A model for decision maintenance in the WinWin collaboration framework

Cost-effective engineering and evolution of complex software must involve the different stakeholders concurrently and collaboratively. The hard problem is providing computer support for such collaborative activities. The WinWin approach being developed and experimented at the USC Center for Software Engineering provides a domain independent solution for the stakeholders to cooperate in the requirements engineering phase of the software lifecycle. A major problem confronted in the WinWin framework is aiding decision coordination-coordinating the decision making activities of the stakeholders. A key element in supporting decision coordination is decision maintenance. As decisions undergo evolution, the effects of such changes on existing decision elements must be determined and the decision structure appropriately revised. The paper presents an approach to addressing the problem of supporting decision maintenance. The key ideas involve a) defining an extended ontology for decision rationale, that models the WinWin decision space and their states, b) formally describing a theory based on that ontology that specify conditions for states to hold, and c) defining an agent that utilizes the theory to determine revisions and coordinate with other agents to propagate revisions in a distributed support framework.

[1]  Bill Curtis,et al.  A field study of the software design process for large systems , 1988, CACM.

[2]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering , 1987 .

[3]  R. Guindon,et al.  Control of cognitive processes during software design: what tools are needed? , 1988, CHI '88.

[4]  Raymond McCall,et al.  Making Argumentation Serve Design , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  PACT: an experiment in integrating concurrent engineering systems , 1993, Computer.

[6]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Truth Maintenance System , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Ellis Horowitz,et al.  Experimental Results from a Prototype Next Generation Process Support System , 1994 .

[8]  Kuntz Werner,et al.  Issues as Elements of Information Systems , 1970 .

[9]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Software Requirements Negotiation and Renegotiation Aids: A Theory-W Based Spiral Approach , 1995, 1995 17th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[11]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[12]  Vasant Dhar,et al.  Supporting Systems Development by Capturing Deliberations During Requirements Engineering , 1992, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[13]  J. Dekleer An assumption-based TMS , 1986 .

[14]  Barry Boehm,et al.  A collaborative spiral software process model based on Theory W , 1994, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process. Applying the Software Process.

[15]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Software requirements as negotiated win conditions , 1994, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering.

[16]  Richard M. Young,et al.  Options and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis , 1991 .

[17]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  A spiral model of software development and enhancement , 1986, Computer.

[18]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Beyond the chalkboard: computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings , 1988, CACM.

[19]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Generative Design Rationale: Beyond the Record and Replay Paradigm , 1996, Design Rationale.

[20]  Michael L. Begeman,et al.  gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion , 1988, CSCW '88.