Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advancing viewpoint merging in requirements engineering: a theoretical replication and explanatory study

  • RE 2016
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Compared to building a single requirements view, modeling stakeholder viewpoints and then merging them is shown to improve the understanding of the problem domain, but also very time-consuming. How has the situation changed? This paper reports our replication of a case study, where we take advantage of theoretical replication to mitigate one of the original study design’s threats and to embrace an important evolving factor, namely automated tool support for producing \(i*\) models. Our replicate study updates the prior results by showing the time saving enabled by the tool and verifies the rich domain understanding gained through viewpoint-based modeling. In an attempt to explain why viewpoints lead to richer domain understanding, we examine in a posteriori way the role that traceability plays in building individual and team-wide requirements models. Our post hoc analysis results suggest that better traceability from the sources makes team-level requirements modeling more focused, whereas the lack of traceability makes it less fruitful. Our work not only shifts the case study from an exploratory to an explanatory nature, but also proposes the integration of conflict-centric views into viewpoint merging to further improve the understanding about stakeholder requirements’ trade-offs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(adopted from [11])

Fig. 2

(adopted from [36])

Fig. 3

(adapted from [39])

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our study package [38] was updated to include the new data and analyses that we performed since the publication of our conference paper [10].

  2. The rating items were completely anonymized (i.e., containing no modeling team information) in both the interview and the survey.

  3. The interview lasted about 1 hour involving the expert and one researcher.

  4. The six individual \(i*\) models are shared in our study package [38].

References

  1. Shull F, Carver JC, Vegas S, Juristo N (2008) The role of replications in empirical software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 13(2):211–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lung J, Aranda J, Easterbrook S, Wilson G (2008) On the difficulty of replicating human subjects studies in software engineering. In: International conference on software engineering (ICSE), Leipzig, Germany, pp 191–200

  3. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Beverley Hills

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fernández DM , Lochmann K, Penzenstadler B, Wagner S (2011) A case study on the application of an artefact-based requirements engineering approach. In: International conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (EASE), Durham, UK, pp 104–113

  5. Penzenstadler B, Eckhardt J, Fernández DM (2013) Two replication studies for evaluating artefact models in RE: results and lessons learnt. In: International workshop on replication in empirical software engineering research (RESER), Baltimore, MD, USA, pp 66–75

  6. och Dag JN, Thelin T, Regnell B (2006) An experiment on linguistic tool support for consolidation of requirements from multiple sources in market-driven product development. Empir Softw Eng 11(2):303–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wnuk K, Höst M, Regnell B (2012) Replication of an experiment on linguistic tool support for consolidation of requirements from multiple sources. Empir Softw Eng 17(3):305–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. da Silva FQB, Suassuna M, França ACC, Grubb AM, Gouveia TB, Monteiro CVF, dos Santos IE (2014) Replication of empirical studies in software engineering research: a systematic mapping study. Empir Softw Eng 19(3):501–557

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sjøberg DIK, Hannay JE, Hansen O, Kampenes VB, Karahasanović A, Liborg N-K, Rekdal AC (2005) A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(9):733–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Niu N, Koshoffer A, Newman L, Khatwani C, Samarasinghe C, Savolainen J (2016) Advancing repeated research in requirements engineering: a theoretical replication of viewpoint merging. In: International requirements engineering conference (RE), Beijing, China, pp 186–195

  11. Easterbrook S, Yu E, Aranda J, Fan Y, Horkoff J, Leica M, Qadir RA (2005) Do viewpoints lead to better conceptual models? An exploratory case study. In: International requirements engineering conference (RE), Paris, France, pp 199–208

  12. Savolainen J, Männistö T (2010) Conflict-centric software architectural views: exposing trade-offs in quality requirements. IEEE Softw 27(6):33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carver J (2017) Proposed replication guidelines. http://carver.cs.ua.edu/ReplicationGuidelines.htm. Last accessed: February 2017

  14. Basili VR, Shull F, Lanubile F (1999) Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(4):456–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brooks A, Roper M, Wood M, Daly J, Miller J (2008) Replication’s role in software engineering. In: Shull F, Singer J, Sjøberg DIK (eds) Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 365–379

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. National Public Radio (2016) Physicist reacts to discovery of gravitational waves. http://www.npr.org/2016/02/11/466458500/physicist-reacts-to-discovery-of-gravitational-waves

  17. Gómez OS, Juristo N, Vegas S (2010) Replications types in experimental disciplines. In: International symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM), Article 3, Bolzano-Bozen, Italy

  18. Mendonça MG, Maldonado JC, de Oliveira MCF, Carver J, Fabbri SCPF, Shull F, Travassos GH , Höhn EN, Basili VR (2008) A framework for software engineering experimental replications. In: International conference on engineering of complex computer systems (ICECCS), Belfast, Northern Ireland, pp 203–212

  19. Juristo N, Vegas S (2011) The role of non-exact replications in software engineering experiments. Empir Softw Eng 16(3):295–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Krein JL, Knutson CD (2010) A case for replication: synthesizing research methodologies in software engineering. In: International workshop on replication in empirical software engineering research (RESER), Cape Town, South Africa

  21. Callele D, Wnuk K, Borg M (2013) Confounding factors when conducting industrial replications in requirements engineering. In: International workshop on conducting empirical studies in industry (CESI), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 55–58

  22. Penzenstadler B, Fernández DM, Eckhardt J (2013) Understanding the impact of artefact-based RE—design of a replication study. In: International symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM), Baltimore, MD, USA, pp 267–270

  23. Nuseibeh B, Kramer J, Finkelstein A (1994) A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(10):760–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Easterbrook S, Nuseibeh B (1995) Managing inconsistencies in an evolving specification. In: International symposium on requirements engineering (RE), York, UK, pp 48–55

  25. Yu E (1997) Towards modeling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: International symposium on requirements engineering (RE), Annapolis, MD, USA, pp 226–235

  26. Daneva M, Damian D, Marchetto A, Pastor O (2014) Empirical research methodologies and studies in requirements engineering: how far did we come? J Syst Softw 95:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Strohmaier M et al (2008) Can patterns improve \({i}^\ast\) modeling? Two exploratory studies. In: REFSQ, pp 153–167

  28. Ernst N, Borgida A, Jureta I (2011) Finding incremental solutions for evolving requirements. In: International requirements engineering conference (RE), Trento, Italy, pp 15–24

  29. Krumeich J, Werth D, Loos P (2013) Towards a viewpoint-based modeling method to foster collaborative modeling—conceptual design and implementation. In: PACIS, Paper 249

  30. Babar A, Wong B, Abedin B (2014) Investigating the role of business analysts competencies into strategic business requirements gathering. In: PACIS Paper 18

  31. Chang S-F, Hsieh P-J, Chen H-F (2015) Key success factors for clinical knowledge management systems: comparing physician and hospital manager viewpoints. Technol Health Care 24(s1):297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. \(i*\) Wiki \(|\) Available \(i*\) Tools. http://istar.rwth-aachen.de/tiki-index.php?page=i*+Tools. Last accessed: February 2017

  33. OpenOME: An Open-Source RE Tool. https://se.cs.toron-to.edu/trac/ome/wiki/WikiStart. Last accessed: February 2017

  34. Scholar@UC. https://scholar.uc.edu. Last accessed: February 2017

  35. Scholar@UC on GitHub. https://github.com/uclibs/scholar_uc. Last accessed: February 2017

  36. Scholar@UC User Stories. https://github.com/uclibs/scholar_use_cases. Last accessed: February 2017

  37. Moody DL, Heymans P, Matulevicius R (2009) Improving the effectiveness of visual representations in requirements engineering: an evaluation of \(i*\) visual syntax. In: International requirements engineering conference (RE), Atlanta, GA, USA, pp 171–180

  38. Khatwani C, Jin X, Niu N. doi:10.7945/C25K5P, Hosted on Scholar@UC: https://scholar.uc.edu/show/05741s72s. Last accessed: February 2017

  39. Horkoff J, Eric Y (2016) Interactive goal model analysis for early requirements engineering. Requir Eng 21(1):29–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. John M, Jaelson C, Manuel K (2013) The evolution of Tropos. In: Bubenko J, Krogstie J, Pastor O, Pernici B, Rolland C, Sølvberg A (eds) Seminal contributions to information systems engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 281–287

    Google Scholar 

  41. Horkoff J, Yu E (2011) Analyzing goal models: different approaches and how to choose among them. In: ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC), TaiChung, Taiwan, pp 675–682

  42. Jackson M (1997) The meaning of requirements. Ann Softw Eng 3(1):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Brunet G, Chechik M, Easterbrook S, Nejati S, Niu N, Sabetzadeh M (2006) A manifesto for model merging. In: International workshop on global integrated model management (GaMMa), Shanghai, China, pp 5–11

  44. Sabetzadeh M, Easterbrook S (2006) View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir Eng 11(3):174–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Niu N, Savolainen J, Yu Y (2010) Variability modeling for product line viewpoints integration. In: Annual international computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC), Seoul, South Korea, pp 337-346

  46. Sabetzadeh M, Nejati S, Liaskos S, Easterbrook S, Chechik M (2007) Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: International requirements engineering conference (RE), New Delhi, India, pp 221–230

  47. Sabetzadeh M, Nejati S, Easterbrook S, Chechik M (2008) Global consistency checking of distributed models with TReMer+. In: International conference on software engineering (ICSE), Leipzig, Germany, pp 815–818

  48. Dam HK, Reder A, Egyed A (2014) Inconsistency resolution in merging versions of architectural models. In: International conference on software architecture (WICSA), Sydney, Australia, pp 153–162

  49. Egyed A, Winikoff M, Reder A, Lopez-Herrejon RE (2016) Consistent merging of model versions. J Syst Softw 112:137–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Niu N, Mahmoud A , Chen Z, Bradshaw G (2013) Departures from optimality: understanding human analyst’s information foraging in assisted requirements tracing. In: International conference on software engineering (ICSE), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 572–581

  51. Wang W, Niu N, Liu H, Wu Y (2015) Tagging in assisted tracing. In: International symposium on software and systems traceability (SST), Florence, Italy, pp 8–14

  52. Niu N, Wang W, Gupta A (2016) Gray links in the use of requirements traceability. In: International symposium on foundations of software engineering (FSE), Seattle, WA, USA, pp 384–395

  53. Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70(4):213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gosall NK, Singh G (2012) The doctor’s guide to critical appraisal. PasTest Ltd, Knutsford

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sharpe D (2015) Your chi-square test is statistically significant: now what? Pract Assess Res Eval 20(8):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  56. da Silva LF, Moreira A, Araújo J , Gralha C, Goulão M, Amaral V (2016) Exploring views for goal-oriented requirements comprehension. In: International conference on conceptual modeling (ER), Gifu, Japan, pp 149–163

  57. Almeida C, Goulão M, Araújo J (2013) A systematic comparison of \(i*\) modelling tools based on syntactic and well-formedness rules. In: International \(i*\) workshop (iStar), Valencia, Spain, pp 43–48

  58. Massey AK, Rutledge RL, Antón AI, Swire PP (2014) Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements. In: International requirements engineering conference (RE), Karlskrona, Sweden, pp 83–92

  59. Woodside AG, Wilson EJ (2003) Case study research methods for theory building. J Bus Ind Mark 18(6/7):493–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the management and staff at Scholar@UC for allowing us to conduct this case study, and especially to Ted Baldwin, Eira Tansey, Thomas Scherz, Glen Horton, Sean Crowe, James Van Mil, Carolyn Hansen, Arlene Johnson, and Elizabeth Meyer for providing valuable feedback in the stakeholder meeting and via the online new requirements survey. We also thank Wentao Wang and Chatura Samarasinghe for assisting with data analysis. The work is funded in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Award CCF 1350487) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Fund No. 61375053).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Charu Khatwani, Xiaoyu Jin, Nan Niu, Amy Koshoffer & Linda Newman

  2. Danfoss Power Electronics A/S, Gråsten, Denmark

    Juha Savolainen

Authors
  1. Charu Khatwani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaoyu Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nan Niu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amy Koshoffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Linda Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juha Savolainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nan Niu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khatwani, C., Jin, X., Niu, N. et al. Advancing viewpoint merging in requirements engineering: a theoretical replication and explanatory study. Requirements Eng 22, 317–338 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0271-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0271-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation