Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abstraction and context in requirements engineering: Toward a synthesis

  • Published:
Annals of Software Engineering

Abstract

Most requirements engineering (RE) research and practice embodies a philosophy that we will call abstractionism, which involves the building of simplified models of domains of discourse and proposed systems. Abstractionists make much use of formal models, such as goal dependency networks. An alternative design philosophy is contextualism, according to which the particularities of the context of use of a system must be understood in detail before the requirements can be derived. Contextualists use qualitative methods to uncover and help interpret these particularities. In this paper, we analyze what it would mean to combine the best features of abstractionism and contextualism, and we ground our discussion in an illustration of abstractionist and contextualist thinking about RE through goal refinement (GR). In the context of the domain of meeting scheduling, we contrast a wholly abstractionist approach to GR with one that incorporates data gathered using two ethnographic methods. In doing so, we consider each step of the abstractionist approach, illustrating where ethnographic data obtained in our work environment affects the model produced. As we proceed, we summarize the general lessons learned. We then discuss how other abstractionist and contextualist methods could be integrated.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford, M. (1985), “SREM at the Age of Eight: The Distributed Computing Design System,” IEEE Computer 18,4, 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.J. (1994), “Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design,” Human-Computer Interaction 9,2, 151–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anton, A. (1996), “Goal-Based Requirements Analysis,” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 135–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton, A., W.M. McCracken, and C. Potts (1994), “Goal Decomposition and Scenario Analysis in Business Process Reengineering,” In Proceedings of CAISE'94: 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 94–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, R. (1990), CASE* Method: Entity-Relationship Modeling, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard and H. Russell (1994), Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd edition, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bustard, W. and T.J. Dobbin (1996), “Integrating Soft Systems and Object-Oriented Analysis,” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bustard, W. and P.J. Lundy (1995), “Enhancing Soft Systems Analysis with Formal Modeling,” In Proceedings of RE'95: 2nd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, J.M. and J. Misra (1988), Parallel Program Design: A Foundation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1972), “Toward a Systems-Based Methodology for Real-World Problem Solving,” Journal of Systems Engineering, 3,2, 87–116.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. and J. Scholes (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P. (1976), “The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1,1, 6–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coad, P. and E. Yourdon (1991), Object-Oriented Analysis, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, D., P. Arnold, S. Bodoff, C. Dollin, H. Gilchrist, F. Hayes, and P. Jeremaes (1994), Object-Oriented Development: The FUSION Method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dardenne, A., A. van Lamsweerde, and S. Fickas (1993), “Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition,” Science of Computer Programming, 20,1/2, 3–50.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • DeMarco, T. (1978), Structured Analysis and System Specification, Yourdon Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P. (1988), Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts, Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P. and M. Kyng (1991), “Cardboard Computers: Mocking-it-up, or Hands-on Future,” In Computers and Work, J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng, Eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 168–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach, J.M. (1993), “The Ecology of Human-Machine Systems I: Introduction,” Ecological Psychology 2,3, 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, F., M. Graves, B. Hartfield, and T. Winograd (1988), “Computer Systems and the Design of Organizational Interaction,” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6,2, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973), “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, C. Geertz, Ed., Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. (1994), “Goal-Driven Approaches to Requirements Engineering,” Technical report TR-93-42, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Department of Computing, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. (1989), “Why Groupware Applications Fail: Problems in Design and Evaluation,” Office: Technology and People 4,3, 245–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. and L. Palen (1995), “Why Groupware Succeeds: Discretion or Mandate,” In Proceedings of ECSCW'95: European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 263–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttag, J.V., J.J. Horning, and J. Wing (1985), “An Overview of the Larch Family of Specification Languages,” IEEE Software 2,5, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt, K. and S. Jones (1993), “Contextual Inquiry: A Participatory Technique for System Design,” In Participatory Design: Principles and Practice, A. Namioka and D. Shuler, Eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 177–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., V. King, T. Rodden, and H. Anderson (1995), “The Role of Ethnography in Interactive Systems Design,” ACM Interactions 2,2, 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M.A. (1995), Software Requirements and Specifications, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, I., M. Christerson, P. Jonsson, and G. Overgaard (1992), Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use-Case Oriented Approach, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (1990), Systematic Software Development Using VDM, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kirlik, A. (1993), “Requirements for Psychological Models to Support Design: Towards Ecological Task Analysis,” In An Ecological Approach to Human Machine Systems I: A Global Perspective, J. Flach, P. Hancock, J. Caird, and K. Vicente, Eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 68–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R. (1980), “Social Analysis of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research,” Computing Surveys 12,1, 61–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loffland, J. and L. Loffland (1984), Analyzing Social Settings, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luff, P., C. Heath, and D. Greatbatch (1994), “Work, Interaction and Technology: The Naturalistic Analysis of Human Conduct and Requirements Analysis,” In Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues, M. Jirotka and J. Goguen, Eds., Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 259–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMenamin, S. and J. Palmer (1984), Essential Systems Analysis, Yourdon Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meldrum, M., M. Lejk, and P. Guy (1993), SSADM Techniques: An Introduction to Version 4, Chartwell Bratt, Bromley, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. and C. Smircich (1980), “The Case for Qualitative Research,” Academy of Management Review 5,4, 491–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A.P. (1990), “The Specification and Verified Decomposition of System Requirements using CSP,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16,9, 932–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering, Academic Press Professional, Boston, MA.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D.A. (1992), Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C. (1995), “Using Schematic Scenarios to Understand User Needs,” In Proceedings of DIS'95: Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 247–256.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., J. Hughes, and D. Shapiro (1994), “Steps toward a Partnership: Ethnography and System Design,” In Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues, M. Jirotka and J. Goguen, Eds., Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. (1989), “Double-Level Languages and Cooperative Working,” In Proceedings of the Conference on Support, Society and Culture: Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Software Engineering Research Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 79–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, D.T. (1977), “Structured Analysis (SA): A Language for Communicating Ideas,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3,1, 16–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, K. and A. Goldberg (1992), “Object Behavior Analysis,” Communications of the ACM 35,9, 48–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumbaugh, J., M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen (1991), Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville, I., T. Rodden, P. Sawyer, R. Bentley, and M. Twidale (1993), “Integrating Ethnography into the Requirements Engineering Process,” In Proceedings of RE'93: International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, York, UK, pp. 165–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, J.M. (1988), Understanding Z: A Specification Language and its Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Holt Rinehard-Winston, Fort Worth, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, F. and D. West (1994), Client-Led Design: A Systemic Approach to Information Systems Definition, McGraw-Hill, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1983), Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lamsweerde, A., R. Darimont, and P. Massonet (1995), “Goal-Directed Elaboration of Requirements for a Meeting Scheduler: Problems and Lessons Learnt,” In Proceedings of RE'95: 2nd International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, York, UK, pp. 194–203.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente, K. and J. Rasmussen (1993), “The Ecology of Human-Machine Systems II: Mediating ‘Direct Perception’ in Complex Work Domains,” Ecological Psychology 2,3, 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, E.S.K. and J. Mylopoulos (1994), “Using Goals, Rules and Methods to Support Reasoning in Business Process Reengineering,” In Proceedings of the 27th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. IV, Information Systems: Collaboration Technology, Organizational Systems and Technology, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 234–243.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332–0280, USA

    Colin Potts & Idris Hsi

Authors
  1. Colin Potts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Idris Hsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Potts, C., Hsi, I. Abstraction and context in requirements engineering: Toward a synthesis. Annals of Software Engineering 3, 23–61 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018994106507

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018994106507

Keywords

Search

Navigation