Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors Affecting Comprehension of Contribution Links in Goal Models: An Experiment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Conceptual Modeling (ER 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11788))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Goal models have long been regarded to be useful instruments for visualizing and analysing decision problems. Key to using goal models for the purpose is the concept of satisfaction contribution between goals. Several proposals have been offered in the literature for representing contributions and performing inferences therewith. Theoretical arguments and demonstrative examples are typically used to support the usefulness and soundness of such proposals. However, the degree to which users of goal models intuitively understand the meaning of a specific contribution representation and use it for making valid inferences constitutes an additional measure of the appropriateness of the representation. We report on an experimental study to compare the intuitiveness of two alternative contribution representation approaches via measuring the degree to which untrained users perform inferences compliant with the semantics defined by the language designers. We further explore the role of individual differences such as cognitive style and attitude and ability with arithmetic in establishing and applying the right semantics. We find significant differences between the representations under comparison as well as effects of various qualities and levels with regards to individual factors. The results inspire further research on the specific matter of contribution links and support the overall soundness and operationalizability of the intuitiveness construct.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Allinson, C.W., Hayes, J.: The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. J. Manag. Stud. 33(1), 119–135 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alothman, N., Zhian, M., Liaskos, S.: User perception of numeric contribution semantics for goal models: an exploratory experiment. In: Mayr, H.C., Guizzardi, G., Ma, H., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2017. LNCS, vol. 10650, pp. 451–465. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Amyot, D., Ghanavati, S., Horkoff, J., Mussbacher, G., Peyton, L., Yu, E.S.K.: Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(8), 841–877 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: User requirements notation: the first ten years, the next ten years. J. Softw. (JSW) 6(5), 747–768 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Birkmeier, D.Q., Klockner, S., Overhage, S.: An empirical comparison of the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010), pp. 51–62 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caire, P., Genon, N., Heymans, P., Moody, D.L.: Visual notation design 2.0: towards user comprehensible requirements engineering notations. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2013), pp. 115–124, July 2013

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X.: An empirical study on the use of i* by non-technical stakeholders: the case of strategic dependency diagrams. Requirements Eng. 24(1), 1–27 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—a family of empirical studies. Empirical Softw. Eng. 14(6), 685–719 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dalpiaz, F., Franch, X., Horkoff, J.: iStar 2.0 Language Guide. The Computing Research Repository (CoRR) (2016). arXiv:1605.07767

  10. De Lucia, A., Gravino, C., Oliveto, R., Tortora, G.: Data model comprehension an empirical comparison of ER and UML class diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2008), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 93–102 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., Heier, H.: Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71, 390–405 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive complexity in business process modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21640-4_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Figl, K., Recker, J., Mendling, J.: A study on the effects of routing symbol design on process model comprehension. Decis. Support Syst. 54(2), 1104–1118 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams. Data Knowl. Eng. 64(3), 534–557 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Nicchiarelli, E., Sebastiani, R.: Reasoning with goal models. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45816-6_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Guizzardi, R.S.S., Franch, X., Guizzardi, G., Wieringa, R.: Ontological distinctions between means-end and contribution links in the i* framework. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 463–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Hadar, I., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Kuflik, T., Perini, A., Ricca, F., Susi, A.: Comparing the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in Use Case and Tropos: results from a family of experiments. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(10), 1823–1843 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hammond, K.R., Hamm, R.M., Grassia, J., Pearson, T.: Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 17(5), 753–770 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hopko, D.R., Mahadevan, R., Bare, R.L., Hunt, M.K.: The abbreviated math anxiety scale (AMAS): construction, validity, and reliability. Assessment 10(2), 178–182 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Horkoff, J., Yu, E.S.K.: Interactive goal model analysis for early requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. 21(1), 29–61 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Horkoff, J., Yu, E.S.: Comparison and evaluation of goal-oriented satisfaction analysis techniques. Requirements Eng. (REJ) 18(3), 1–24 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Understanding understandability of conceptual models – what are we actually talking about? In: Atzeni, P., Cheung, D., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2012. LNCS, vol. 7532, pp. 64–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34002-4_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Jošt, G., Huber, J., Heričko, M., Polančič, G.: An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 48, 90–111 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liaskos, S., Dundjerovic, T., Gabriel, G.: Comparing alternative goal model visualizations for decision making: an exploratory experiment. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2018), Pau, France, pp. 1272–1281 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Liaskos, S., Jalman, R., Aranda, J.: On eliciting preference and contribution measures in goal models. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2012), Chicago, IL, pp. 221–230 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Liaskos, S., Khan, S.M., Soutchanski, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling and reasoning with decision-theoretic goals. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Liaskos, S., McIlraith, S., Sohrabi, S., Mylopoulos, J.: Representing and reasoning about preferences in requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. J. (REJ) 16, 227–249 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liaskos, S., Ronse, A., Zhian, M.: Assessing the intuitiveness of qualitative contribution relationships in goal models: an exploratory experiment. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2017), Toronto, Canada, pp. 466–471 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Liaskos, S., Tambosi, W.: Comparing the comprehensibility of numeric versus symbolic contribution labels in goal models: an experimental design. In: Proceedings of the MODELS 2018 Workshop on Human Factors in Modeling (HuFaMo 2018), Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 738–745 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Maiden, N.A.M., Pavan, P., Gizikis, A., Clause, O., Kim, H., Zhu, X.: Making decisions with requirements: integrating i* goal modelling and the AHP. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2002), Essen, Germany (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79396-0_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. Requirements Eng. 15(2), 141–175 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Liao, S., Wang, H., Yu, E.: Exploring alternatives during requirements analysis. IEEE Softw. 18(1), 92–96 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Purchase, H.C., Welland, R., McGill, M., Colpoys, L.: Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 61(2), 187–203 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosnow, R.L., Rosenthal, R.: Beginning Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Primer, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shoval, P., Frumermann, I.: OO and EER conceptual schemas: a comparison of user comprehension. J. Database Manag. (JDM) 5(4), 28–38 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S.: Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th edn. Pearson, London (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yu, E.S.K.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1997), Annapolis, MD, pp. 226–235 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Sotirios Liaskos & Wisal Tambosi

Authors
  1. Sotirios Liaskos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wisal Tambosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sotirios Liaskos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

    Alberto H. F. Laender

  2. Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Barbara Pernici

  3. Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore

    Ee-Peng Lim

  4. Univ Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

    José Palazzo M. de Oliveira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Liaskos, S., Tambosi, W. (2019). Factors Affecting Comprehension of Contribution Links in Goal Models: An Experiment. In: Laender, A., Pernici, B., Lim, EP., de Oliveira, J. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11788. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33223-5_43

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33223-5_43

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33222-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33223-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation