Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Enterprise Architecture: Two Case Studies and Some Lessons Learned

  • Wilco Engelsman
  • Roel Wieringa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7195)


An enterprise-architecture (EA) is a high-level representation of the enterprise, used for managing the relation between business and IT. [Problem] Ideally, all elements of an enterprise architecture can be traced to business goals ad vice versa, but in practice, this is not the case. In this experience paper we explore the use of goal-oriented requirements engineering (GORE) techniques to improve this bidirectional traceability. [Principal ideas/results] We collected GORE techniques from KAOS, i*, Tropos, BMM and TOGAF and integrated them in a language called ARMOR. This was used by enterprise architects in case study. It turned out that the language was too complex for the architects to understand as intended. Based on this we redefined ARMOR to contain only a minimum number of goal-oriented concepts, and this was tested in a second case study. This second case study suggests that the minimal version is still useful for traceability management in practice. [Contribution] We have identified a core set of concepts of goal-oriented requirements engineering, that can be used in the practice of enterprise architecture. Our analysis provides hypotheses into GORE that will be tested in future case studies.


Enterprise Architecture Requirement Engineer Business Goal Architecture Component Contextual Reason 
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.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Business Motivation Model: Business motivation model version 1.0. Standard document (2007), (22.09. 2009)
  3. 3.
    Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X.: On the use of i* for architecting hybrid systems: A method and an evaluation report. In: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pp. 38–53 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clements, P., Bass, L.: Using Business Goals to Inform a Software Architecture. In: 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 69–78. IEEE Computer Society Press (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engelsman, W., Quartel, D.A.C., Jonkers, H., van Sinderen, M.J.: Extending enterprise architecture modelling with business goals and requirements. Enterprise Information Systems 5(1), 9–36 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forrester, J.: If p, then what? thinking in cases. History of the Human Sciences 9(3) (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google 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. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jureta, I., Faulkner, S.: An Agent-Oriented Meta-model for Enterprise Modelling. In: Akoka, J., Liddle, S.W., Song, I.-Y., Bertolotto, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Kolp, M., Trujillo, J., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2005. LNCS, vol. 3770, pp. 151–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamsweerde, A.: Kaos tutorial. Cediti, September 5 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P.: Comparing Goal Modelling Languages: An Experiment. In: Sawyer, P., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2007. LNCS, vol. 4542, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P., Opdahl, A.: Comparing grl and kaos using the ueml approach. In: Enterprise Interoperability II, pp. 77–88 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moody, D.: The physics of notations: Improving the usability and communicability of visual notations in requirements engineering. In: 2009 Fourth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV), pp. 56–57 (September 2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moody, D., Heymans, P., Matulevicius, R.: Improving the Effectiveness of Visual Representations in Requirements Engineering: An Evaluation of i* Visual Syntax. In: 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2009, pp. 171–180. IEEE Computer Society Press (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quartel, D.A.C., Engelsman, W., Jonkers, H., van Sinderen, M.J.: A goal-oriented requirements modelling language for enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference, EDOC 2009, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 3–13. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sunstein, C.R.: On analogical reasoning. Harvard Law Review 106, 741–790 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 1.0 Specification. Van Haren Publishing (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Open Group: TOGAF Version 9. Van Haren Publishing (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, pp. 1–12. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu, E.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 226–235. IEEE Computer Society Press (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilco Engelsman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roel Wieringa
    • 2
  1. 1.BiZZdesignThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of TwenteThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations