Requirements Sensemaking Using Concept Maps

  • Shamal Faily
  • John Lyle
  • Andre Paul
  • Andrea Atzeni
  • Dieter Blomme
  • Heiko Desruelle
  • Krishna Bangalore
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7623)


Requirements play an important role in software engineering, but their perceived usefulness means that they often fail to be properly maintained. Traceability is often considered a means for motivating and maintaining requirements, but this is difficult without a better understanding of the requirements themselves. Sensemaking techniques help us get this understanding, but the representations necessary to support it are difficult to create, and scale poorly when dealing with medium to large scale problems. This paper describes how, with the aid of supporting software tools, concept mapping can be used to both make sense of and improve the quality of a requirements specification. We illustrate this approach by using it to update the requirements specification for the EU webinos project, and discuss several findings arising from our results.


Requirement Engineer Tangible Interface Requirement Traceability Original Requirement Requirement Description 
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.


  1. 1.
    Cheng, B.H.C., Atlee, J.M.: Research directions in requirements engineering. In: Future of Software Engineering 2007, pp. 285–303. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nuseibeh, B.: Ariane 5: Who dunnit? IEEE Softw. 14, 15–16 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gotel, O., Finkelstein, C.: An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 94–101 (April 1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winkler, S., von Pilgrim, J.: A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software and Systems Modeling, 1–37 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burge, J.E., Carroll, J.M., McCall, R., Mistrik, I.: Rationale-Based Software Engineering. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Open University: Compendium web site (2012),
  7. 7.
    Burge, J.E., Brown, D.C.: Seurat: integrated rationale management. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2008, pp. 835–838. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faily, S., Fléchais, I.: Towards tool-support for Usable Secure Requirements Engineering with CAIRIS. International Journal of Secure Software Engineering 1(3), 56–70 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faily, S.: CAIRIS web site (June 2012),
  10. 10.
    Faily, S., Fléchais, I.: A Meta-Model for Usable Secure Requirements Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Secure Systems, pp. 126–135. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faily, S., Fléchais, I.: The Secret Lives of Assumptions: Developing and Refining Assumption Personas for Secure System Design. In: Forbrig, P. (ed.) HCSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6409, pp. 111–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faily, S., Fléchais, I.: Persona cases: a technique for grounding personas. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2267–2270. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell, D.M., Stefik, M.J., Pirolli, P., Card, S.K.: The cost structure of sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT 1993 and CHI 1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 1993, pp. 269–276. ACM, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jantunen, S., Gause, D., Wessman, R.: Making sense of product requirements. In: 2010 18th IEEE International on Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 89–92 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russell, D.M., Jeffries, R., Irani, L.: Sensemaking for the rest of us. In: CHI 2008 Sensemaking Workshop (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dubberly, H.: Using concept maps in product development. In: Kolko, J. (ed.) Exposing the Magic of Design: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Methods & Theory of Synthesis, pp. 109–124. Oxford University Press (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, S.: How usable are your apis? In: Oram, A., Wilson, G. (eds.) Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It, pp. 545–565. O’Reilly (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin, B., Hanington, B.: Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B.: Learning How To Learn. Cambridge University Press (1984)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sutherland, S., Katz, S.: Concept mapping methodology: A catalyst for organizational learning. Evaluation and Program Planning 28, 257–269 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IHMC: CmapTools web site (2012),
  22. 22.
    Klemmer, S.R., Newman, M.W., Farrell, R., Bilezikjian, M., Landay, J.A.: The designers’ outpost: a tangible interface for collaborative web site. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST 2001, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tanenbaum, K., Antle, A.N.: A tangible approach to concept mapping. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1127, pp. 121–132 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oppl, S., Stary, C.: Effects of a Tabletop Interface on the Co-construction of Concept Maps. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part III. LNCS, vol. 6948, pp. 443–460. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kof, L., Gacitua, R., Rouncefield, M., Sawyer, P.: Concept mapping as a means of requirements tracing. In: 2010 Third International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge (MARK), pp. 22–31 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    AT&T: Graphviz web site (June 2012),
  27. 27.
    Schwaber, K.: Agile Project Management with Scrum. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilson, W.M., Rosenberg, L.H., Hyatt, L.E.: Automated quality analysis of natural language requirement specifications. In: Proceedings of Fourteenth Annual Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference, pp. 140–151 (1996),
  29. 29.
    Chernoff, H.: The Use of Faces to Represent Points in K-Dimensional Space Graphically. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 361–368 (1973)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fuhrhop, C., Lyle, J., Faily, S.: The webinos project. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, WWW 2012 Companion, pp. 259–262. ACM, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Webinos Consortium: webinos project deliverable D2.1: Use Cases and Scenarios (January 2011),
  32. 32.
    Software Freedom Conservancy: git web site (May 2012),
  33. 33.
    Muhr, T.: User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shamal Faily
    • 1
  • John Lyle
    • 1
  • Andre Paul
    • 2
  • Andrea Atzeni
    • 3
  • Dieter Blomme
    • 4
  • Heiko Desruelle
    • 4
  • Krishna Bangalore
    • 5
  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Fraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Dip di Automatica e InformaticaPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly
  4. 4.Ghent University/IBBTGentBelgium
  5. 5.Technische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations