Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Coarse-Grained Comparison of Modelling Languages for Business Motivation and Intentional Distribution

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Perspectives in Business Informatics Research (BIR 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 261))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 772 Accesses

Abstract

Goal modelling is an important activity to reason why different software decisions are taken, or architecture solutions are implemented. Currently there exist a number of goal-oriented modelling approaches. In this paper, we apply the semiotic quality framework to compare quality of the business motivation model (BMM) and i* modelling languages at the coarse-grained level. The study reports on the BMM and i* language quality and model quality. The study also presents observations on how the BMM and i* models could be used to reason on and support construction of the business process model expressed in business processes model and notation.

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. Anaya, V., Berio, G., Harzallah, M., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R., Opdahl, A.L., Panetto, H., Verdecho, M.J.: The unified enterprise modelling language – overview and further work. Comput. Ind. 61(2), 99–111 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anton, A.I.: Goal-based requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE 1996), pp. 136−144. IEEE Computer Society (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ayala, C.P., Cares, C., Carvallo, J.P., Grau, G., Haya, M., Salazar, G., Franch, X., Mayol, E., Quer, C.: A comparative analysis of i*-based agent-oriented modeling languages. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology (AOSDM 2005) (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 8(3), 203–236 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chung, K.L., Nixon, B., Mylopoulos, J., Yu, E.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Engelsman, W., Wieringa, R.: Understandability of goal concepts by requirements engineering experts. In: Indulska, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER Workshops 2014. LNCS, vol. 8823, pp. 97–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. ITU: Recommendation Z.151 (GRL) – Version 3.0, September 2003

    Google Scholar 

  8. Koliadis G., Vranesevic A., Bhuiyan M., Krishna A., Ghose A., Combining i* and BPMN for Business Process Model Lifecycle Management, Business Process Management Workshops, 2006, pp 416–427

    Google Scholar 

  9. Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems. Springer, London (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Matulevičius, R., Heymans, P.: Comparing goal modelling languages: an experiment. In: Sawyer, P., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2007. LNCS, vol. 4542, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Matulevičius R., Heymans P., Opdahl A.L.: Comparing GRL and KAOS using the UEML approach. In: IESA 2007, pp. 77−88 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of notations: towards a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(5), 756–777 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. In: Requirements Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 141−175 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. OMG, Business Motivation Model (BMM, version 1.3) (2015). http://www.omg.org/spec/BMM/1.3/. (last check: 18 June 2016)

  16. OMG, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN, version 2.0) (2011). http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/. (last visited: 18 June 2016)

  17. Regev, G.: A systemic paradigm for early it system requirements based on regulation principles: the lightswitch approach. Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tu, C.: Ontological evaluation of BMM and i* with the UEML approach. Master thesis, University of Namur (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yu, E.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE 1997) (1996)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Rando Tõnisson & Raimundas Matulevičius

Authors
  1. Rando Tõnisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raimundas Matulevičius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raimundas Matulevičius .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Technology, University of Economics, Prague 3, Czech Republic

    Václav Řepa

  2. Department of Information Technology, University of Economics, Prague 3, Praha, Czech Republic

    Tomáš Bruckner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tõnisson, R., Matulevičius, R. (2016). A Coarse-Grained Comparison of Modelling Languages for Business Motivation and Intentional Distribution. In: Řepa, V., Bruckner, T. (eds) Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. BIR 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 261. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45321-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation