Abstract
[Context and Motivation] During elicitation, in addition to collecting requirements, analysts also collect stakeholders’ goals and the present and historical interests that motivate their goals. This information can guide the resolution of requirements conflicts, support the evolution of requirements when changes occur (e.g., environmental constraints), and inform decisions in software design. [Problem] Unfortunately, this information is rarely explicitly represented and maintained. When a stakeholder is modeled in the literature, the captured information is only part of that stakeholder’s intention (i.e., the goals and the present and historical interests that motivate those goals) and not other requirements documents. In addition, such representations of a stakeholder are not traced and kept aligned with the design and, thus, cannot be used during iterative development and in case of changes. [Principal Idea] To support engineers in making informed decisions during the design, development, and evolution of a system, we propose a framework to collect and maintain intentionality in an efficient and effortless way. [Contributions] To define intentionality, disambiguate it from its use in literature, and position it in relation to similar concepts (i.e., rationale and goals), we conduct a literature review. Based on our derived definition, we present our framework to appropriately include intentionality throughout the stages of a project and the research agenda to realize such a framework.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Scopus’ coverage is considered optimal when compared to other databases (e.g., IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital library) [15].
References
Agouridas, V., Simons, P.: Antecedence and consequence in design rationale systems. AI EDAM 22(4), 375–386 (2008)
Al-Alshaikh, H.A., Mirza, A.A., Alsalamah, H.A.: Extended rationale-based model for tacit knowledge elicitation in requirements elicitation context. IEEE Access 8, 60801–60810 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982837
Alatawi, E., Mendoza, A., Miller, T.: Psychologically-driven requirements engineering: A case study in depression care. In: 2018 25th Australasian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC), pp. 41–50 (2018)
Bencomo, N., et al.: Requirements reflection: Requirements as runtime entities. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2010, pp. 199–202 (2010)
Bernabé, C.H., Silva Souza, V.E., Almeida Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Silva, C.: GORO 2.0: Evolving an ontology for goal-oriented requirements engineering. In: Guizzardi, G., Gailly, F., Suzana Pitangueira Maciel, R. (eds.) ER 2019. LNCS, vol. 11787, pp. 169–179. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34146-6_15
Bik, N., Lucassen, G., Brinkkemper, S.: A reference method for user story requirements in agile systems development. In: 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp. 292–298 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/REW.2017.83
Borgida, A., Dalpiaz, F., Horkoff, J., Mylopoulos, J.: Requirements models for design- and runtime: A position paper. In: Proceedings of MiSE 2013, pp. 62–68 (2013)
Burge, J.E., Carroll, J.M., McCall, R., Mistrik, I.: Rationale-Based Software Engineering. Springer (2008)
Nattoch Dag, J., el al.: Speeding up requirements management in a product software company: Linking customer wishes to product requirements through linguistic engineering. In: Proceedings of RE 2004, pp. 283–294 (2004)
Duijf, H., Broersen, J., Meyer, J.J.C.: Conflicting intentions: Rectifying the consistency requirements. Philos. Stud. 176, 1097–1118 (2019)
Galvao, I., Goknil, A.: Survey of traceability approaches in model-driven engineering. In: Proceedings of EDOC 2007, pp. 313–313 (2007)
Gotel, O.C., Finkelstein, C.: An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In: Proceedings of RE 1994 (1994)
Horkoff, J., et al.: Using goal models downstream: A systematic roadmap and literature review. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 6(2), 1–42 (2015)
Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Tech. rep., Keele University and National ICT Australia Ltd. (ISSN: 1353-7776) (2004)
Martínez-Fernández, S., et al.: Software engineering for AI-based systems: A survey. ACM TOSEM 31(2), 1–59 (2022)
Nair, S., de la Vara, J.L., Sen, S.: A review of traceability research at the requirements engineering conference\(^{re@21}\). In: Proceedings of RE 2013, pp. 222–229 (2013)
Vierhauser, M., Cleland-Huang, J., Burge, J., Grünbacher, P.: The interplay of design and runtime traceability for non-functional requirements. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Software and Systems Traceability (SST), pp. 3–10 (2019)
Wang, Y., McIlraith, S.A., Yu, Y., Mylopoulos, J.: An automated approach to monitoring and diagnosing requirements. In: Proceedings of ASE 2007, pp. 293–302 (2007)
Acknowledgments
Bobi Arce Mack, Cyrine Ben Ayed, Annie Karitonze, and Megan H. Varnum assisted in conducting the literature review.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Grubb, A.M., Spoletini, P. (2023). Bringing Stakeholders Along for the Ride: Towards Supporting Intentional Decisions in Software Evolution. In: Ferrari, A., Penzenstadler, B. (eds) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. REFSQ 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13975. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29786-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29786-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29785-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29786-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)