Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Metrics for measuring complexity and completeness for social goal models

Published: 01 October 2015 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Goal-oriented Requirements Engineering approaches have become popular in the Requirements Engineering community as they provide expressive modelling languages for requirements elicitation and analysis. However, as a common challenge, such approaches are still struggling when it comes to managing the accidental complexity of their models. Furthermore, those models might be incomplete, resulting in insufficient information for proper understanding and implementation. In this paper, we provide a set of metrics, which are formally specified and have tool support, to measure and analyse complexity and completeness of goal models, in particular social goal models (e.g. i*). Concerning complexity, the aim is to identify refactoring opportunities to improve the modularity of those models, and consequently reduce their accidental complexity. With respect to completeness, the goal is to automatically detect model incompleteness. We evaluate these metrics by applying them to a set of well-known system models from industry and academia. Our results suggest refactoring opportunities in the evaluated models, and provide a timely feedback mechanism for requirements engineers on how close they are to completing their models.

    References

    [1]
    A. van Lamsweerde, Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour, in: 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2001, pp. 249-262.
    [2]
    A. van Lamsweerde, Requirements Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2009.
    [3]
    E. Yu, Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering (Ph.D. thesis), Canada, 1995.
    [4]
    ITU-T: Recommendation Z.151 (10/12), User requirements notation (URN) - language definition, 2012.
    [5]
    P. Espada, M. Goulão, J. Araújo, A framework to evaluate complexity and completeness of kaos goal model, in: 25th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE ¿13, Springer-Verlag, Valencia, Spain, 2013, pp. 562-577.
    [6]
    F.P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, USA, 1995.
    [7]
    ISO/IEC JTC1, OMG, Information technology - object management group object constraint language (OCL), 2012.
    [8]
    C. Gralha, M. Goulão, J. Araújo, Identifying modularity improvement opportunities in goal-oriented requirements models, in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer International Publishing, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2014, pp. 91-104.
    [9]
    C. Almeida, M. Goulão, J. Araújo, A systematic comparison of i* modelling tools based on syntactic and well-formedness rules, in: J. Castro, J. Horkoff, N. Maiden, E. Yu (Eds.), 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 978, 2013, pp. 43-48.
    [10]
    i* wiki, Comparing the i* tools (last access: February 2015). URL: {http://istar.rwth-aachen.de/tiki-index.php?page=Comparing+the+i%2A+Tools}.
    [11]
    D. Kolovos, L. Rose, A. Garcáa-Domınguez, R. Paige, The Epsilon Book, Eclipse Foundation, 2013 URL: {http://eclipse.org/epsilon/doc/book/}.
    [12]
    D. Steinberg, F. Budinsky, M. Paternostro, E. Merks, EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, USA, 2009.
    [13]
    Eclipse, Eclipse graphical modeling framework (gmf) tooling (last access: February 2015). URL: {http://eclipse.org/gmf-tooling/}.
    [14]
    Eclipse, Ecore tools (last access: February 2015). URL: {http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Ecore_Tools}.
    [15]
    V.R. Basili, G. Caldiera, H.D. Rombach, The Goal Question Metric Paradigm, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 1st ed., vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 1994.
    [16]
    K. El Emam, S. Benlarbi, N. Goel, S.N. Rai, The confounding effect of class size on the validity of object-oriented metrics, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 27 (2001) 630-650.
    [17]
    R. Subramanyam, M.S. Krishnan, Empirical analysis of ck metrics for object-oriented design complexity, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 29 (2003) 297-310.
    [18]
    i* wiki, Guideline (intermediate,layout) use the specialized actors notation to the degree that you can gain advantage in instantiating the actual stakeholders (last access: February 2015). URL: {http://istar.rwth-aachen.de/tiki-index.php?page=Guideline+%28Intermediate%2CLayout%29+Use+the+specialized+actors+notation+to+the+degree+that+you+can+gain+advantage+in+instantiating+the+actual+stakeholders.&structure=i%2A+Guide}.
    [19]
    J. Castro, M. Kolp, J. Mylopoulos, A requirements-driven development methodology, in: 13th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE ¿01, Springer-Verlag, Interlaken, Switzerland, 2001, pp. 108-123.
    [20]
    C. Silva, J. Castro, P. Tedesco, I. Silva, Describing agent-oriented design patterns in tropos, in: Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium in Software Engineering, Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2005, pp. 27-78.
    [21]
    J. Engmann, Evaluating the impact of evolving requirements on wider system goals: using i* methodology integrated with satisfaction arguments to evaluate the impact of changing requirements in hiv/aids monitoring systems in the UK (Master's thesis), England, 2009.
    [22]
    J. Lockerbie, N.A.M. Maiden, J. Engmann, D. Randall, S. Jones, D. Bush, Exploring the impact of software requirements on system-wide goals: a method using satisfaction arguments and i* goal modelling, Requir. Eng., 17 (2012) 227-254.
    [23]
    C. Lima, J. Paes, A. Rodovalho, D. Dermeval, A. Buarque, MyCourses - A Course Scheduling System, Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil, 2011.
    [24]
    C.C. Borba, Uma abordagem orientada a objetivos para as fases de requisitos de linhas de produtos de software (Master's thesis), Brazil, 2009.
    [25]
    C.C. Borba, J. Henrique, L. Xavier, BTW - If You Go, My Advice to You, Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil, 2009.
    [26]
    Y. An, P.W. Dalrymple, M. Rogers, P. Gerrity, J. Horkoff, E. Yu, Collaborative social modeling for designing a patient wellness tracking system in a nurse-managed health care center, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST ¿09, Association for Computing Machinery, 2009, pp. 2:1-2:14.
    [27]
    SCORE Contest, Score - student contest on software engineering (last access: February 2015). URL: {http://score-contest.org/}.
    [28]
    Alan R. Hevner, S.T. March, J. Park, S. Ram, Design science in information systems research, MIS Q. 28 (1) (2004) 75-105.
    [29]
    R. Wieringa, Design science methodology: principles and practice, in: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2, ACM, Cape Town, South Africa, 2010, pp. 493-494.
    [30]
    W.J. Brown, R.C. Malveau, H.W. McCormick, T.J. Mowbray, AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA, 1998.
    [31]
    J. Horkoff, E. Yu, Comparison and evaluation of goal-oriented satisfaction analysis techniques, Requir. Eng., 18 (2012) 199-222.
    [32]
    A. Hilts, E. Yu, Design and evaluation of the goal-oriented design knowledge library framework, in: Proceedings of the 2012 iConference, iConference ¿12, Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto, Canada, 2012, pp. 384-391.
    [33]
    R. Ramos, J. Castro, J. Araújo, A. Moreira, F. Alencar, Airdoc - an approach to improve requirements documents, in: 22th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES, 2008.
    [34]
    A.M.L. de Vasconcelos, J.L. de la Vara, J. Sanchez, O. Pastor, Towards cmmi-compliant business process-driven requirements engineering, in: 8th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, QUATIC ¿12, IEEE Computer Society, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012, pp. 193-198.
    [35]
    X. Franch, G. Grau, Towards a catalogue of patterns for defining metrics over i* models, in: 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE ¿08, Springer-Verlag, 2008, pp. 197-212.
    [36]
    X. Franch, A method for the definition of metrics over i* models, in: 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE ¿09, Springer-Verlag, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009, pp. 201-215.
    [37]
    D. Colomer, X. Franch, Stargro: building i* metrics for agile methodologies, in: F. Dalpiaz, J. Horkoff (Eds.), 7th International i* Workshop (iStar 2014), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1157, 2014.
    [38]
    D. Zowghi, V. Gervasi, On the interplay between consistency, completeness, and correctness in requirements evolution, Inf. Softw. Technol., 45 (2003) 993-1009.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2022)Theme section on model-driven requirements engineeringSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-022-01055-421:6(2109-2112)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
    • (2017)A requirements engineering approach for usability-driven DSL developmentProceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering10.1145/3136014.3136027(115-128)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2017

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Information Systems
    Information Systems  Volume 53, Issue C
    October 2015
    385 pages

    Publisher

    Elsevier Science Ltd.

    United Kingdom

    Publication History

    Published: 01 October 2015

    Author Tags

    1. Goal-oriented requirements models
    2. Model assessment
    3. Software metrics
    4. i*

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2022)Theme section on model-driven requirements engineeringSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-022-01055-421:6(2109-2112)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
    • (2017)A requirements engineering approach for usability-driven DSL developmentProceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering10.1145/3136014.3136027(115-128)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2017

    View Options

    View options

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media