The Benefit of Ambiguity in Understanding Goals in Requirements Modelling

This paper examines the benefit of ambiguity in describing goals in requirements modelling for the design of socio-technical systems using concepts from Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) and ethnographic and cultural probe methods from Human Computer Interaction (HCI). The authors’ aim of their research is to create technologies that support more flexible and meaningful social interactions, by combining best practice in software engineering with ethnographic techniques to model complex social interactions from their socially oriented life for the purposes of building rich socio-technological systems. Currently social needs are modelled as coordinative and collaborative goals; however the domestic space surfaces a range of purely communicative activities, which are not calculated to serve any external productive purpose (i.e., it is communication often for the sake of pleasure).The authors use a holistic approach to eliciting, analyzing, and modelling socially-oriented requirements by combining a particular form of ethnographic technique, cultural probes, with Agent Oriented Software Engineering notations to model these requirements. This paper focuses on examining the value of maintaining ambiguity in the process of elicitation and analysis through the use of empirically informed quality goals attached to functional goals. The authors demonstrate the benefit of articulating a quality goal without turning it into a functional goal. Their study shows that quality goals kept at a high level of abstraction, ambiguous and open for conversations through the modelling process add richness to goal models, and communicate quality attributes of the interaction being modelled to the design phase, where this ambiguity is regarded as a resource for design.

[1]  Allan MacLean,et al.  What rationale is there in design? , 1990, INTERACT.

[2]  Joseph A. Goguen,et al.  Techniques for requirements elicitation , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[3]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Presenting ethnography in the requirements process , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'95).

[4]  Tom Rodden,et al.  The role of ethnography in interactive systems design , 1995, INTR.

[5]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Design: Cultural probes , 1999, INTR.

[6]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Ethnographically informed analysis for software engineers , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Barbara Paech,et al.  Detecting Ambiguities in Requirements Documents Using Inspections , 2001 .

[8]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  A Requirements-Driven Development Methodology , 2001, CAiSE.

[9]  Stefania Gnesi,et al.  An Automatic Quality Evaluation for Natural Language Requirements , 2001 .

[10]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Probing the Probes , 2002 .

[11]  Leon Sterling,et al.  ROADMAP: extending the gaia methodology for complex open systems , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[12]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  From Object Orientation to Goal Orientation: A Paradigm Shift for Requirements Engineering , 2002, RISSEF.

[13]  Richard F. E. Sutcliffe,et al.  Using Latent Semantic Indexing as a Measure of Conceptual Association for Noun Compound Disambiguation , 2002, AICS.

[14]  J. Hughes,et al.  Design with care:technology, disability and the home , 2003 .

[15]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[16]  Steve Benford,et al.  The evolution of buildings and implications for the design of ubiquitous domestic environments , 2003, CHI '03.

[17]  Franco Zambonelli,et al.  Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology , 2003, TSEM.

[18]  Erik Kamsties,et al.  From Contract Drafting to Software Specification: Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity , 2003 .

[19]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  The Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design , 2000, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[20]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Using Cultural Probes to Explore Mediated Intimacy , 2004, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[21]  David B. Martin,et al.  Patterns of cooperative interaction: Linking ethnomethodology and design , 2004, TCHI.

[22]  Brendan Walker,et al.  Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty , 2004, INTR.

[23]  Michael Arnold,et al.  The Connected Home: probing the effects and affects of domesticated ICTs , 2004 .

[24]  Katja Battarbee,et al.  Living in a zoo: bringing user experiences with technology to life , 2004, NordiCHI '04.

[25]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Mediating intimacy: designing technologies to support strong-tie relationships , 2005, CHI.

[26]  Michael Winikoff,et al.  Prometheus design tool , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[27]  D. Sanders,et al.  Do students recognize ambiguity in software design? A multi-national, multi-institutional report , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

[28]  Allison Woodruff,et al.  Making space for stories: ambiguity in the design of personal communication systems , 2005, CHI.

[29]  Leon Sterling,et al.  Improving goal and role oriented analysis for agent based systems , 2005, 2005 Australian Software Engineering Conference.

[30]  Eric Paulos,et al.  Urban probes: encountering our emerging urban atmospheres , 2005, CHI.

[31]  T. Timpka,et al.  Use of cultural probes for representation of chronic disease experience: exploration of an innovative method for design of supportive technologies. , 2005, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.

[32]  Peter Sawyer,et al.  Shallow knowledge as an aid to deep understanding in early phase requirements engineering , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[33]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  A More Expressive Softgoal Conceptualization for Quality Requirements Analysis , 2006, ER.

[34]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  From awareness to connectedness: the design and deployment of presence displays , 2006, CHI.

[35]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation , 2006, DIS '06.

[36]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  Extended Disambiguation Rules for Requirements Specifications , 2007, WER.

[37]  Stéphane Faulkner,et al.  Clarifying Goal Models , 2007, ER.

[38]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  Ambiguity in Natural Language Requirements Documents , 2008, Monterey Workshop.

[39]  Keith Cheverst,et al.  How probes work , 2007, OZCHI '07.

[40]  Konstantinos Chorianopoulos,et al.  A cultural probes study on video sharing and social communication on the internet , 2008, DIMEA.

[41]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Revisiting the Core Ontology and Problem in Requirements Engineering , 2008, 2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[42]  Leon Sterling,et al.  Engineering the social: The role of shared artifacts , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..