Advertisement

Comparing Goal-Oriented Approaches to Model Requirements for CSCW

  • Miguel A. Teruel
  • Elena Navarro
  • Víctor López-Jaquero
  • Francisco Montero
  • Pascual González
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 275)

Abstract

Collaborative systems are becoming increasingly important, because they enable several users to work together and carry out collaboration, communication and coordination tasks. We have to highlight that, to perform these tasks, the users have to be aware of other users’ actions, usually by means of a set of awareness techniques. Usually, the specification of this set of techniques has to be done by means of Non-Functional Requirements, related to quality factors such as ease of use or helpfulness. Therefore, choosing a technique to model the requirements of this kind of systems is an important issue. In previous works, we analyzed different Requirements Engineering (RE) techniques, and we concluded that Goal-Oriented is the most promising one for modeling collaborative systems. Based on these conclusions, in this paper we compare three Goal-Oriented approaches, namely NFR framework, i* and KAOS, in order to determine which one is the most suitable to model CSCW stakeholder requirements.

Keywords

Goal-oriented KAOS NFR i* Collaborative systems CSCW Awareness Requirements engineering Non-functional requirements Quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S.: A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware. Computer Supported Coop. Work 11, 411–446 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hochmuller, H.: Towards the Proper Integration of Extra-Functional Requirements. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 6, 98–117 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teruel, M.A., Navarro, E., Jaquero, V.L., Montero, F., González, P.: An Empirical Evaluation of Requirement Engineering Techniques for Collaborative Systems. In: 15th Int. Conf. on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Durham, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cysneiros, L.M., Yu, E.: Non-Functional Requirements Elicitation (Perspectives on Software Requirements). Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: A requirements-driven development methodology. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 108–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 249–263 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Google, “Google Docs” (2001), http://docs.google.com
  8. 8.
    Cockburn, A.: Writting Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kavakli, E., Loucopoulos, P.: Goal Modeling in Requirements Engineering: Analysis and Critique of Current Methods. Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, 102–124 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: No Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sampaio do Prado Leite, J.C., Franco, A.P.M.: A Strategy for Conceptual Model Acquisition. In: First Int. Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 243–246 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mylopoulos, J., Castro, J., Kolp, M.: Tropos: A Framework for Requirements-Driven Software Development. In: Inf. Systems Engineering: State of the Art and Research Themes, pp. 261–273 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pohl, K.: Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S., Roseman, M.: Workspace Awareness in Real-Time Distributed Groupware: Framework, Widgets, and Evaluation. In: HCI on People and Computers XI, pp. 281–298. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schümmer, T., Lukosch, S.: Patterns for Computer-Mediated Interaction. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011, Systems and soft. engineering - Systems and soft. Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and soft. quality models (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moreira, A.M.D., Araújo, J., Rashid, A.: A Concern-Oriented Requirements Engineering Model. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 293–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kitchenham, B.: A methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools. In: Experimental Software Engineering Issues: Critical Assessment and Future Directions, pp. 121–124. Springer, Berlin (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teruel, M.A., Navarro, E., López-Jaquero, V., Montero, F., González, P.: CSRML: A Goal-Oriented Approach to Model Requirements for Collaborative Systems. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 33–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teruel, M.A., Navarro, E., Jaquero, V.L., Montero, F., González, P.: Assesing the Understandability of Collaborative Systems Requirements Notations: an Empirical Study. In: 1st Int. Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering, Trento, Italy (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel A. Teruel
    • 1
  • Elena Navarro
    • 1
  • Víctor López-Jaquero
    • 1
  • Francisco Montero
    • 1
  • Pascual González
    • 1
  1. 1.LoUISE Research Group, I3AUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCastilla-La ManchaSpain

Personalised recommendations