Requirements Engineering

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 115–131 | Cite as

Modelling and engineering the requirements engineering process: An overview of the NATURE approach

  • G. Grosz
  • C. Rolland
  • S. Schwer
  • C. Souveyet
  • V. Plihon
  • S. Si-Said
  • C. Ben Achour
  • C. Gnaho


This paper presents an overview of the process theory developed in the context of the ESPRIT project NATURE.1 This theory proposes means for modelling and engineering the requirements engineering (RE) process. The key element of this theory is a situation-and decision-based process meta-model independent of any RE methodology. The process meta-model acts as a shell for defining process models by instantiation. An enactment mechanism implemented in a tool environment has been defined. It allows execution of process models and provides effective guidance to the requirements engineer. Construction of process models is also supported based on generic method knowledge chunks. The formalization of our approach is based on a free algebra.


Decision based approach Meta-modelling Process centred software engineering environment Process modelling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lubars M, Potts C, Richter C.A review of the state of the practice in requirements modeling. Proc Int Symposium on Requirements Engineering, 1993Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dowson M. Software process themes and issues. IEEE 2nd Int Conf on the Software Process. 1993, pp 28–40Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gause DC, Weinberg GM. Exploring requirements: Quality before Design. Dorset House Publishing. New York, 1989MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE-610.12. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Technology (1990). 1991Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rolland C, Prakash N. Guiding the requirements engineering process. Proc IEEE Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 1994Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolland C, Souveyet C, Moreno M. An approach for defining ways-of-working. Inform Syst J 20 (4), 1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rumbaugh J, Blaha M, Premerlani W, Eddy F, Loresen W. Object-oriented modeling and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tominaga K, Tokuda T. Constraint-centered descriptions for automated tool invocation. IEEE Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). 1994, pp. 92–101Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (eds), Software process modelling and technology, Wiley, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curtis B, Kellner M, Over J. Process modeling. Commun. ACM 1992; 35 (9): 75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Derniame JC. EWSPT'92 Report. In Osterweil (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Software Process, pp. 160–164, Berlin, Germany, February 1993. IEE Computer Society PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marttiin P, Rossi M, Tahvainen V-P, Lyytinen K. A comparative review of CASE shells: a preliminary framework and research outcomes. Inform Manage 1993; 25: 11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barghouti NS, Krishnamurthy B. An Open Environment for Process Modeling and Enactment. In W. Schäfer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Software Process Workshop: State of the Practice in Process Technology, pp. 33–36, Warden, Germany, March 1993, IEEE Computer Society PressGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen PPS. The entity-relationship model: towards a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1976; 1(1)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tempora ESPRIT project. Final report, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmitt JR. Product modeling in requirements engineering process modeling. IFIP TC8 Int Conf. on Information Systems Development Process. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plihon V. Un environnement pour l'ingénierie des méthodes. PhD thesis, University of Paris 1, December 1995Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Si-Said S and Ben Achour C. A tool for guiding the requirements engineering process. Proc 6th Workshop on the Next Generation of CASE Tools, Jyvaskyla, Finaland, 1995, pp. 23–42Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Armenise P, Bandinelli S, Ghezzi C, Morzenti A. A survey and assessment of software process representation formalisms. Int J Software Eng Knowl Eng 1993; 3(3)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The O2 User Manual. 02, France, December 1993Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rolland C. A contextual approach to modeling the requirements engineering process. SEKE'94, 6th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania, 1994Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brunet J. Analyse conceptuelle orientée objet. PhD thesis, University of Paris 6, 1993Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yourdon E. Modern structured analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwer S, Rolland C. Theoretical formalization of the process meta-modelling approach. Internal CRI report 95-08. University of Paris 1, October 1995Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sernadas A, Sernadas C, Ehrich H-D. The basic building block of information systems. Proc. Information. System Concepts: An In-depth Analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 225–246Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saake G. Descriptive specification of database object behaviour. Data Knowl Eng 1991; 6: 47–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohn PM. Universal algebra. Harper & Row, New York, 1965MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Courcelle B. Equivalences and transformations of regular systems-applications to recursive program schemes and grammars. Theor Comput Sci 1986; 42(1): 1–122MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wand M. Mathematical foundations of formal language theory. MAC TR-108 MIT report, December 1973Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harrison M. An introduction to formal language theory. McGraw-Hill, New York 1976Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Royce WW. Managing the development of large software systems. Proc. IEEE WESCON August 1970Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boehm B. A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Comput 1988; 21: 5Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Henderson-Sellers B, Edwards JM. The object-oriented systems life-cycle. Commun ACM 1990; 09Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bandinelli S, Fugetta A, Grigoli S. Process modelling in the large with SLANG. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Software Process, Berlin 1993, pp. 75–93Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacherri L, Larseon JO, Conradi R. Software process modelling and evolution in EPOS. Proc 4th Int Conf on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'92), Capri, Italy, 1992, pp. 574–589Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Potts C. A generic model for representing design methods. Proc 11th Int Conf on software engineering, 1989Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jarke M, Mylopoulos J, Schmidt JW, Vassiliou Y. DAIDA: an environment for evolving information systems. ACM Trans Inform Syst 1992; 10(1)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Conklin EJ, Begeman M. gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 1988; 6(4): 303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Winograd T. A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human Comput Interact 1987–88; 3(1): 3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gulla JA, Lindland OI. Modelling cooperative work for workflow management. Proc Int Conf CAiSE94, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1994, pp. 53–65Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rolland C, Cauvet C. ALECSI: an expert system for requirements engineering. In. Advanced IS engineering, Andersen R, Bubenko J, Solvberg A (eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B. Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Software Eng 1992, 18: 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Oquendo F, Zucker J-D, Griffiths P. The MASP approach to software process description and enaction. Proc. 5th European Workshop on Software Process Modelling, Milan, 1991Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arbaoui S, Oquendo F. Software process performance support in peace. 6th Int Conf on software engineering and its Applications, 1993, 39–54Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fernström C Tools and environments to improve the software process. Inform Software Technol 1992; 34(10): 659–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Belkhatir N, Estublier J, Melo WL. Software process model and work space control in the Adele system. In: Osterweil L (ed), Proc 2nd Int Conf on the Software Process, Berlin, IEEE Press, 1993Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lonchamp J. A collaborative process-centered environment kernel. Proc 6th Int Conf CAISE'94. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 28–41.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fernström C. Process weaver: adding process support to Unix. Proc 2nd Int Conf on the Software Process, Berlin, 1993Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saeki M, Wenyin K. PCTE based tool for supporting collaborative specification development. Proc Int Conf PCTE'94, San Francisco, 1994Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harmsen AF, Brinkkemper JN, Oei JLH. Situational method engineering for information systems project approaches. IFIP Int Conf on Methods and associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle (A-55). North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Smolander K, Lyutinen K, Tahvanainen V-P, Marttiin P. Meta-Edit: a flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling. In: Advanced information systems engineering, (eds Andersen R, Bubenko J, Solvberg A. LNCS#498. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1991, pp 168–193Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    ELEKTRA consortium, “Electrical Enterprise Knowledge for Transforming Application”,The ELEKTRA project programme, 1996Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Grosz
    • 1
  • C. Rolland
    • 1
  • S. Schwer
    • 2
  • C. Souveyet
    • 1
  • V. Plihon
    • 1
  • S. Si-Said
    • 1
  • C. Ben Achour
    • 3
  • C. Gnaho
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Paris 1ParisFrance
  2. 2.LIPNUniversity of Paris 13VilletaneuseFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire MASIUniversity of Paris 6ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations