Requirements Engineering

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 23–47 | Cite as

A proposal for a scenario classification framework

  • C. Rolland
  • C. Ben Achour
  • C. Cauvet
  • J. Ralyté
  • A. Sutcliffe
  • N. Maiden
  • M. Jarke
  • P. Haumer
  • K. Pohl
  • E. Dubois
  • P. Heymans


The requirements engineering, information systems and software engineering communities recently advocated scenario-based approaches which emphasise the user/system interaction perspective in developing computer systems. Use of examples, scenes, narrative descriptions of contexts, mock-ups and prototypes-all these ideas can be called scenario-based approaches, although exact definitions are not easy beyond stating that these approaches emphasise some description of the real world. Experience seems to tell us that people react to ‘real things’ and that this helps in clarifying requirements. Indeed, the widespread acceptance of prototyping in system development points to the effectiveness of scenario-based approaches. However, we have little understanding about how scenarios should be constructed, little hard evidence about their effectiveness and even less idea about why they work.

The paper is an attempt to explore some of the issues underlying scenario-based approaches in requirements engineering and to propose a framework for their classification. The framework is a four-dimensional framework which advocates that a scenario-based approach can be well defined by itsform, content, purpose andlife cycle. Every dimension is itself multifaceted and a metric is associated with each facet. Motivations for developing the framework are threefold: (a) to help in understanding and clarifying existing scenario-based approaches; (b) to situate the industrial practice of scenarios; and (c) to assist researchers develop more innovative scenario-based approaches.


