Toward practical adoption of i* framework: an automatic two-level layout approach

Abstract

Bridging the gap between academia and industry is an important issue to promote the practicality of i* framework. Researchers have been dealing with this issue from various perspectives, such as simplifying the meta-models or modeling processes of i* framework. In this paper, we exclusively focus on the scalability issue in laying out large-scale i* models and propose a two-level layout approach to automatically lay out i* models in an efficient and comprehensible manner, contributing to the adoption of i* framework in the industry. The proposed approach is designed by considering the semantics of i* constructs and layout conventions of i* models in order to produce meaningful layouts and can appropriately handle both the SD (Strategic Dependency) view and the SR (Strategic Rationale) view of i* models. We have implemented our approach in an open-access prototype tool, which is able to be integrated with existing iStarML-compatible modeling tools. We have conducted a controlled experiment, a case study, and performance testing to empirically and comprehensively evaluate the utility of our approach, the results of which show that our proposal can efficiently produce meaningful layouts that are as comprehensible as manually laid out models in most cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Notes

  1. 1.

    The prototype tool (Two-level iStar Layout) can be accessed at https://www.bjutse.com/iStar_layout/demo.

  2. 2.

    All the instruments used in this controlled experiment can be found here: https://zenodo.org/record/4308878, which includes the data set where our iStar models come from, auto-layout and manual-layout models used in the controlled experiment, questionnaires and the iStar 2.0 tutorial slides.

  3. 3.

    Cases and the questionnaire can be found here: https://zenodo.org/record/4308878.

  4. 4.

    Visit this link to experience the process of laying out the largest model in the performance testing: https://www.bjutse.com/iStar_layout/demo/largest.

References

  1. 1.

    Abdulhadi S, Horkoff J, Yu E, Grau G (2007) i* guide. http://istarwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=i%2A+Guide&structure=i%2A+Guide. Accessed 16 April 2020

  2. 2.

    Agner LT, Lethbridge TC, Soares IW (2019) Student experience with software modeling tools. Softw Syst Model 18(5):3025–3047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Alencar FM, Silva CT, Lucena M, de Castro JB, Santos E, Ramos RA (2008) Improving the understandability of i* models. In: ICEIS (3-1), pp 129–136

  4. 4.

    Andersson C, Runeson P (2007) A spiral process model for case studies on software quality monitoring-method and metrics. Softw Process Improv Pract 12(2):125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Aydemir FB, Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J, Dalpiaz F (2014) Exploring alternative designs for sociotechnical systems. In: 2014 IEEE eighth international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS), IEEE, pp 1–12

  6. 6.

    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):203–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cares C, Franch X, Perini A, Susi A (2011) Towards interoperability of i* models using istarml. Comput Stand Interfaces 33(1):69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dalpiaz F, Franch X, Horkoff J (2016) istar 2.0 language guide. arXiv preprint arXiv:160507767

  9. 9.

    Doğrusöz U, Madden B, Madden P (1996) Circular layout in the graph layout toolkit. In: International symposium on graph drawing, Springer, pp 92–100

  10. 10.

    Du X, Li T, Wang D (2017) An automatic layout approach for istar models. In: Proceedings of the tenth international i* workshop, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol 1829, pp 61–66

  11. 11.

    Dunne C, Shneiderman B (2009) Improving graph drawing readability by incorporating readability metrics: a software tool for network analysts. University of Maryland, HCIL Tech Report HCIL-2009-13

  12. 12.

    Eades P (1984) A heuristic for graph drawing. Congres Numer 42:149–160

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Franch X (2010) Fostering the adoption of i* by practitioners: some challenges and research directions. In: Intentional perspectives on information systems engineering, Springer, pp 177–193

  14. 14.

    Fruchterman TM, Reingold EM (1991) Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw Pract Exp 21(11):1129–1164

  15. 15.

    Grau G, Franch X, Avila S (2006) J-prim: A java tool for a process reengineering i* methodology. In: 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’06), IEEE, pp 359–360

  16. 16.

    Horkoff J, Yu E (2010) Visualizations to support interactive goal model analysis. In: 2010 Fifth international workshop on requirements engineering visualization, IEEE, pp 1–10

  17. 17.

    Horkoff J, Aydemir FB, Cardoso E, Li T, Maté A, Paja E, Salnitri M, Piras L, Mylopoulos J, Giorgini P (2019) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study. Requir Eng 24(2):133–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jedlitschka A, Ciolkowski M, Pfahl D (2008) Reporting experiments in software engineering. In: Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, Springer, pp 201–228

  19. 19.

    jUCMNav (2013) jucmnav. http://istarwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=jUCMNav. Accessed 2 Dec 2019

  20. 20.

    Kobourov SG (2012) Spring embedders and force directed graph drawing algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:12013011

  21. 21.

    Li T, Grubb AM, Horkoff J (2016) Understanding challenges and tradeoffs in istar tool development. In: iStar, pp 49–54

  22. 22.

    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):7–7

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mavin A, Wilkinson P, Teufl S, Femmer H, Eckhardt J, Mund J (2017) Does goal-oriented requirements engineering achieve its goal? In: 2017 IEEE 25th international requirements engineering conference (RE), IEEE, pp 174–183

  24. 24.

    Mussbacher G, Amyot D, Araújo J, Moreira A, Weiss M (2007) Visualizing aspect-oriented goal models with aogrl. In: Second international workshop on requirements engineering visualization (REV 2007), IEEE, pp 1–1

  25. 25.

    OpenOME (2011) Openome. http://istarwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=OpenOME. Accessed 2 Dec 2019

  26. 26.

    Penha F, Miranda E, Lucena M, Lucena L, Alencar F, Sá Filho C (2018) Actor’s social complexity: a proposal for managing the istar model. J Softw Eng Res Dev 6(1):11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Purchase HC (2002) Metrics for graph drawing aesthetics. J Vis Lang Comput 13(5):501–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Purchase HC, Colpoys L, McGill M, Carrington D, Britton C (2001a) Uml class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation, Australian Computer Society, Inc., vol 9, pp 113–120

  29. 29.

    Purchase HC, McGill M, Colpoys L, Carrington D (2001b) Graph drawing aesthetics and the comprehension of uml class diagrams: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Asia-Pacific symposium on Information visualisation, Australian Computer Society, Inc., vol 9, pp 129–137

  30. 30.

    Reijers HA, Mendling J (2010) A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 41(3):449–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empiri Softw Eng 14(2):131–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Santos M, Gralha C, Goulao M, Araújo J, Moreira A, Cambeiro J (2016) What is the impact of bad layout in the understandability of social goal models? In: 2016 IEEE 24th international requirements engineering conference (RE), IEEE, pp 206–215

  33. 33.

    Seemann J (1997) Extending the sugiyama algorithm for drawing uml class diagrams: towards automatic layout of object-oriented software diagrams. In: International symposium on graph drawing, Springer, pp 415–424

  34. 34.

    Sugiyama K, Misue K (1994) A simple and unified method for drawing graphs: Magnetic-spring algorithm. In: International symposium on graph drawing, Springer, pp 364–375

  35. 35.

    Sugiyama K, Misue K (1995) Graph drawing by the magnetic spring model. J Vis Lang Comput 6(3):217–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sugiyama K, Tagawa S, Toda M (1981) Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical system structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 11(2):109–125

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Wang Y, Shen Q, Archambault D, Zhou Z, Zhu M, Yang S, Qu H (2016) Ambiguityvis: visualization of ambiguity in graph layouts. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Gr 22(1):359–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Wang Y, Li T, Zhang H, Sun J, Ni Y, Geng C (2018) A prototype for generating meaningful layout of istar models. In: Woo C, Lu J, Li Z, Ling TW, Li G, Lee ML (eds) Advances in conceptual modeling. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 49–53

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Yu ES (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of ISRE’97: 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, IEEE, pp 226–235

  42. 42.

    Yu ES (2009) Social modeling and i*. In: Conceptual modeling: foundations and applications: essays in honor of John Mylopoulos, Springer, pp 99–121

  43. 43.

    Zhang H, Li T, Wang Y (2018) Design of an empirical study for evaluating an automatic layout tool. In: Woo C, Lu J, Li Z, Ling TW, Li G, Lee ML (eds) Advances in conceptual modeling. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 206–211

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tong Li.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Li, T., Zhou, Q. et al. Toward practical adoption of i* framework: an automatic two-level layout approach. Requirements Eng (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-021-00346-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • i* framework
  • Automatic layout
  • Empirical study
  • Prototype tool