Comparing the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in Use Case and Tropos: Results from a family of experiments

Hadar, Irit; Reinhartz-Berger, Iris; Kuflik, Tsvi; Perini, Anna; Ricca, Filippo; Susi, Angelo

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.05.003

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their final quantitative scores rank i*, KAOS, and NFR as 5, -2, and -21, respectively. Hadar et al compare the comprehensibility of requirements expressed as Use Cases versus Tropos (a GORE framework) using experiments [15]. Participants were asked to map text to requirements, understand, and modify models.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades, much attention has been paid to the area of goal-oriented requirements engineering (GORE), where goals are used as a useful conceptualization to elicit, model, and analyze requirements, capturing alternatives and conflicts. Goal modeling has been adapted and applied to many sub-topics within requirements engineering (RE) and beyond, such as agent orientation, aspect orientation, business intelligence, model-driven development, and security. Despite extensive efforts in this field, the RE community lacks a recent, general systematic literature review of the area. In this work, we present a systematic mapping study, covering the 246 top-cited GORE-related conference and journal papers, according to Scopus. Our literature map addresses several research questions: we classify the types of papers (e.g., proposals, formalizations, meta-studies), look at the presence of evaluation, the topics covered (e.g., security, agents, scenarios), frameworks used, venues, citations, author networks, and overall publication numbers. For most questions, we evaluate trends over time. Our findings show a proliferation of papers with new ideas and few citations, with a small number of authors and papers dominating citations; however, there is a slight rise in papers which build upon past work (implementations, integrations, and extensions). We see a rise in papers concerning adaptation/variability/evolution and a slight rise in case studies. Overall, interest in GORE has increased. We use our analysis results to make recommendations concerning future GORE research and make our data publicly available.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It does not offer an explicit grammar and regularly allows for the rational linking of everything to everything; thus, the dependencies and the execution orders are omitted . Complexity, understanding, and transforming requirements into a computer model are other problems that have arisen due to the use of UML (Hadar et al, 2013;Meziane et al, 2008;Luna et al, 2011). In fact, the requirement artifacts have to be easily understandable to all participants in order to avoid future misunderstandings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, stakeholders may be uncomfortable with expressing their needs in an abstractive pattern Van Lamsweerde, 2000). Some researchers concentrate on the use of goal model visualization in innovative ways without considering a typical visual representation that is easy to recognize and that does not require a considerable investment of effort to comprehend (Hadar et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth seeking out new solutions that allow stakeholders from any background being able to cooperate in RE with a lower investment of effort (Gotel et al, 2008;Hadar et al, 2013). To make this happen, this study attempts to reduce the complexity of approaches and the level of technical know-how required to put them into practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarity, other authors claim that languages whose graphical syntax is easily understood are less likely to cause requirements problems. In recent studies (e.g., Bera & Evermann, 2014;Hadar et al, 2013;Horkoff & Yu, 2013;Li et al, 2014;Svahnber et al, 2013), researchers intricately examined RE models to understand their comprehensibility when specifying requirements. The heuristic intent is to advance the models upon which most notations are customarily constructed by abstract formalization wherein different interpretations can occur.…”

Section: Why Is Requirements Engineering Important?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can icons enhance requirements engineering work?

Khanom

Heimbürger

Kärkkäinen

2015

Journal of Visual Languages & Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An Empirical Study on the Comprehensibility of Graphical Security Risk Models Based on Sequence Diagrams

Volden-Freberg

Erdogan

2019

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report on an empirical study in which we evaluate the comprehensibility of graphical versus textual risk annotations in threat models based on sequence diagrams. The experiment was carried out on two separate groups where each group solved tasks related to either graphical or textual annotations. We also examined the efficiency of using these two annotations in terms of the average time each group spent per task. Our study reports that threat models with textual risk annotations are equally comprehensible to corresponding threat models with graphical risk annotations. With respect to efficiency, however, we found out that participants solving tasks related to the graphical annotations spent on average 23% less time per task.

show abstract

Comparing the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in Use Case and Tropos: Results from a family of experiments

Cited by 41 publications

References 51 publications

Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study

Goal-oriented requirements engineering: an extended systematic mapping study

Can icons enhance requirements engineering work?

An Empirical Study on the Comprehensibility of Graphical Security Risk Models Based on Sequence Diagrams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About