A Comparative Analysis of ITU-MSC-Based Requirements Specification Approaches Used in the Automotive Industry

  • Kevin KellerEmail author
  • Jennifer Brings
  • Marian Daun
  • Thorsten Weyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11150)


Message sequence charts (MSC) and MSC-like languages play a pivotal role in requirements engineering. Particularly, when it comes to model-based requirements engineering, MSCs are used, e.g., to document scenarios, but also, specifically in the automotive domain, for specifying interaction sequences and the interaction-based behavior of such reactive systems. As the use of natural language requirements is still widespread, there exist various approaches to create MSC-specifications from natural language requirements. In this paper, we report on a comparative analysis to investigate different approaches for MSC-specification generation. To do so, we applied three approaches to an industrial case example from the automotive domain. Our results show that the different approaches lead to correct yet different MSC-specifications that exhibit different characteristics and are thus suited for different requirements engineering purposes.


Message sequence charts Goal-oriented requirement language Use case maps Comparative analysis Requirements engineering 



This research has been partly funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under grants no. 01IS16043 V and 01IS15058C. We thank Frank Houdek (Daimler) and our former colleague Felix Föcker (Aldi Süd) for their support during the development of the MSC-specifications.


  1. 1.
    Weber, M., Weisbrod, J.: Requirements engineering in automotive development-experiences and challenges. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 331–340 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sutcliffe, A.G., Maiden, N.A.M., Minocha, S., Manuel, D.: Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24, 1072–1088 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu, H., Jin, L., Diaper, D., Bai, G.: Software requirements validation via task analysis. J. Syst. Softw. 61, 145–169 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kof, L.: From textual scenarios to message sequence charts: inclusion of condition generation and actor extraction. In: 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 331–332 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osborne, M., MacNish, C.K.: Processing natural language software requirement specifications. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 229–236 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ali, A., Jawawi, D.N.A., Isa, M.A., Ibrahim, A.O.: Deriving behavioural models of component-based software systems from requirements specifications. In: International Conference on Computing, Control, Networking, Electronics and Embedded Systems Engineering (ICCNEEE), pp. 260–265 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Runeson, P., Host, M., Rainer, A., Regnell, B.: Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples. Wiley Publishing, Hoboken (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, L., Yu, E.: Designing information systems in social context: a goal and scenario modelling approach. Inf. Syst. 29, 187–203 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, J., Kim, M., Yang, H., Park, S.: A method and tool support for variant requirements analysis: goal and scenario based approach. In: 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 168–175 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, M., Park, S., Sugumaran, V., Yang, H.: Managing requirements conflicts in software product lines: a goal and scenario based approach. Data Knowl. Eng. 61, 417–432 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rolland, C., Grosz, G., Kla, R.: Experience with goal-scenario coupling in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No. PR00188), pp. 74–81 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rolland, C., Salinesi, C.: Supporting requirements elicitation through goal/scenario coupling. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 398–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pohl, K., Haumer, P.: Modelling contextual information about scenarios. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations of Software Quality REFSQ 1997, pp. 187–204 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, E.S.K., Mylopoulos, J.: Why goal-oriented requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, REFSQ 1998, Pisa, Italy, 8–9 June 1998, pp. 15–22 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kof, L.: Requirements Analysis: concept extraction and translation of textual specifications to executable models. In: Horacek, H., Métais, E., Muñoz, R., Wolska, M. (eds.) NLDB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5723, pp. 79–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cunning, S.J., Rozenbiit, J.W.: Test scenario generation from a structured requirements specification. In: Presented at the Proceedings-ECBS, IEEE Conference and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, pp. 166–172 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Eliciting security requirements with misuse cases. Requir. Eng. 10, 34–44 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miga, Andrew, Amyot, Daniel, Bordeleau, Francis, Cameron, Donald, Woodside, Murray: Deriving Message Sequence Charts from Use Case Maps Scenario Specifications. In: Reed, Rick, Reed, Jeanne (eds.) SDL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2078, pp. 268–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sikora, E., Tenbergen, B., Pohl, K.: Industry needs and research directions in requirements engineering for embedded systems. Requir. Eng. 17, 57–78 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Telecommunication Union: Recommendation Z.151 (10/12), User Requirements Notation (URN) Language DefinitionGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Telecommunication Union: Recommendation Z.120 (02/11), Message Sequence Chart (MSC)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Palshikar, G.K., Bhaduri, P.: Verification of scenario-based specifications using templates. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 118, 37–55 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Daun, M., Weyer, T., Pohl, K.: Detecting and correcting outdated requirements in function-centered engineering of embedded systems. In: Fricker, S.A., Schneider, K. (eds.) REFSQ 2015. LNCS, vol. 9013, pp. 65–80. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Daun, M., Brings, J., Weyer, T.: On the impact of the model-based representation of inconsistencies to manual reviews. In: Mayr, H.C., Guizzardi, G., Ma, H., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2017. LNCS, vol. 10650, pp. 466–473. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang, W., Ning, B., Xu, T., Zhao, L.: Scenario-based modeling and verification of system requirement specification for the European Train Control System, pp. 759–770. Presented at the, WIT Transactions on the Built Environment (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaindl, H.: A scenario-based approach for requirements engineering: experience in a telecommunication software development project. Syst. Eng. 8, 197–210 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rolland, C., Souveyet, C., Achour, C.B.: Guiding goal modeling using scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24, 1055–1071 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Antón, Annie I., McCracken, W.Michael, Potts, Colin: Goal decomposition and scenario analysis in business process reengineering. In: Wijers, Gerard, Brinkkemper, Sjaak, Wasserman, Tony (eds.) CAiSE 1994. LNCS, vol. 811, pp. 94–104. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu, L., Yu, E.: From requirements to architectural design using goals and scenarios. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop from Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW), Toronto (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Broy, M.: Seamless method- and model-based software and systems engineering. In: The Future of Software Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15, 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keller, K., Neubauer, A., Brings, J., Daun, M.: Tool-Support to foster model-based requirements engineering for cyber-phsyical systems. In: Joint Proceedings of the Workshops at Modellierung co-located with Modellierung , Braunschweig, Germany, 21 Feb 2018, pp. 47–56 (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Mendling, J., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Prediction of business process model quality based on structural metrics. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 458–463. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Houdek, F.: System Requirements Specification Automotive System Cluster (ELC and ACC). Technical Report SyS-LH C34-223 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Keller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennifer Brings
    • 1
  • Marian Daun
    • 1
  • Thorsten Weyer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Duisburg Essen, paluno -The Ruhr Institute for Software TechnologyEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations