Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User Perception of Numeric Contribution Semantics for Goal Models: An Exploratory Experiment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Conceptual Modeling (ER 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 10650))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Goal models have long been regarded to be an effective way for representing stakeholder goals and how they relate to one another during requirements engineering. One of the ways goals are connected in goal models is contribution relationships, which represent how satisfaction of one goal affects the satisfaction of another. There are several proposals in the literature on how contributions should be modelled and used, but little empirical evidence as to which one is more intuitive for users. We experimentally explore how users interpret numeric contribution labels in goal models. Experimental participants are exposed to a number of pre-constructed goal models and are asked what they believe the satisfaction degree of a goal is given the satisfaction degree of other goals in the model. We find that users tend to prefer specific aggregation rules over others, depending, also, on specific factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Amyot, D., Ghanavati, S., Horkoff, J., Mussbacher, G., Peyton, L., Yu, E.S.K.: Evaluating goal models within the goal-oriented requirement language. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(8), 841–877 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: User requirements notation: the first ten years, the next ten years. J. Softw. (JSW) 6(5), 747–768 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baresi, L., Pasquale, L., Spoletini, P.: Fuzzy goals for requirements-driven adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering (RE 2010), Sydney, Australia, pp. 125–134 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Caire, P., Genon, N., Heymans, P., Moody, D.L.: Visual notation design 2.0: towards user comprehensible requirements engineering notations. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2013), pp. 115–124 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Crump, M.J.C., McDonnell, J.V., Gureckis, T.M.: Evaluating Amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE 8(3), 1–18 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states–a family of empirical studies. Empirical Softw. Eng. 14(6), 685–719 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elahi, G., Yu, E.S.K.: Requirements trade-offs analysis in the absence of quantitative measures: a heuristic method. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2011), TaiChung, Taiwan, pp. 651–658 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Friendly, M., Meyer, D.: Discrete Data Analysis with R: Visualization and Modeling Techniques for Categorical and Count Data. Chapman Hall, New York (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Nicchiarelli, E., Sebastiani, R.: Formal reasoning techniques for goal models. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39733-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Sebastiani, R.: Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the Tropos methodology. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18(2), 159–171 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hadar, I., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Kuflik, T., Perini, A., Ricca, F., Susi, A.: Comparing the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in use case and Tropos: results from a family of experiments. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(10), 1823–1843 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Horkoff, J., Yu, E.: Analyzing goal models: different approaches and how to choose among them. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2011), TaiChung, Taiwan, pp. 675–682 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horkoff, J., Yu, E.S.K.: Interactive goal model analysis for early requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. 21(1), 29–61 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van Lamsweerde, A.: Reasoning about alternative requirements options. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 380–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Letier, E., van Lamsweerde, A.: Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the Foundation of Software Engineering, FSE 2004, pp. 53–62 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Li, F.L., Horkoff, J., Mylopoulos, J., Guizzardi, R.S.S., Guizzardi, G., Borgida, A., Liu, L.: Non-functional requirements as qualities, with a spice of ontology. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2014), Karlskrona, Sweden, pp. 293–302 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liaskos, S., Jalman, R., Aranda, J.: On eliciting preference and contribution measures in goal models. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2012), Chicago, IL, pp. 221–230 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liaskos, S., Khan, S.M., Soutchanski, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling and reasoning with decision-theoretic goals. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Maiden, N., Pavan, P., Gizikis, A., Clause, O., Kim, H., Zhu, X.: Making decisions with requirements: integrating i* goal modelling and the AHP. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2002), Essen, Germany (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Liao, S., Wang, H., Yu, E.: Exploring alternatives during requirements analysis. IEEE Softw. 18(1), 92–96 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.: Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(6), 483–497 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Payne, S.J.: A descriptive study of mental models. Behav. Inf. Technol. 10(1), 3–21 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Purchase, H.C., Welland, R., McGill, M., Colpoys, L.: Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 61(2), 187–203 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yu, E.S.K.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1997), Annapolis, MD, pp. 226–235 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Norah Alothman, Mehrnaz Zhian & Sotirios Liaskos

Authors
  1. Norah Alothman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehrnaz Zhian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sotirios Liaskos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sotirios Liaskos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Heinrich C. Mayr

  2. Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy

    Giancarlo Guizzardi

  3. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Hui Ma

  4. Valencia University of Technology, Valencia, Spain

    Oscar Pastor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Alothman, N., Zhian, M., Liaskos, S. (2017). User Perception of Numeric Contribution Semantics for Goal Models: An Exploratory Experiment. In: Mayr, H., Guizzardi, G., Ma, H., Pastor, O. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10650. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69903-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69904-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation