Detecting Bad Smells of Refinement in Goal-Oriented Requirements Analysis

  • Keisuke Asano
  • Shinpei HayashiEmail author
  • Motoshi Saeki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10651)


Goal refinement is a crucial step in goal-oriented requirements analysis to create a goal model of high quality. Poor goal refinement leads to missing requirements and eliciting incorrect requirements as well as less comprehensiveness of produced goal models. This paper proposes a technique to automate detecting bad smells of goal refinement, symptoms of poor goal refinement. Based on the classification of poor refinement, we defined four types of bad smells of goal refinement and developed two types of measures to detect them: measures on the graph structure of a goal model and semantic similarity of goal descriptions. We have implemented a support tool to detect bad smells and assessed its usefulness by an experiment.


Goal-oriented requirements analysis Goal refinement Smell detection 



This work was partly supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. JP15K00088, JP15K15970, and JP15H02685. We would like to thank Prof. Takako Nakatani for giving us sample goal models having poor refinement.


  1. 1.
    Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: A goal-based framework for contextual requirements modeling and analysis. Requir. Eng. 15(4), 439–458 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Espada, P., Goulão, M., Araújo, J.: A framework to evaluate complexity and completeness of KAOS goal models. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 562–577. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fillmore, C.J.: Lexical entries for verbs. Found. Lang. 4, 373–393 (1968)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gralha, C., Araújo, J., Goulão, M.: Metrics for measuring complexity and completeness for social goal models. Inf. Syst. 53, 346–362 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayashi, S., Tanabe, D., Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Impact analysis on an attributed goal graph. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E95–D(4), 1012–1020 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaiya, H., Horai, H., Saeki, M.: AGORA: attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis method. In: Proceedings of the RE, pp. 13–22 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Ontology based requirements analysis: lightweight semantic processing approach. In: Proceedings of the QSIC, pp. 223–230 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mendonça, D., Ali, R., Rodrigues, G.N.: Modelling and analysing contextual failures for dependability requirements. In: Proceedings of the SEAMS, pp. 55–64 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakamura, R., Negishi, Y., Hayashi, S., Saeki, M.: Terminology matching of requirements specification documents and regulations for compliance checking. In: Proceedings of the RELAW, pp. 10–18 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Negishi, Y., Hayashi, S., Saeki, M.: Supporting goal modeling for eliciting regulatory compliant requirements. In: Proceedings of the CBI, pp. 434–443 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ohnishi, A.: Software requirements specification database based on requirements frame model. In: Proceedings of the ICRE, pp. 221–228 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rolland, C., Proix, C.: A natural language approach for Requirements Engineering. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) CAiSE 1992. LNCS, vol. 593, pp. 257–277. Springer, Heidelberg (1992). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saeki, M., Hayashi, S., Kaiya, H.: A tool for attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of the ASE, pp. 670–672 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saeki, M., Kaiya, H.: Supporting the elicitation of requirements compliant with regulations. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 228–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shao, K.T.: Tree balance. Syst. Biol. 39(3), 266–276 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silva, L., Moreira, A., Araújo, J., Gralha, C., Goulão, M., Amaral, V.: Exploring views for goal-oriented requirements comprehension. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 149–163. Springer, Cham (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanabe, D., Uno, K., Akemine, K., Yoshikawa, T., Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Supporting requirements change management in goal oriented analysis. In: Proceedings of RE, pp. 3–12 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu, Z., Palmer, M.: Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In: Proceedings of ACL, pp. 133–138 (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang, H., De Roeck, A.N., Gervasi, V., Willis, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Extending nocuous ambiguity analysis for anaphora in natural language requirements. In: Proceedings of the RE, pp. 25–34 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang, H., Willis, A., De Roeck, A.N., Nuseibeh, B.: Automatic detection of nocuous coordination ambiguities in natural language requirements. In: Proceedings of the ASE, pp. 53–62 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu, E.S.: Social modeling and i*. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 99–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTokyo Institute of TechnologyMeguro-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations