Skip to main content

Towards Engineering Purposeful Systems: A Requirements Engineering Perspective

  • Conference paper
Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 5181))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A number of studies [1][2][3] show that systems fail due to an inadequate or insufficient understanding of the requirements they seek to address. Further, the amount of effort needed to fix these systems has been found to be very high [4]. To correct this situation, it is necessary to address the issue of requirements elicitation, validation, and specification in a relatively more focused manner. The expectation is that as a result of this, more acceptable systems will be developed in the future. The field of requirements engineering has emerged to meet this expectation. Requirements Engineering extends the ‘what is done by the system’ approach with the ‘why is the system like this’ view. This ‘why’ question is answered in terms of organizational objectives and their impact on information systems supporting the organization. In other words, information systems are seen as fulfilling a certain purpose in an organization and requirements engineering helps in the conceptualization of these purposeful systems.

The talk will focus on the above issue of conceptualising purposeful systems.

It will argue that the goal concept is central to resolving the issue of conceptualising purposeful systems and then, elaborate on goal modeling and reasoning with goals in order to demonstrate the various roles of goals in conceptualizing purposeful systems: Goal modeling proved to be an effective way to elicit requirements [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. The assumption of goal-based requirements elicitation is that the rationale for developing a system is found outside the system itself, in the enterprise [14] in which the system shall function. In this movement from the ‘whats’ to the ‘whys’, it becomes mandatory to consider multiple view points of the various stakeholders, to explore alternative design choices and reason about them so as to make conceptual decisions on the basis of rationale arguments in favour and against the different alternatives. Alternative goal refinement proved helpful in the systematic exploration of system choices [8][14][15][16]. Recording these shall help to deal with changing requirements. Goals provide a means to ensure requirements pre-traceability [5][17][18]. They establish a conceptual link between the system and its environment, thus facilitating the propagation of organizational changes into the system functionality. This link provides the rationale for the system functionality [6][8][19][20][21] and facilitates the S.S. Bhowmick, J. Küng, and R. Wagner (Eds.): DEXA 2008, LNCS 5181, pp. 1-4, 2008. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008 2 C. Rolland explanation and justification of it to the stakeholders. Stakeholders provide useful and realistic viewpoints about the system To-Be expressed as goals. Negotiation techniques have been developed to help choosing the prevalent one [22][23]. Prioritization techniques aim at providing means to compare the different viewpoints on the basis of costs and value [24][25]. Multiple viewpoints are inherently associated to conflicts [26] and goals have been recognized to help in the detection of conflicts and their resolution [27][28][29][30].

In the rest of this talk, we will consider new challenges raised by emerging conditions of system development leading to variability in functionality modelling and customisation in the engineering process. Variability is imposed by the multi-purpose nature of information systems of today. We will use a particular goal model called goal/strategy map to illustrate how a goal model can make variability explicit and support goal-based reasoning to help in selecting the right variant for the project at hand. Our position is that variability implies a move from systems with a mono-facetted purpose to those with a multi-facetted purpose. Whereas the former concentrates on goal discovery, the multi-facetted nature of a purpose extends it to consider the many different ways of goal achievement. For example, for the goal Purchase Material, earlier it would be enough to know that an organization achieves this goal by forecasting material need. Thus, Purchase material was mono-facetted: it had exactly one strategy for its achievement. However, in the new context, it is necessary to introduce other strategies as well, say the Reorder Point strategy for purchasing material. Purchase Material now is multi-facetted; it has many strategies for goal achievement. These two strategies, among others, are made available, for example, in the SAP Materials Management module [31].

The foregoing points to the need to balance goal-orientation with the introduction of strategies for goal achievement. This is the essence of goal/strategy maps. A goal/strategy map, or map for short, is a graph, with nodes as intentions and strategies as edges. An edge entering a node identifies a strategy that can be used for achieving the intention of the node. The map therefore, shows which intentions can be achieved by which strategies once a preceding intention has been achieved. Evidently, the map is capable of expressing goals and their achievement in a declarative manner. The talk will introduce the concept of a map [32], illustrate it with an ERP system example and discuss how the model meets the aforementioned challenges.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Standish Group, Chaos. Standish Group Internal Report (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  2. European Software Institute, European User Survey Analysis, Report USV_EUR 2.1, ESPITI Project (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. META Group, Research on Requirements Realization and Relevance, report (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson, J.: Chaos: the Dollar Drain of IT project Failures. Application Development Trends, pp.41–47 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: Modelling the contribution structure underlying requirements. In: 1st Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation of Software Quality, Utrech, Netherlands (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ross, D.T., Schoman, K.E.: Structured Analysis for Requirements Definition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3(1), 6–15 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Potts, C., Takahashi, K., Antòn, A.I.: Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Software 11(2), 21–32 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rolland, C., Souveyet, C., Ben Achour, C.: Guiding goal modelling using scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Special Issue on Scenario Management 24(12) (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dardenne, A., Lamsweerde, A.v., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed Requirements Acquisition, Science of Computer Programming, pp. 3–50. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dubois, E., Yu, E., Pettot, M.: From early to late formal requirements: a process-control case study. In: Proc. IWSSD 1998 - 9th International Workshop on software Specification and design, pp. 34–42. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Antón, A.I., Potts, C., Takahanshi, K.: Inquiry Based Requirements Analysis. In: IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kaindl, H.: A design process based on a model combining scenarios with goals and functions. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetic 30(5), 537–551 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamsweerde, A.v.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: RE 2001 International Joint Conference on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, pp. 249–263. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Loucopoulos, P.: The f3 (from fuzzy to formal) view on requirements engineering. Ingénierie des systémes d’information 2(6), 639–655 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rolland, C., Grosz, G., Kla, R.: Experience with goal-scenario coupling. in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Limerik, Ireland (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hui, B., Liaskos, S., Mylopoulos, J.: Requirements Analysis for Customizable Software: A Goals-Skills-Preferences Framework. In: IEEE Conference on Requirements Engineering, Monterey Bay, USA, pp. 117–126 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ramesh, B., Powers, T., Stubbs, C., Edwards, M.: Implementing requirements traceability: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1995), UK, pp. 89–95 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pohl, K.: Process centred requirements engineering. J. Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bubenko, J., Rolland, C., Loucopoulos, P., de Antón ellis, V.: Facilitating ‘fuzzy to formal’ requirements modelling. In: IEEE 1st Conference on Requirements Enginering, ICRE 1994, pp. 154–158 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P.: Requirements engineering. Worldwide Series in Computer Science. Wiley, Chichester (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Mostow, J.: Towards better models of the design process. AI Magazine 6, 44–57 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hoh, P.: Multi-Criteria Preference Analysis for Systematic Requirements Negotiation. In: 26th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, Oxford, England, p. 887 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Boehm, B., Bose, P., Horowitz, E., Ming-June, L.: Software requirements as negotiated win conditions. In: 1st International Conference on Requirements Engineering, USA, pp. 74–83 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Karlsson, J., Olsson, S., Ryan, K.: Improved Practical Support for Large-scale Requirements Prioritizing. Journal of Requirements Engineering, 51–60 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moisiadis, F.: The Fundamentals of Prioritising Requirements Systems Engineering. In: Test & Evaluation Conference, Sydney, Australia (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 760–773 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lamsweerde, A.v., Letier, E.: Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Special Issue on Exception Handling 26(10), 978–1005 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Robinson, W.N., Volcov, S.: Conflict Oriented Requirements Restructuring, Working Paper CIS-96-15 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Robinson, W.N., Volkov, S.: Supporting the Negotiation Life-Cycle. Communications of the ACM, 95–102 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Easterbrook, S.M.: Resolving Requirements Conflicts with Computer-Supported Negotiation. In: Jirotka, M., Goguen, J. (eds.) Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues, pp. 41–65. Academic Press, London (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rolland, C., Prakash, N.: Bridging the gap between Organizational needs and ERP functionality. Requirements Engineering Journal 5 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rolland, C., Salinesi, C., Etien, A.: Eliciting Gaps in Requirements Change. Requirements Engineering Journal 9, 1–15 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Sourav S. Bhowmick Josef Küng Roland Wagner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rolland, C. (2008). Towards Engineering Purposeful Systems: A Requirements Engineering Perspective. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds) Database and Expert Systems Applications. DEXA 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5181. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85654-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85654-2_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85653-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85654-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics