An Empirical Evaluation Roadmap for iStar 2.0

The iStar 2.0 modeling language is the result of a two-year community effort intended at providing a solid, unified basis for teaching and conducting research with i*. The language was released with important qualities in mind, such as keeping a core set of primitives, providing a clear meaning for those primitives, and flattening the learning curve for new users. In this paper, we propose a list of qualities against which we intend iStar 2.0 to be evaluated. Furthermore, we describe an empirical evaluation plan, which we devise in order to assess the extent to which the language meets the identified qualities and to inform the development of further versions of the language. Besides explaining the objectives and steps of our planned empirical studies, we make a call for involving the research community in our endeavor.

[1]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Evaluation of Reference Models , 2006 .

[2]  Peter Fettke,et al.  Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis , 2006 .

[3]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Modeling Knowledge Transfer in a Software Maintenance Organization - An Experience Report and Critical Analysis , 2008, PoEM.

[4]  Xavier Franch,et al.  On the Use of i* for Architecting Hybrid Systems: A Method and an Evaluation Report , 2009, PoEM.

[5]  Elena Navarro,et al.  Comparing Goal-Oriented Approaches to Model Requirements for CSCW , 2011, ENASE.

[6]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[7]  Eric Yu,et al.  Modeling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering , 1995, Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering.

[8]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  Improving the Effectiveness of Visual Representations in Requirements Engineering: An Evaluation of i* Visual Syntax , 2009, 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference.

[9]  Xavier Franch,et al.  iStar 2.0 Language Guide , 2016, ArXiv.

[10]  Elena Navarro,et al.  Analyzing the understandability of Requirements Engineering languages for CSCW systems: A family of experiments , 2012, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[11]  Luís Ferreira Pires,et al.  An ontology-based approach for evaluating the domain appropriateness and comprehensibility appropriateness of modeling languages , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[12]  Patrick Heymans,et al.  Comparing Goal Modelling Languages: An Experiment , 2007, REFSQ.

[13]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Evaluating Modeling Languages: An Example from the Requirements Domain , 2014, ER.

[14]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering , 2014, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.