung: Mitarbeiterpotenziale erkennen, entwickeln und fördern. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thomas K, Bandara AK, Price BA, Nuseibeh B (2014) Distilling privacy requirements for mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering. ACM, pp 871–882Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Verner J, Cox K, Bleistein S, Cerpa N (2005) Requirements engineering and software project success: an industrial survey in Australia and the us. Aust J Inf Syst 13(1):225–238Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wacker JG (1998) A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. J Oper Manag 16(4):361–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wallace L, Keil M (2004) Software project risks and their effect on outcomes. Commun ACM 47(4):68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wazlawick RS (2014) Object-oriented analysis and design for information systems: modeling with UML, OCL, and IFML. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Werner J, DeSimone R (2011) Human resource development. Cengage Learning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Würfel D, Lutz R, Diehl S (2015) Grounded requirements engineering: an approach to use case driven requirements engineering. J Syst Softw 117:645–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceFriedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations