On eliciting contribution measures in goal models

Goal models have been found to be useful for supporting the decision making process in the early requirements phase. Through measuring contribution degrees of low-level decisions to the fulfilment of high-level quality goals and combining them with priority statements, it is possible to compare alternative solutions of the requirements problem against each other. But where do contribution measures come from and what is the right way to combine them in order to do such analysis? In this paper we describe how full application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to quantitatively assess contribution relationships in goal models based on stakeholder input and how we can reason about the result in order to make informed decisions. An exploratory experiment shows that the proposed procedure is feasible and offers evidence that the resulting goal model is useful for guiding a decision. It also shows that situation-specific characteristics of the requirements problem at hand may influence stakeholder input in a variety of ways, a phenomenon that may need to be studied further in the context of eliciting such models.

[1]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation , 2010, Requirements Engineering.

[3]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Representing and reasoning about preferences in requirements engineering , 2011, Requirements Engineering.

[4]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Reasoning About Alternative Requirements Options , 2009, Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications.

[5]  Stephen Shaoyi Liao,et al.  Exploring Alternatives during Requirements Analysis , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[6]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements , 1997, IEEE Softw..

[7]  William Ho,et al.  Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  Software requirements prioritizing , 1996, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering.

[9]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  User Requirements Notation: The First Ten Years, The Next Ten Years (Invited Paper) , 2011, J. Softw..

[10]  Raffaello Seri,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[11]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Evaluating goal models within the goal‐oriented requirement language , 2010, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[12]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the Tropos methodology , 2005, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[13]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Finding Solutions in Goal Models: An Interactive Backward Reasoning Approach , 2010, ER.

[14]  Eric Yu,et al.  Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language , 2010 .

[15]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR DECISION MAKING IN ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS: SOME CHALLENGES , 1995 .

[16]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering , 1997, Proceedings of ISRE '97: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[17]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[18]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Reasoning with Goal Models , 2002, ER.

[19]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Comparison and evaluation of goal-oriented satisfaction analysis techniques , 2013, Requirements Engineering.

[20]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[21]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering , 2004, SIGSOFT '04/FSE-12.