Bridging User Story Sets with the Use Case Model

  • Yves WauteletEmail author
  • Samedi Heng
  • Diana Hintea
  • Manuel Kolp
  • Stephan Poelmans
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9975)


User Stories (US) are mostly used as basis for representing requirements in agile development. Written in a direct manner, US fail in producing a visual representation of the main system-to-be functions. A Use-Case Diagram (UCD), on the other hand, intends to provide such a view. Approaches that map US sets to a UCD have been proposed; they however consider every US as a Use Case (UC). Nevertheless, a valid UC should not be an atomic task or a sub-process but enclose an entire scenario of the system use instead. A unified model of US templates to tag US sets was previously build. Within functional elements, it notably distinguishes granularity levels. In this paper, we propose to transform specific elements of a US set into a UCD using the granularity information obtained through tagging. In practice, such a transformation involves continuous round-tripping between the US and UC views; a CASE-tool supports this.


User Story UML Agile development XP SCRUM 


  1. 1.
    The descartes architect case-tool (2016).
  2. 2.
    Ambler, S.: Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for eXtreme Programming and the Unified Process. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohn, M.: Succeeding with Agile: Software Development Using Scrum, vol. 1. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalpiaz, F., Franch, X., Horkoff, J.: iStar 2.0 language guide. CoRR abs/1605.07767 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glinz, M.: A glossary of requirements engineering terminology, version 1.4 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hastie, S., Wick, A.: User stories and use case - don’t use both! (2014).
  7. 7.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements enginering: a roundtrip from research to practice. In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE 2004), 6–10 September 2004, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 4–7. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liskin, O., Pham, R., Kiesling, S., Schneider, K.: Why we need a granularity concept for user stories. In: Cantone, G., Marchesi, M. (eds.) XP 2014. LNBIP, vol. 179, pp. 110–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-06862-6_8 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., van der Werf, J.M.E.M., Brinkkemper, S.: Improving agile requirements: the quality user story framework and tool. Requir. Eng. 21(3), 383–403 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG: Business process model and notation (bpmn). version 2.0.1. Technical report, Object Management Group (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG: Omg unified modeling languageTM(omg uml). version 2.5. Technical report, Object Management Group (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oscar, S.: Visual Paradigm for UML. International Book Market Service Limited (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patton, J., Economy, P.: User Story Mapping: Discover the Whole Story, Build the Right Product. 1st edn. O’Reilly Media Inc. (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shergill, M.P.K., Scharff, C.: Developing multi-channel mobile solutions for a global audience: the case of a smarter energy solution. In: SARNOFF 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shuja, A., Krebs, J.: IBM; Rational Unified Process; Reference and Certification Guide: Solution Designer, 1st edn. IBM Press, Upper Saddle River (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Velghe, M.: Requirements engineering in agile methods: contributions on user story models. Master’s thesis, KU Leuven, Belgium (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Mirbel, I.: Unifying and extending user story models. In: Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Quix, C., Rolland, C., Manolopoulos, Y., Mouratidis, H., Horkoff, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 211–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07881-6_15 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Mirbel, I., Poelmans, S.: Building a rationale diagram for evaluating user story sets. In: 10th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2016, Grenoble, France, 1–3 June 2016, pp. 477–488 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wautelet, Y., Kolp, M.: Mapping i* within UML for business modeling. In: Doerr, J., Opdahl, A.L. (eds.) REFSQ 2013. LNCS, vol. 7830, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-37422-7_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, E.: Modeling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering (Chap. 1–2), pp. 1–153. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu, E.S.: Social Modeling and i*. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications - Essays in Honor of John Mylopoulos. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 99–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves Wautelet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Samedi Heng
    • 2
  • Diana Hintea
    • 3
  • Manuel Kolp
    • 2
  • Stephan Poelmans
    • 1
  1. 1.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Université catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-neuveBelgium
  3. 3.Coventry UniversityCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations