Advertisement

A Business Process-Driven Approach for Requirements Dependency Analysis

  • Juan Li
  • Ross Jeffery
  • Kam Hay Fung
  • Liming Zhu
  • Qing Wang
  • He Zhang
  • Xiwei Xu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7481)

Abstract

Dependencies among software artifacts are very useful for various software development and maintenance activities such as change impact analysis and effort estimation. In the past, the focus on artifact dependencies has been at the design and code level rather than at the requirements level. This is due to the difficulties in identifying dependencies in a text-based requirements specification. We observed that difficulties reside in the disconnection among itemized requirements and the lack of a more systematic approach to write text-based requirements. Business process models are an increasingly important part of a requirements specification. In this paper, we present a mapping between workflow patterns and dependency types to aid dependency identification and change impact analysis. Our real-world case study results show that some participants, with the help of the mapping, discovered more dependencies than other participants using text-based requirements only. Though many of these additional dependencies are highly difficult to spot from the text-based requirements, they are however very useful for change impact analysis.

Keywords

Business process modeling workflow pattern software development and maintenance requirements dependency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lehman, M.M., Ramil, J.F., Wernick, P.D., Perry, D.E., Turski, W.M.: Metrics and laws of software evolution-The nineties view. In: Proc. 4th Intl. Software Metrics Symp., pp. 20–32. IEEE Computer Society Press (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold, R.S., Bohner, S.A.: Software Change Impact Analysis. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohner, S.A.: Software change impacts-an evolving perspective. In: Int. Conf. Softw. Maintenance (ICSM 2002), pp. 263–272. IEEE Computer Society Press (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fasolino, A.R., Visaggio, G.: Improving software comprehension through an automated dependency tracer. In: Proc. 7th Int. Wkshp. Program Comprehension, pp. 58–65. IEEE Computer Society Press (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Lucia, A., Fasano, F., Oliveto, R.: Traceability management for impact analysis. In: Frontiers of Software Maintenance (FoSM 2008), pp. 21–30. IEEE Press (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aizenbud-Reshef, N., Nolan, B.T., Rubin, J., Shaham-Gafni, Y.: Model traceability. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 515–526 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dag, J., Regnell, B., Carlshamre, P., Andersson, M., Karlsson, J.: A feasibility study of automated natural language requirements analysis in market-driven development. Requirements Engineering 7, 20–33 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pohl, K.: PRO-ART: Enabling requirements pretraceability. In: 2nd Int. Conf. Requirements Eng., pp. 76–84. IEEE Computer Society Press (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, J., Zhu, L., Jeffery, R., Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, Q., Li, M.: An initial evaluation of requirements dependency types in change propagation analysis. In: 16th Int. Conf. Evaluation & Assessment in Softw. Eng., EASE 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–100 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Modeling Notation Specification v1.2 (2009) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassine, J., Rilling, J., Hewitt, J., Dssouli, R.: Change impact analysis for requirement evolution using use case maps. In: 8th Int. Wkshp. Principles of Software Evolution, pp. 81–90. IEEE Computer Society Press (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Knethen, A., Grund, M.: QuaTrace: a tool environment for (semi-) automatic impact analysis based on traces. In: Int. Conf. Softw. Maintenance (ICSM 2003), pp. 246–255. IEEE Computer Society Press (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dahlstedt, Å., Persson, A.: Requirements Interdependencies: State of the Art and Future Challenges. In: Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 95–116. Springer, Berlin (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yan, Y.-Q., Li, S.-X., Liu, X.-M.: Quantitative Analysis for Requirements Evolution’s Ripple-Effect. In: Int. Asia Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (CAR 2009), pp. 423–427. IEEE Computer Society Press (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de la Vara González, J.L., Díaz, J.S.: Business process-driven requirements engineering: a goal-based approach. In: Pernici, B., Gulla, J.A. (eds.) Proc. CAiSE 2006 Workshops (vol. 1) - 8th Wkshp. Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (BPMDS 2007), Trondheim, Norway (2007) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cardoso, E.C.S., Almeida, J.P.A., Guizzardi, G.: Requirements engineering based on business process models: A case study. In: 13th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW 2009), pp. 320–327. IEEE Computer Society Press (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathisen, E., Ellingsen, K., Fallmyr, T.: Using business process modelling to reduce the effects of requirements changes in software projects. In: 2nd Int. Conf. Adaptive Science & Technology (ICAST 2009), pp. 14–19. IEEE Computer Society Press (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A.P.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14, 5–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wohed, P., Russell, N., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Andersson, B., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Patterns-based evaluation of open source BPM systems: The cases of jBPM, OpenWFE, and Enhydra Shark. Information and Software Technology 51, 1187–1216 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kous, K.: Comparative analysis versions of BPMN and its support with Control-flow patterns. In: MIPRO, 2010 Proc. 33rd Int. Convention, pp. 315–319. IEEE Computer Society Press (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group: OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysMLTM) v1.2 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Li
    • 1
  • Ross Jeffery
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kam Hay Fung
    • 4
  • Liming Zhu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Qing Wang
    • 1
  • He Zhang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiwei Xu
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of SoftwareChinese Academy of SciencesChina
  2. 2.National ICT AustraliaAustralia
  3. 3.School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe University of New South WalesAustralia
  4. 4.School of Information Systems, Technology and ManagementThe University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations