A More Expressive Softgoal Conceptualization for Quality Requirements Analysis

  • Ivan J. Jureta
  • Stéphane Faulkner
  • Pierre-Yves Schobbens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)


Initial software quality requirements tend to be imprecise, subjective, idealistic, and context-specific. An extended characterization of the common Softgoal concept is proposed for representing and reasoning about such requirements during the early stages of the requirements engineering process. The types of information often implicitly contained in a Softgoal instance are highlighted to allow richer requirements to be obtained. On the basis of the revisited conceptual foundations, guidelines are suggested as to the techniques that need to be present in requirements modeling approaches that aim to employ the given Softgoal conceptualization.


Fuzzy Logic Quality Variable Quality Requirement Hardware Resource Requirement Engineer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Al-Naeem, T., Gorton, I., Ali Babar, M., Rabhi, F., Benatallah, B.: A Quality-Driven Systematic Approach for Architecting Distributed Software Applications. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. pp. 244–253 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves, C., French, X., Carvallo, J.P., Finkelstein, A.: Using Goals and Quality Models to Support the Matching Analysis During COTS Selection. In: Franch, X., Port, D. (eds.) ICCBSS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3412, pp. 146–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anton, A., Earp, J., Reese, A.: Analyzing Website Privacy Requirements Using a Privacy Goal Taxonomy. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Req. Eng. pp. 23–31 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avesani, P., Bazzanella, C., Perini, A., Susi, A.: Facing Scalability Issues in Requirements Prioritization with Machine Learning Techniques. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Req. Eng. pp. 297–305 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.W., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., MacLeod, G.J., Merritt, M.J.: Characteristics of Software Quality. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Info. Syst. 27(6), 365–389 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesnevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Publishing, Dordrecht (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleland-Huang, J., Settimi, R., BenKhadra, O., Berezhanskaya, E., Christina, S.: Goal-Centric Traceability for Managing Non-Functional Requirements. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. of Comput. Prog. 20, 3–50 (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donzelli, P.: A goal-driven and agent-based requirements engineering framework. Req. Eng. 9, 16–39 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO: Int. Standard ISO 8402. Quality – Vocabulary. Int. Org. for Standardization, Geneva (1986) (and later)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Issarny, V., Bidan, C., Saridakis, T.: Achieving Middleware Customization in a Configuration-based Development Environment: Experience with the Aster Prototype. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Config. Distrib. Syst. pp. 207–214 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson, D.: Structuring Z Specifications with Views. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Method 4(4), 365–389 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreps, D.: Notes on the Theory of Choice. Westview Press, Boulder (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landes, D., Studer, R.: The Treatment of Non-Functional Requirements in MIKE. In: Proc. Europ. Softw. Eng. Conf. (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, J., Kuo, J.-Y.: New Approach to Requirements Trade-Off Analysis for Complex Systems. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 10(4), 551–562 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Reasoning about Partial Goal Satisfaction for Requirements and Design Engineering. In: Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Symp. Found. of Softw. Eng. pp. 53–62 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, X.F., Yen, J.: An Analytic Framework for Specifying and Analyzing Imprecise Requirements. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. pp. 60–69 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, L., Yu, E.: Designing information systems in social context: a goal and scenario modeling approach. Info. Syst. 29, 187–203 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.: Representing and Using Nonfunctional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(6) (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noppen, J., van der Broek, P., Aksit, M.: Dealing with Imprecise Quality Factors in Software Design. In: Proc. Worksh. Softw. Qual. pp. 1–6 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J.: Fine-Grain Process Modelling. In: Proc. Int. Worksh. Softw. Spec. Des., December 1993, pp. 42–46 (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specifications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(10), 760–773 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Osterweil, L.: Strategic Directions in Software Quality. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(4), 738–750 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosa, N.S., Justo, G.R.R., Cunha, P.R.F.: A Framework for Building Non-Functional Software Architectures. In: Proc. ACM Symp. Appl. Comput. (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simon, A.H.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Divergent Views in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering. In: Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Worksh. Viewpoints Softw. Dev. pp. 252–256 (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Req. Eng. pp. 249–263 (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yen, J., Tiao, W.A.: A Systematic Tradeoff Analysis for Conflicting Imprecise Requirements. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Req. Eng. pp. 87–96 (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu, E.: Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Toronto (1995)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8, 338–353 (1965)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zave, P., Jackson, M.: Four Dark Corners of Requirements Engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Meth. 6(1), 1–30 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan J. Jureta
    • 1
  • Stéphane Faulkner
    • 1
  • Pierre-Yves Schobbens
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Management Research Unit (IMRU)University of NamurNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Institut d’InformatiqueUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations