Advertisement

Requirements Engineering

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 55–84 | Cite as

Understanding what is important in iStar extension proposals: the viewpoint of researchers

  • Enyo GonçalvesEmail author
  • Marcos Antônio de Oliveira
  • Ingrid Monteiro
  • Jaelson CastroEmail author
  • João Araújo
Original Article
  • 168 Downloads

Abstract

iStar is a goal-based requirements modelling language, being used in both industrial and academic projects of different domains. Often the language is extended to incorporate new constructs related to a particular application domain or to adjust it to practical situations during requirements modelling. Currently, the language is undergoing standardisation, and several studies have focused on the analysis of iStar variations to identify similarities and to define a core. This does not imply or constrain the need for iStar to continue to be extended. This paper contributes to the understanding of how iStar is extended by analysing how iStar researchers perform iStar extensions. To address this question, we followed a qualitative approach based on interviews involving 20 researchers from different research groups that proposed iStar extensions. The analysis revealed a good understanding about what extending a modelling language means and pointed out differences about how extensions are proposed. We discovered categories that impact positively on iStar extensions (such as reusing existing extensions, proposing extensions in abstract and concrete syntaxes, and creating new modelling tools), and other categories that impact negatively (such as modifying representations of the original constructs, proposing extensions in an ad hoc fashion and not carefully choosing graphical representations). We also evaluated the findings of interviews through an online survey answered by 30 iStar researchers. Finally, we proposed a set of guidelines to support the proposal for better future iStar extensions.

Keywords

Goal-based modelling iStar Extensions Qualitative study Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all participants of this study. We also thank CNPQ/Brazil (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for the financial support to the execution of this work, Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), LER-Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (LER/UFPE) and NOVA LINCS Research Laboratory (Ref. UID/CEC/04516/2013).

References

  1. 1.
    Alencar F, Moreira A, Araújo J, Castro J, Silva C, Mylopoulos J (2006) Towards an approach to integrate i* with aspects. In: 8th International bi-conference workshop on agent oriented information system in 18th international conference on advanced information systems engineeringGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alencar F, Castro J, Lucena M, Santos E, Silva C, Araújo J, Moreira A (2010) Towards modular i* models. In: ACM symposium on applied computing, pp 292–297Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ali R, Dalpiaz F, Giorgini P (2008) Location-based software modelling and analysis: Tropos-based approach. In: International conference on conceptual modelling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 5231. pp 169–182Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ali R, Dalpiaz F, Giorgini P (2014) Requirements-driven deployment. In: Software and systems modelling. Springer, Berlin, pp 433–456Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amyot D, Ghanavati S, Horkoff J, Mussbacher G, Peyton L, Yu E (2010) Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language. Int J Intell Syst 25(8):841–877Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asnar Y, Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J (2011) Goal-driven risk assessment in requirements engineering. Requir Eng J 16(2):101–116Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Babar Z, Nalchigar S, Lessard L, Horkoff J, Yu E (2015) Instructional experiences with modeling and analysis using the i* framework. In: iStar teaching workshop in 27th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, pp 31–36Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brambilla M, Cabot J, Wimmer M (2012) Model-driven software engineering in practice. In: Morgan and Claypool publishers series synthesis lectures on software engineeringGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bennaceur A, Lockerbie J, Horkoff J (2015) On the Learnability of i*: experiences from a new teacher. In: iStar teaching workshop in 27th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borba C, Silva C (2009) A comparison of goal-oriented approaches to model software product lines variability. In: Workshop on requirements, intentions and goals in conceptual modeling in 28th international conference on conceptual modeling, advances in conceptual modeling: challenging perspectives, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 5833. Springer, Berlin, pp 244–253Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bresciani P, Perini A, Giorgini P, Giunchiglia F, Mylopoulos J (2004) Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 8(3):203–236zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burnay C, Jureta I, Faulkner S (2014) An exploratory study of topic importance in requirements elicitation interviews. In: 26th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, lecture notes in computer science, volume 8484. Springer, Berlin, pp 180–195Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cares C, Franch X (2011) A metamodeling approach for i* model translations. In: 23th international conference on advanced information systems engineering. Lecture notes in computer science, volume 6741. Springer, Berlin, pp 337–351Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chung V (2006) Considering role-based conflicts of interest in analysing and designing e-health systems with goal-oriented methodologies. In: International conference on privacy, security and trust, paper 78Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chung L, Nixon B, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: International series on software engineering, vol 5. Springer, USGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Creswell J (2014) A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dalpiaz F, Paja E, Giorgini P (2011) Security requirements engineering via commitments. In: 1st workshop on socio-technical aspects in security and trust, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dalpiaz F, Franch X, Horkoff J (2016) iStar 2.0 language guide. arXiv:1605.07767. Available in https://sites.google.com/site/istarlanguage/. Accessed 20 July 2017
  19. 19.
    Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20(3):3–50zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Kinderen S, Ma Q (2015) Requirements engineering for the design of conceptual modelling languages. Appl Ontol 10(1):7–24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elahi G, Yu E, Zannone N (2010) A vulnerability-centric requirements engineering framework: analysing security attacks, countermeasures, and requirements based on vulnerabilities. Requir Eng 15(1):41–62Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    France R, Rumpe B (2007) Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In: Conference on future of software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, pp 37–54Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franch X (2012) The i* framework: the way ahead. In: 6th International conference on research challenges in information science, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gans G, Lakemeyer G, Jarke M, Vits T (2006) SNet: a modelling and simulation environment for agent networks based on i* and ConGolog. In: 14th international conference on advanced information systems engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 328–343Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghanavati S, Amyot D, Rifaut A (2014) Legal goal-oriented requirement language for modelling regulations. In: 6th International workshop on modelling in software engineering in 36th international conference on software engineering, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giorgini P, Rizzi S, Garzetti M (2005) Goal-oriented requirement analysis for data warehouse design. In: 8th ACM international workshop on data warehousing and OLAP, pp 47–56Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gonçalves E, Heineck T, Castro J, Araújo J (2018) A systematic literature review of iStar extensions. J Syst Softw 137:1–33Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guzman A, Martinez A, Agudelo F, Estrada H, Perez J, Ortiz J (2016) A methodology for modeling Ambient Intelligence applications using i* framework. In: International iStar workshop in IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 61–66Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    He X, Ma Z, Shao W, Li G (2007) A metamodel for the notation of graphical modeling languages. In: 31th international computer software and applications conference, vol 1. IEEE Computer Society, pp 219–224Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Horkoff J, Elahi G, Abdulhadi S, Yu E (2008) Reflective analysis of the syntax and semantics of the i* framework. In: 27th International conference on conceptual modeling, lecture notes in computer science, volume 5232. Springer, Berlin, pp 249–260Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Horkoff J, Yu E (2010) Finding solutions in goal models: an interactive backward reasoning approach. In: 29th International conference on conceptual modeling, lecture notes in computer science, volume 6412. Springer, Berlin, pp 59–75Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ingolfo S, Siena A, Mylopoulos J, Susi A, Perini A (2013) Arguing regulatory compliance of software requirements. Data Knowl Eng 87:279–296Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ingolfo S, Jureta I., Siena A., Perini A., Susi A. (2014) Nomos 3: legal compliance of roles and requirements. In: 33th international conference on conceptual modeling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 8824. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–288Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ingolfo S, Siena A, Mylopoulos J (2014) Goals and compliance in Nòmos 3. In: 7th international i* workshop in 26th international conference on advanced information systems engineeringGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Islam S, Mouratidis H, Kalloniatis C, Hudic A, Zechner L (2012) Model based process to support security and privacy requirements engineering. Int J Secure Softw Eng 3(3):1–22Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kelly S, Tolvanen J (2008) Domain-specific modelling: enabling full code generation. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kitchenham B, Pfleeger S (2002) Principles of survey research. Softw Eng Notes 26(6):16–27Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lapouchnian A, Yu Y, Liaskos S, Mylopoulos J (2006) Requirements-driven design of autonomic application software. In: 16th conference of the center for advanced studies on collaborative research, pp 80–94Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lapouchnian A, Mylopoulos J (2009) Modelling domain variability in requirements engineering with contexts. In: 28th international conference on conceptual modeling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 5829, Springer, Berlin, pp 115–130Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li T, Horkoff J, Mylopoulos J (2014) Integrating security patterns with security requirements analysis using contextual goal models. In: IFIP working conference on the practice of enterprise modelling, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, volume 197, pp 208–223Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liaskos S, McIlraith S, Mylopoulos J (2009) Towards augmenting requirements models with preferences. In: 24th IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, pp 565–569Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liaskos S, Mylopoulos J (2010) On temporally annotating goal models. In: 4th international i* workshop in 22th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, pp 62–66Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lima P, Vilela J, Gonçalves E, Pimentel J, Holanda A, Castro J, Alencar F, Lencastre M (2016) An extended systematic mapping study about the scalability of i* models. CLEI Electron J 19(3):1–6Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marosin D, Ghanavati S, Van Der Linden D (2014) A principle-based goal-oriented requirements language (GRL) for enterprise architecture. In: 7th international i* workshop in 26th international conference on advanced information systems engineeringGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mate A, Trujillo J, Franch X (2014) Adding semantic modules to improve goal-oriented analysis of data warehouses using I-star. J Syst Softw 88:102–111Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mellado D, Mouratidis H, Fernandez-Medina E (2014) Secure Tropos framework for software product lines requirements engineering. Comput Stand Interfaces 36(4):711–722Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Merriam S (2009) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Miles R, Hamilton K (2006) Learning UML 2.0. O’Reilly, NewtonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moody D (2009) The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(6):756–779Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Moody D, Heymans P, Matulevičius R (2010) Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. Requir Eng J 15(2):131–175Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morandini M, Penserini L, Perini A, Marchetto A (2015) Engineering requirements for adaptive systems. Requir Eng J 22(1):77–103Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mouratidis H, Giorgini P (2007) Secure tropos: a security-oriented extension of the tropos methodology. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 17(2):285–309Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mouratidis H, Islam S, Kalloniatis C, Gritzalis S (2013) A framework to support selection of cloud providers based on security and privacy requirements. J Syst Softw 86(9):2276–2293Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Yu E (1999) From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Commun ACM 42(1):31–37Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Murukannaiah P, Singh M (2014) Xipho: extending tropos to engineer context-aware personal agents. In: 13th international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, pp 309–316Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Siena A, Maiden N, Lockerbie J, Karlsen K, Perini A, Susi A (2008) Exploring the effectiveness of normative i* modelling: results from a case study on food chain traceability. In: 20th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Lecture Notes on Computer Science, volume 5074. Springer, pp 182–196Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Siena A, Mylopoulos J, Perini A, Susi A (2009) Designing law-compliant software requirements. In: International conference on conceptual modeling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 5829. Springer, pp 472–486Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Siena A, Jureta I, Ingolfo S, Susi A, Perini A, Mylopoulos J (2012) Capturing variability of law with nomos 2. In: 31st international conference on conceptual modelling, Lecture Notes on Computer Science, volume 7532. Springer, pp 383–396Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Strauss A, Corbin J (2007) Basics of qualitative research: 2nd edn. In: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, IncGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schulz F, Meissner J, Rossak W (2013) Tracing the interdependencies between architecture and organization in goal-oriented extensible models. In: 3rd Eastern European regional conference on the engineering of computer based systems, pp 25–32Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Teruel M, Navarro E, López-Jaquero V, Montero F, González, P (2011) CSRML: a goal-oriented approach to model requirements for collaborative systems. In: 33rd international conference on conceptual modeling, Lecture Notes on Computer Science, volume 6998, pp 33–46Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Van Lamsweerde A (2008) Systematic requirements engineering: from systems goals to UML models to software specifications. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yu E (1995) Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Ph.D. Thesis on Computer Science, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yu E. (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early phase requirements engineering. In: 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 226–235Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yu E, Giorgini P, Maiden N, Mylopoulos J (eds) (2011) Social modelling for requirements engineering. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enyo Gonçalves
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marcos Antônio de Oliveira
    • 2
  • Ingrid Monteiro
    • 2
  • Jaelson Castro
    • 1
    Email author
  • João Araújo
    • 3
  1. 1.CIn, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco—UFPERecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade Federal do Ceará - Campus QuixadáQuixadáBrazil
  3. 3.NOVA LINCS, FCTUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations