Capturing Domain-Imposed Requirements Based on Basic Research Findings

  • Siaw Ming Wong
  • Jean-Yves Lafaye
  • Patrice Boursier
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 444)

Abstract

The current means of obtaining domain-imposed requirements through users or domain experts are often suboptimal especially for the relatively new area of interest. This paper suggests the use of basic research findings as the more objective source and proposes an approach that translates research findings into a UML model based on which the domain-imposed requirements can be extracted. By using business project management as the domain of interest, it outlines the steps in the said approach and describes the use of the resulting domain model during the requirement specification for a Project Management Information System that caters specially to the needs of business projects. Theoretically, the same method can be applied to the other areas of management and an enterprise domain model could be developed in a similar way. Given equity access to all software developers, it is envisaged that meeting standard domain-imposed requirements would become a pre-requisite for competing enterprise systems in the future.

Keywords

Domain modeling Knowledge specification Unified modelling language Requirement specifications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abels, S., Ahlemann, F., Hahn, A., Hausmann, K., Strickmann, J.: PROMONT – A Project Management Ontology as a Reference for Virtual Project Organizations. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4277, pp. 813–823. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berztiss, A.T.: Domain analysis for business software systems. Information Systems 24(7), 555–568 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG, Business Motivation Model (BMM) Version 1.0. OMG Document Number: formal/2008-08-02 (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/BMM/1.0/ (retrieved on May 10, 2009)
  4. 4.
    OMG, Business Process Definition MetaModel II (BPDM): Process Definitions Version 1.0. OMG Document Number: formal/2008-11-04 (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPDM/1.0 (retrieved on May 10, 2009)
  5. 5.
    Brown, A.W., et al.: Introduction: Model, Modelling and Model Driven architecture (MDA). In: Model-Driven Software Development, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryde, D.J.: Modelling project management performance. International of Quality & Reliability Management 20(2), 229–254 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryde, D.J.: Project management concepts, methods and application. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23(7), 775–793 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christenson, D., Walker, D.H.T.: Using vision as a critical success element in project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 1(4), 611–622 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cicmil, S.J.K.: Critical factors of effective project management. The TQM Magazine 9, 390–396 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CPPM, A Guide to the Project & Program Management Standard Certified Project Manager (CPM) and (CPP) (2007), http://www.iappm.org (retrieved on August 28, 2008)
  11. 11.
    Cranefield, S.: Networked Knowledge Representation and Exchange using UML and RDF. Journal of Digital information 1(8) (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dinsmore, P.: Why should project management matters to CEO (2006), http://www.chiefprojectofficer.com/column/175 (retrieved on April 12, 2007)
  13. 13.
    Faisal, A.: Trapped in between: Realities of the project world. Trafford Publishing (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    GAPPS, Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards - A framework for performance based competency standards for global level 1 and 2 project managers (2007), http://www.globalpmsstandards.org (retrieved on January 15, 2009)
  15. 15.
    Geoghegan, L., Dulewicz, V.: “Do project managers’ leadership competencies contribute to project success?”. Project Management Journal 39(4), 58–67 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., et al.: Methodologies and methods for building ontologies. In: Ontology Engineering, pp. 107–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grangel, R., et al.: UML for enterprise modelling: basis for a Model-Driven Approach. In: Enterprise Interoperability - New Challenges and Approaches, pp. 91–101. Springer, London (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gruber, T.: What is an ontology (2005), http://wwwksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html (retrieved on April 12, 2008)
  19. 19.
    Hull, E., et al.: Requirements engineering in the solution domain. In: Requirements Engineering, 2nd edn., Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ICB, IPMA Competency Baseline V3.0 (2006), http://www.ipma.ch (retrieved on August 28, 2008)
  21. 21.
    OGC, Introduction to PRINCE2 (2008), http://www.ogc.gov.uk/prince/about_p2/about_intro.html (retrieved on May 2, 2008)
  22. 22.
    Kotnour, T.: Organization learning practices in the project management environment. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 17, 393–406 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    March, S.T., Allen, G.N.: Challenges in Requirements Engineering: A Research Agenda for Conceptual Modeling. In: Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., Robinson, B. (eds.) Design Requirements Engineering. LNBIP, vol. 14, pp. 157–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maylor, H., et al.: From projectification to programmification. International Journal of Project Management 24, 663–674 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Milosevic, D.Z., Srivannaboon, S.: A theoretical framework for aligning project management with business strategy. Project Management Journal 37(3), 98–100 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morris, P.W.G.: Research trends in the 1990s – the need now to focus on the business benefits of project management. In: The Frontiers of Project Management Research, Project Management Institute, ch. 2 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morris, P.W.G., Jamieson, A.: Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Project Management Journal 36(4), 5–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nagypal, G.: Ontology Development - Methodologies for ontology engineering. In: Semantic Web Services, pp. 107–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG, Introduction to OMG’s Unified Modelling Language (UML®) (2004), http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/what_is_uml.html (retrieved on July 17, 2010)
  30. 30.
    Omoronyia, I., Sindre, G., Stålhane, T., Biffl, S., Moser, T., Sunindyo, W.: A Domain Ontology Building Process for Guiding Requirements Elicitation. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    OSM, Organization Structure MetaModel 2nd Initial Submission Version 0.5. Submitted by 88Solutions, Adaptive, Borland Software, Data Access Technologies, EDS, Lombardi, Software., in response to: Organization Structure Metamodel RFP (OMG Document bei/2004-06-05) (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pan, Y., Xie, G.T., Ma, L., Yang, Y., Qiu, Z., Lee, J.: Model-Driven Ontology Engineering. In: Spaccapietra, S. (ed.) Journal on Data Semantics VII. LNCS, vol. 4244, pp. 57–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    PIPC, PIPC Global Project Management Survey News Releases, London (December 2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    PMI, PMBOK® Guide : A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 4th edn., Project Management Institute (2008) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reinhartz-Berger, I.: Towards automation Of domain modelling. Data & Knowledge Engineering 69, 491–515 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rolland, C.: From Conceptual Modeling to Requirements Engineering. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 5–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Siau, K., Lee, L.: Are use case and class diagrams complementary in requirements analysis? An experimental study on use case and class diagrams in UML. Requirements Engineering 9, 229–237 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    SBVR, Business Vocabulary and Business Rules version 1.0. OMG Document Number: formal/2008-01-02 (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0 (retrieved on May 11, 2009)
  39. 39.
    Srivannaboon, S.: Linking project management with business strategy. Project Management Journal 37(5), 88–96 (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    PMI, The Standard for Program Management. 2nd edn., Project Management Institute (2008) Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vauquier, D.: Semantic Modelling Version 1.3. Praxeme Institute (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Winter, M., et al.: Focusing on business projects as an area for future research: an explanatory discussion of four perspectives. International Journal of Project Management 24, 699–709 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wong, S.M., et al.: Developing P.M.I.S for business projects based on social science research findings & ontology modelling. In: Proceedings of IADIS International Conference - Information Systems, Porto, Portugal (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zwikael, O.: Top management involvement in project management: Exclusive support practices for different project scenarios. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 1(3), 387–403 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siaw Ming Wong
    • 1
  • Jean-Yves Lafaye
    • 2
  • Patrice Boursier
    • 3
  1. 1.Open University Malaysia / Université de La RochelleKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique, Image et InteractionUniversité de La RochelleLa RochelleFrance
  3. 3.College of Computer StudiesAMA International UniversitySalmabadBahrain

Personalised recommendations