Requirement Engineering Scenario Approach Context Facet Instance Scenario Task Scenario 
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.
    Gould JD. How to design usable systems. In: Bullinger HJ, Shackel B (eds). Proceedings of Interact ’87, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caroll JM, The scenario perspective on system development. In: Carroll JM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, Wiley, New York, 1995, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young MR, Barnard PB. The use of scenarios in human-computer interaction research: turbocharging the tortoise of cumulative science. CHI+GI 87 human factors in computing systems and graphics interface, Toronto, 1987Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobson I, Christerson M, Jonsson P, Oevergaard G. Object oriented software engineering: a use case driven approach, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson I. The use case construct in object-oriented software engineering. In: Carroll JM (ed), Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, Wiley, New York, 1995, pp 309–336Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kyng M. Creating contexts for design. In: Carroll JM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, Wiley, New York, 1995, pp 85–107Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Potts C, Takahashi K, Anton AI. Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Software 1994;11(2):21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prieto-Diaz R, Freeman P. Classifying software for reusability. IEEE Software 1987; 4(1)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erickson T. Notes on design practice: stories and prototypes as catalysts for communication. In: Carroll EM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holbrook III CH. A scenario-based methodology for conducting requirement elicitation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Eng Notes 1990: 15(1):95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rumbaugh J, Blaha M, Premerlani W, Eddy F, Lorensen W. Object-oriented modeling and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Regnell B, Kimbler K, Wesslen A. Improving the use case driven approach to requirements engineering., In: Second IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, York, ICS Press, March 1995, pp. 40–47Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubin KS, Goldberg A. Object behaviour analysis. Commun ACM 1992;35(9):48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gough PA, Fodemski FT, Higgins SA, Ray SJ. Scenario: an industrial case study and hypermedia enhancements. In: Second IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, 1995Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wood DP, Christel MG, Stevens SM. A multimedia approach to requirements capture and modelling. In: Proceedings of ICRE ′94, Colorado Springs, 1994Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benner KM, Feather S, Johnson WL, Zorman LA. Utilising scenarios in the software development process. In: IFIP WG 8.1 working conference on information systems development process, December 1992, pp 117–134Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hsia P, Samuel J, Gao J, Kung D, Toyoshima Y, Chen C. Formal approach to scenario analysis. IEEE Software 1994;33–41Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lalioti V. Theodoulidis B. Use of scenarios for validation of conceptual specification. Proceedings of the sixth workshop on the next generation of CASE tolls, Jyvaskyla, Finland, June 1995Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glinz M. An integrated formal model of scenarios based on statecharts. Lecture Notes Computer Science ′95 1995; 254–271Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harel D. Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems, Sci Comput Prog 1987;8:231–274MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koskimies K, Mossenbock H. Scene:, using scenario diagrams and active text for illustrating object-oriented programs. In: Proceedings of ICSE-18, 1995, pp 366–375Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Pauw W, Helm R, Kimelman D, Vlissides J. Visualizing the behavior of object-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of OOPLA ’93, SIGPLAN Notices 28(10), October 1993Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jackson M. Software requirements and specifications, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1996Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosson MB, Carroll JM. Narrowing the specification implementation gap in scenario-based design. In: Carroll JM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, Wiley, New York, 1995, pp 247–278Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuutti K. Work processes: scenarios as a preliminary vocabulary. In: Carroll JM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, Wiley, New York, 1995, pp 19–36Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iivari J Levels of abstraction as a conceptual framework for an information system. In: Falkenberg ED, Lindgren P (eds). Information system concepts: an in-depth analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp 323–352Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wexelblat A. Report on scenario technology. MCC Technical Report STP-139-87. Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, Austin, TX, 1987Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson P, Johnson H, Wilson S. Rapid prototyping of user interfaces driven by task models. In: Carroll JM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. Wiley, New York, 1995. pp 209–246Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iivari J. Object-oriented information system analysis: comparative analysis of six object-oriented analysis methods. In: Verrijn-Stuart A, Olle TW (eds). IFIP transactions: methods and associated tools for the information system life cycle, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Conklin J, Begemann ML. gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACMTOOIS 1988;6(4):303–331Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Conklin JE, Burges Yakemovic KC. A process oriented approach to design rationale. Hum Comput Interact 1991; 6(3–4):357–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Iivari J. Object-oriented design of information systems: the design process. In: Van Assche V, Moulin B, Rolland C (eds). Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.1 working conference on the object oriented approach in information systems, Canada. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Olle TW, Hagelstein J, MacDonald IG, Rolland C, Sol HG, Van Assche FJM, Verrijn-Stuart AA. Information systems methodology: a framework for understanding, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Firesmith DG. Modeling the dynamic behaviour of systems, mechanisms, and classes with scenarios. In: Software DevCon ′94, SIGS Publications, New York 1994, pp 73–82Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rawsthorne DA. Capturing functional requirements through object interactions. In: Proceedings of ICRE ′96, IEEE, 1996, pp 60–67Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Somé S, Dssouli R, Vaucher J. Toward an automation of requirements engineering using scenarios. J Comput Inform, Special issue: ICCI ′96, 8th international conference of computing and information, Waterloo, Canada 1996;2(1):1110–1132Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bubenko J. Enterprise modelling. Ingen Syst Inform 1994; 2(6)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu E, Mylopoulos J. Using goals, rules, and methods to support reasoning in business process reengineering In: Proceedings of the 27th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Maui, Hawaii, Vol IV, 1994, pp 243–243Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dardenne A, Lamsweerde AV, Fickas S. Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 1993;20:3–50MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jacobson I, Ericsson M, Jacobson A. The object advantage, business process reengineering with object technology. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rumbaugh J, Booch G. Unified method, notation summary, Version 0.8. Rational Software Corporation, 1996Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pohl K. Process centered requirements engineering. Wiley, New York, 1996Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wright P. What’s in a scenario. SIGCHI Bull 1992; 24(4) Nardi BA. The use of scenarios in design. SIGCHI Bull 24(4) pp 11–12Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nardi, BA: The use of scenarios in design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 1992;24(4):pp 13–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Campbell RL. Will the real scenario please stand up? SIGCHI Bull 1992;24(2):pp 6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Anderson JS, Durney B. Using scenarios in deficiencydriven requirements engineering. In: IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, RE ′93, San Diego, 1993, pp 134–141Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wirfs-Brock R. Designing objects and their interactions: a brief look at responsibility-driven design. In: Carroll JM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, Wiley, New York, 1995, pp 337–360Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robertson SP. Generating object-oriented design representations via scenarios queries. In: Carroll JM (ed). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, Wiley, New York, 1995, pp 279–308Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Crowley DJ. Understanding communication: the signifying web. Gordon & Breach, New York, 1982Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Crews Esprit project. Industrial Steering Committee meeting slides, October 1996Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rolland C, Grosz G. A general framework for describing the requirements engineering process. In: International conference on systems, man and cybernetics, San Antonio, TX, October 1994Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dubois E, Du Bois P, Dubru F, Petit M. Agent-oriented requirements engineering: a case study using the ALBERT language. In: Proceedings of the fourth international working conference on dynamic modelling and information systems (DYNMOD ′94), Noordwijkerhout, September 1994Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Takahashi K, Potts C, Kumar V, Ota K, Smith JD. Hypermedia support for collaboration in requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of ICRE ′96, IEEE Colorado Springs, USA, 1996Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Anton AI, McCracken WM, Potts C. Goal decomposition and scenario analysis in business process reengineering. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on advanced information systems engineering, Utrecht, 1994, pp 94–104Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rumbaugh J. Getting started. J Object-Oriented Program 1994;7:8–23Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Koskimies K, Mannisto T, Systa T, Tuomi J. On the role of scenarios in object-oriented software design. Technical report, Series of Publications A (A-1996-1), Department of Computer Science, University of Tampere, Finland, 1996Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Scalzo B. UPROAR: User processes reveal objects and requirements. In: OOPSLA ′95, Workshop on use cases, 1995Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weidenhaupt K, Pohl K, Jarke M, Haumer P. CREWS team: scenario usage in system development: a report on current practice. IEEE Software 1998 (to appear)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Rolland
    • 1
  • C. Ben Achour
    • 1
  • C. Cauvet
    • 1
  • J. Ralyté
    • 1
  • A. Sutcliffe
    • 2
  • N. Maiden
    • 2
  • M. Jarke
    • 3
  • P. Haumer
    • 3
  • K. Pohl
    • 3
  • E. Dubois
    • 4
  • P. Heymans
    • 4
  1. 1.University of ParisParis Cedex 05France
  2. 2.City UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.RWTHLehrstuhl Informatik V AachenAachenGermany
  4. 4.UNDPUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations