Actor’s social complexity: a proposal for managing the iStar model

Complex systems are inherent to modern society, in which individuals, organizations, and computational elements relate with each other to achieve a predefined purpose, which transcends individual goals. In this context, these systems’ complexity is originated by the large number of parts interacting in a non-simple way, given the properties of these parts and the laws, as well as by the wishes that govern these interactions. Also, in organizations, there is a need for additional information to understand this universe considering the already consolidated static and dynamic dimensions. With this purpose, the iStar framework was developed to capture and represent intentional and social information in two views: Strategic Dependency (SD) and Strategic Rationale (SR). This framework, however, does not offer alternatives to deal with the complexity that is inherent to modern society systems, which is related to a large number of parts interacting, when modeled from their views. The problem is present in monolithic languages because they do not consist of building blocks, such as subprocesses or modules. Despite this problem, the iStar framework provides modeling versatility by combining goal-oriented paradigms and agents. Another positive point is the focus on intentional and social properties, thus providing expressiveness aligned with the modern society’s demand, in which everything is related. Therefore, the objective of this research was to provide ways for the iStar framework to deal with the complexity presented by complex systems and, consequently, make iStar models understandable to be used, in a given context. The proposal is based on a state of the art review to create an interdependente part for the iStar models and will make the construction of views as a composition of these parts possible. To make it happen, and considering its benefits, a textual notation (SMiLe - Scalable Modular iStar Language) was conceived and applied to support the architecture within this social modeling scenario. The proposal and its artifacts were submitted to a proof of concept, and then, through adjustments, an evaluation was carried by the users through a case study. The results pointed to evidence of the possible management of iStar model and an improvement in the understanding of this model, suggesting that the proposed solution is a feasible alternative for the established objective.

[1]  K. Perreault,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2011 .

[2]  João Araújo,et al.  Exploring Views for Goal-Oriented Requirements Comprehension , 2016, ER.

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

[4]  Márcia Lucena,et al.  Stream: a strategy for transition between requirements models and architectural models , 2011, SAC.

[5]  C Antoine,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity , 2013 .

[6]  Xavier Franch The i∗ framework: The way ahead , 2012, 2012 Sixth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS).

[7]  Günther Ruhe,et al.  DEVis: A tool for visualizing software document evolution , 2013, 2013 First IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT).

[8]  R. Langlois Modularity in technology and organization , 2002 .

[9]  Ondrej Macek,et al.  On General-purpose Textual Modeling Languages , 2012, DATESO.

[10]  João Araújo,et al.  A Systematic Literature Review of iStar extensions , 2018, J. Syst. Softw..

[11]  Andreza da Costa Medeiros SMiLeCompiler: Um Analisador Sintático e Semântico para Notação Textual de Modelos iStar , 2017 .

[12]  Joseph Barjis,et al.  The importance of business process modeling in software systems design , 2008, Sci. Comput. Program..

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

[14]  João Araújo,et al.  Towards modular i* models , 2010, SAC '10.

[15]  Marian Petre,et al.  Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming , 1995, CACM.

[16]  Jéssyka Vilela,et al.  Scalability of istar: a Systematic Mapping Study , 2016, WER.

[17]  Eric S. K. Yu,et al.  Social Modeling and i* , 2009, Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications.

[18]  Sherali Zeadally,et al.  Intelligent Device-to-Device Communication in the Internet of Things , 2016, IEEE Systems Journal.

[19]  Mark van den Brand,et al.  Integrating Textual and Graphical Modelling Languages , 2010, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc,et al.  An empirical study on the efficiency of graphical vs. textual representations in requirements comprehension , 2013, 2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC).

[21]  A. Paivio Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[22]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[23]  Oscar Pastor,et al.  A Service-oriented Approach for the i* Framework , 2008, iStar.

[24]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Making sense of business process descriptions: An experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[25]  Jennifer Horkoff,et al.  Visualizations to support interactive goal model analysis , 2010, 2010 Fifth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization.

[26]  Andreas Classen,et al.  Introducing TVL, a Text-based Feature Modelling Language , 2010, VaMoS' 2010.

[27]  Marimuthu Palaniswami,et al.  Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions , 2012, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[28]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation , 2010, SLE.

[29]  Daniel Gross,et al.  Analyzing Software Process Alignment with Organizational Business Strategies using an Agent- and Goal-oriented Analysis Technique - an Experience Report , 2008, iStar.

[30]  Andreas Classen,et al.  A text-based approach to feature modelling: Syntax and semantics of TVL , 2011, Sci. Comput. Program..

[31]  Neil A. Ernst,et al.  Visualizing non-functional requirements , 2006, 2006 First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV'06 - RE'06 Workshop).

[32]  João Araújo,et al.  Integration of Aspects with i* Models , 2006, AOIS.

[33]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  A Textual Syntax with Tool Support for the Goal-Oriented Requirement Language , 2015, iStar.

[34]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Modularity in the Design of Complex Engineering Systems , 2006 .

[35]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[36]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[37]  Xavier Franch,et al.  Incorporating Modules into the i* Framework , 2010, CAiSE.

[38]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects , 2008, BPM.

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

[40]  A. Bryman Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? , 2006 .