Interactive Goal Model Analysis Applied – Systematic Procedures versus Ad hoc Analysis

  • Jennifer Horkoff
  • Eric Yu
  • Arup Ghose
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 68)

Abstract

Intentional modeling, capturing the goals of stakeholders, has been proposed as a means of early system elicitation and design for an enterprise, focusing on social and strategic requirements. It is often assumed that more utility can be gained from goal models by applying explicit analysis over models, but little work has been devoted to understand how or why this occurs. In this work we test existing hypotheses concerning interactive goal model analysis via multiple case studies. Previous results have indicated that such analysis increases model iteration, prompts further elicitation, and improves domain knowledge. Results of the new studies do not provide strong evidence to support these claims, showing that such benefits, when they occur, can occur both with systematic and ad-hoc model analysis. However, the results reveal other benefits of systematic analysis, such as a more consistent interpretation of the model, more complete analysis, and the importance of training.

Keywords

Goal Modeling Model Analysis Empirical Studies 

References

  1. 1.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu, E.: Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. In: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1997), pp. 226–235. IEEE Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maiden, N.A.M., Jones, S.V., Manning, S., Greenwood, J., Renou, L.: Model-Driven Requirements Engineering: Synchronising Models in an Air Traffic Management Case Study. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 367–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Sebastiani, R.: Simple and Minimum-Cost Satisfiability for Goal Models. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franch, X.: On the Quantitative Analysis of Agent-Oriented Models. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 495–509. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horkoff, J., Yu, E.: Evaluating Goal Achievement in Enterprise Modeling – An Interactive Procedure and Experiences. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009, LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 145–160 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horkoff, J., Yu, E.: Finding Solutions in Goal Models: An Interactive Backward Reasoning Approach. In: Parsons, J. (ed.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 59–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Cabot, J., Easterbrook, S., Horkoff, J., Mazon, J., Lessard, L., Liaskos, S.: Integrating Sustainability in Decision-Making Processes: A Modelling Strategy. In: ICSE 2009 New Ideas and Emerging Results (NIER’09). Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seaman, C.B.: Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(4), 557–572 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fourth International i* Workshop (iStar 2010). CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2010), http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-586/
  14. 14.
    Persson, A., Strirna, J.: An Exploratory Study into the Influence of Business Goals on the Practical Use of Enterprise Modeling Methods and Tools. In: Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Information Sys. Development (ISD 2004), pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elahi, G., Yu, E., Annosi, M.C.: Modeling Knowledge Transfer in a Software Maintenance Organization - An Experience Report and Critical Analysis. In: Stirna, J., Persson, A. (eds.) PoEM 2008, LNBIP, vol. 15, pp. 15–29 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cysneiros, L.M.: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Using Catalogues to Elicit Non-Functional Requirements. In: Proc. Workshop em Engenharia de Requisitos (WER 2007), pp. 107–115 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strohmaier, M., Horkoff, J., Yu, E., Aranda, J., Easterbrook, S.: Can Patterns improve i* Modeling? Two Exploratory Studies. In: Paech, B., Rolland, C. (eds.) REFSQ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5025, pp. 153–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rolland, C., Stirna, J., Prekas, N., Loucopoulos, P., Persson, A., Grosz, G.: Evaluating a Pattern Approach as an Aid for the Development of Organisational Knowledge: An Empirical Study. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Horkoff
    • 1
  • Eric Yu
    • 2
  • Arup Ghose
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations