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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The prototype tool (Two-level iStar Layout) can be accessed at https://www.bjutse.com/iStar_layout/demo.
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.
Cases and the questionnaire can be found here: https://zenodo.org/record/4308878.
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.
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
Agner LT, Lethbridge TC, Soares IW (2019) Student experience with software modeling tools. Softw Syst Model 18(5):3025–3047
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
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
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
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
Cares C, Franch X, Perini A, Susi A (2011) Towards interoperability of i* models using istarml. Comput Stand Interfaces 33(1):69–79
Dalpiaz F, Franch X, Horkoff J (2016) istar 2.0 language guide. arXiv preprint arXiv:160507767
Doğrusöz U, Madden B, Madden P (1996) Circular layout in the graph layout toolkit. In: International symposium on graph drawing, Springer, pp 92–100
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
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
Eades P (1984) A heuristic for graph drawing. Congres Numer 42:149–160
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
Fruchterman TM, Reingold EM (1991) Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Softw Pract Exp 21(11):1129–1164
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
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
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
Jedlitschka A, Ciolkowski M, Pfahl D (2008) Reporting experiments in software engineering. In: Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, Springer, pp 201–228
jUCMNav (2013) jucmnav. http://istarwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=jUCMNav. Accessed 2 Dec 2019
Kobourov SG (2012) Spring embedders and force directed graph drawing algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:12013011
Li T, Grubb AM, Horkoff J (2016) Understanding challenges and tradeoffs in istar tool development. In: iStar, pp 49–54
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
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
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
OpenOME (2011) Openome. http://istarwiki.org/tiki-index.php?page=OpenOME. Accessed 2 Dec 2019
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
Purchase HC (2002) Metrics for graph drawing aesthetics. J Vis Lang Comput 13(5):501–516
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
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
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
Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empiri Softw Eng 14(2):131–164
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
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
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
Sugiyama K, Misue K (1995) Graph drawing by the magnetic spring model. J Vis Lang Comput 6(3):217–231
Sugiyama K, Tagawa S, Toda M (1981) Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical system structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 11(2):109–125
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
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
Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Berlin
Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage publications, London
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
Yu ES (2009) Social modeling and i*. In: Conceptual modeling: foundations and applications: essays in honor of John Mylopoulos, Springer, pp 99–121
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
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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
- i* framework
- Automatic layout
- Empirical study
- Prototype tool