University of Groningen On the applicability of requirements determination methods Bollen, Petrus Wilhelmus Laurentius IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2004 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Bollen, P. W. L. (2004). On the applicability of requirements determination methods s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 22-11-2017
On the applicability of requirements determination methods P.W.L. Bollen
RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN On the applicability of requirements determination methods Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Bedrijfskunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 9 december 2004 om 13.15 uur door Petrus Wilhelmus Laurentius Bollen geboren op 12 juli 1959 te Maastricht
Promotor: Prof. Dr. Ir. J.L. Simons Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. Dr. S. Brinkkemper Prof. Dr. R. Wieringa Prof. Dr. Ir. H. Wortmann ISBN: 90-5681-211-4
Published and distributed by P.W.L. Bollen Pergamyndonk 210 6281 GZ Maastricht the Netherlands CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK Bollen, Petrus Wilhelmus Laurentius On the applicability of requirements determination methods. Thesis Rijksuniversiteit Groningen With Summary in Dutch. ISBN: 90-5681-211-4 NUR 983, 992 Subject headings: Requirements determination, requirements specification, Natural Language Modeling 2004, P.W.L. Bollen, Maastricht All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or utilized in any form or by any electronic,mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording or in any information storage or retrieval sytem, without prior written permission from the copyright owner.
To Anjie and Trisha
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all the people that have made the finalisation of this thesis possible. I would especially thank John Simons, for being an inspiring Ph. D. supervisor. Furthermore, I would like to thank the members of the dissertation committee: Sjaak Brinkkemper, Roel Wieringa and Hans Wortmann for their constructive criticism, which has helped to improve the quality of this thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank the former members of the former department of Information Science at the faculty of Economics and Business Administration at Maastricht University, who inspired me to write this thesis. A special word of thanks is for Shir Nijssen who showed me, how to be persistent in carrying on research, even in an unfavourable academic climate. Another word of thanks is to my former colleague in the department of Logistics and Strategy at Maastricht University: Geert Duysters. Thanks Geert for your efforts in helping me find a suitable academic environment for finalizing this thesis. The research that is contained in this thesis, was started 11 years ago. In this period many changes have taken place in my personal life. I want to dedicate this thesis to my wife Anjie, who has helped me in achieving my goals with her love and understanding and to our daughter Trisha, who has enriched our lives and has positively effected the conditions under which this thesis has been finalized. Peter Bollen October, 2004
CONTENTS OF THE THESIS Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Subject of study: requirements determination 1 1.1.1 Requirements determination: Translating domain requirements into model requirements 1 1.1.2 Requirements determination: field of study 2 1.1.3 Organization of chapter 1 3 1.2 History of requirements determination 3 1.3 Requirements determination and information systems development 5 1.3.1 Roles in requirements determination 5 1.3.2 The way of modeling, way of working and way of controlling in requirements determination 6 1.3.3 Substeps in requirements determination 7 1.3.4 Eras in requirements determination 9 1.3.5 Conclusions on requirements determination as field of study 10 1.4 Research goal 11 1.5 Research approach and outline of the thesis 11 1.5.1 Research approaches 11 1.5.2 Justification of the design-research approach 12 1.6 Structure of thesis and research question(s) 13 1.7 References 16 Chapter 2: Criteria for requirements determination methods 23 2.1 The criteria for RDMs found in the literature 23 2.2 The domain richness criterion 25 2.2.1 Reasons in the literature for systems failure caused by insufficient requirements determination 25 2.2.2 Proposed techniques in the literature to overcome insufficient requirements determination 27 2.2.3 Characteristics of application domains 29 2.2.4 Definition of the domain richness criterion 30 2.3 The completeness criterion 31 2.4 The efficiency criterion 33 2.5 The formality criterion 35 2.6 Conclusions on the quality criteria for a RDM 36 2.7 References 37
Chapter 3: Evaluation of existing RDM design alternatives 41 3.1 Introduction 41 3.2 A survey of approaches for requirements determination from the literature 41 3.2.1 Data oriented approaches in requirements determination 42 3.2.2 Process oriented approaches in requirements determination 44 3.2.3 Object oriented approaches in requirements determination 45 3.2.4 The Business Process Engineering approach: ARIS 46 3.3 The suitability of existing approach families for requirements determination 47 3.4 The extended (or enhanced) Entity-Relationship approach 48 3.4.1 Deficiencies in the (E)ER way of modeling 48 3.4.2 Deficiencies in the (E)ER way of working 53 3.5 Object-role Modeling (ORM) 55 3.5.1 Deficiencies in the ORM way of modeling 55 3.5.2 Deficiencies in the ORM way of working 59 3.6 The Unified Modeling Language (UML) 3.6.1 Deficiencies in the UML way of modeling 59 60 3.6.2 Deficiencies in the UML way of working 64 3.7 Conclusions on the way of- modeling, -working, and controlling for the Requirements determination approaches from the literature 64 3.7.1 Overall modeling deficiencies 65 3.7.2 Modeling deficiencies regarding the data model for the way of modeling 65 3.7.3 Modeling deficiencies regarding the static constraints for the way of modeling 67 3.7.4 Modeling deficiencies regarding the dynamic constraints for the way of modeling 68 3.7.5 Modeling deficiencies regarding the static derivation (rules) for the way of modeling 69 3.7.6 Modeling deficiencies regarding the dynamic rules for the way of modeling 69 3.7.7 Modeling deficiencies regarding the way of working and way of controlling 70 3.7.8 Summary of Modeling deficiencies in the EER, ORM and UML approaches 70 3.8 The suitability of existing approaches for requirements determination with respect to the completeness, domain richness, efficiency, and formality criteria 71 3.9 References 74
Chapter 4: Operationalized design specification 83 4.1 Introduction 83 4.2 RDM demands for the way of modeling 83 4.2.1 RDM demands for completeness in the way of modeling 83 4.2.2 RDM demands for the domain richness in the way of modeling 85 4.2.3 RDM demands for the efficiency in the way of modeling 85 4.2.4 RDM demands for the formality in the way of modeling 86 4.3 RDM demands for the way of working 88 4.3.1 RDM demands for completeness in the way of working 88 4.3.2 RDM demands for the domain richness in the way of working 88 4.3.3 RDM demands for the efficiency in the way of working 89 4.3.4 RDM demands for formality in the way of working 89 4.4 RDM demands for the way of controlling 90 4.4.1 RDM demands for efficiency in the way of controlling 90 4.4.2 RDM demands for formality in the way of controlling 90 4.5 Conclusions 91 4.6 References 91 Developing an alternative design for a requirements determination method 92 Chapter 5: The way of modeling in Natural Language Modeling 93 5.1 Introduction 93 5.1.1 Organization of chapter 5 93 5.2 Names 94 5.2.1 Example 5.1: University Enrolment part 1 94 5.2.2 The name primitive 95 5.3 The natural language axiom 96 5.4 Roles 96 5.5 Intention and Extension 98 5.6 Fact types 99 5.6.1 Naming convention fact types 100 5.6.2 Example 5.1: university enrolment part2 101 5.6.3 Compound referencing schemes 104 5.7 The Basic Information Model 107 5.8 NLM modeling constructs for the encoding of extensional constraints 109 5.8.1 Definition of Population state constraints 110 5.8.2 Definition of Population state transition constraints 110 5.8.3 Definition of Derivation rule constraints 111 5.8.4 Definition of Event occurrence, Event, Event type and Impulse type constraints 112
5.9 The NLM requirements specification for a given UoD 114 5.9.1 The NLM Requirements specification for the University Enrolment UoD 115 5.9.2 The University Enrollment case study description revisited 118 5.10 Conclusions on the way of modeling in the NLM RDM 120 5.10.1 The added value of the NLM requirements specification language 121 5.11 References 122 Chapter 6: The way of working and the way of controlling in Natural Language Modeling 125 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Organization of chapter 6 125 126 6.2 The design procedure for a simple basic information model 127 6.2.1 The verbalization transformation 128 6.2.2 The grouping transformation 132 6.2.3 The classification and qualification transformation 135 6.3 The atomization procedure 143 6.4 The procedure for integrating BIMs in NLM 146 6.4.1 Conflicts on naming, synonyms and homonyms 147 6.4.2 Specialization and generalization relationships 148 6.4.3 Identifier, cardinality and domain conflict 149 6.5 The population state constraint modeling procedures 151 6.5.1 The derivation of uniqueness constraints 151 6.5.2 The derivation of set comparison constraints 153 6.6 The population state transition constraint modeling procedure 157 6.7 The derivation rule constraint procedure 159 6.8 The impulse constraint procedure 161 6.9 The way of controlling in NLM 6.9.1 The demarcation of the requirements determination project 165 165 6.9.2 The required precedence of the requirements determination process in terms of the way of working 166 6.9.3 Resource planning for a requirements determination project in NLM s way of working 168 6.10 Conclusions on the way of working and the way of controlling in NLM 169 6.10.1 The added value of the NLM requirements determination method 170 6.11 References 171
Chapter 7: Conclusions, general discussion and recommendations 175 7.1 Introduction 175 7.1.1 Organization of chapter 7 176 7.2 Research findings 176 7.3 Research methodology 186 7.4 Future MIS research proposals 186 7.5 Recommendations for practitioners in the MIS field 187 7.5.1 Application of NLM in practice 188 7.6 Concluding remarks 188 Appendix A: The specification of the constraint types in the NLM requirements specification language 191 A.1 Introduction 191 A.2 Population state constraints 191 A.3 Population state transition constraints 192 A.4 Derivation rule constraints 194 A.5 Impulse constraints 199 A.5.1 Impulse and impulse type 201 A.6 References 209 Appendix B: The meta model for the NLM requirements specification: 211 B.1 References 215 Summary (in dutch) 217 Curriculum vitae 219
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Fig. 1.1 Requirements determination and fields of study... 3 Fig. 1.2 The roles in the requirements determination process in general... 6 Fig. 1.3 The roles in the requirements determination process in the ERP era... 10 Fig. 1.4 The design research cycle and the chapters in this thesis... 16 Fig. 3.1 Domain semantics and representation in EER model I... 49 Fig. 3.2 Domain semantics and representation in EER model II (taken from fgure 3.17 in McFadden et al., 1999:108)... 50 Fig. 3.3 (a) ER, (b) XER and (c) EER cardinality constraints (taken from Liddle et al. (1993) and McFadden et al. (1999))... 51 Fig. 3.4 Domain semantics and representation in EER model III... 53 Fig. 3.5 Domain semantics and representation in ORM model I... 56 Fig. 3.6 Domain semantics and representation in ORM model II... 57 Fig. 3.7 Domain semantics and representation in ORM model III... 57 Fig. 3.8 Domain semantics and representation in ORM model IV... 58 Fig. 3.9 Lack of coherence in UML class diagram and UML state chart diagram... 60 Fig. 3.10 Two different object instances of the class House Inhabitant... 61 Fig. 3.11 Generalization transformation using abstract class construct... 62 Fig. 5.1 Example Vandover University Enrollment (example 5.1).... 95 Fig. 5.2 Roles and sentence group template for university enrollment example... 97 Fig. 5.3 Example legend for sentence groups... 97 Fig. 5.4 Naming convention fact type for student at Vandover university... 101 Fig. 5.5 Example integrated Ohoadover enrollment system... 102 Fig. 5.6 Fact types and sentence group templates with compound referencing scheme for student from the university enrolment example part 2... 104 Fig. 5.7 Naming convention fact type for student in the integrated UoD... 105 Fig. 5.8 Extended example legend for fact types... 106 Fig. 5.9 Basic information model Ohoadover university enrollment... 108 Fig. 5.10 NLM requirements specification (I):BIM and population constraints... 116 Fig. 5.11 NLM requirements specification (II):derivation rule- and impulse type constraints... 117 Fig. 5.12 NLM requirements specification (III):impulse type constraints... 118 Fig. 6.1 The way of working in the NLM requirements determination method... 126 Fig. 6.2 The verbalization transformation... 128 Fig. 6.3 real-life ABC invoice document (example 6.1)... 130 Fig. 6.4 Result of verbalization transformation of example 6.1.... 132 Fig. 6.5 Result of grouping transformation of example 6.1... 135 Fig. 6.6 Graphical notation sentence group for (a part of) example 6.1.... 136 Fig. 6.7 Initial application concept repository for (a part of) example 6.1.... 138 Fig. 6.8 Application of naming convention fact types in NLM... 139 Fig. 6.9 Result of classification/qualification transformation of example 6.1.... 142 Fig. 6.10 Result of atomization transformation of example 6.1... 146 Fig. 6.11 Basic information model for example 6.1 with uniqueness constraint(s)... 153 Fig. 6.12 Basic information model for example 6.1 with uniqueness and setcomparison constraint(s)... 156
Fig. 6.13 Basic information model for example 6.1 with uniqueness, set comparison and transition constraint(s)... 159 Fig. 6.14 Basic information model for example 6.1 with uniqueness, set comparison, transition constraint and derivation rule constraints... 161 Fig. 6.15 Complete NLM requirements specification for example 6.1 that contains a basic information model with uniqueness, set comparison, transition constraint, derivation rule constraints and impulse constraints... 164 Fig. 6.16 AON network for activities in a NLM requirements determination project (I)... 168 Fig. 6.17 AON network for activities in a NLM requirements determination project(ii)... 168 Fig. 7.1 Relationship between research (sub) questions)... 184 Fig. A.1 Example legend for uniqueness-, exclusion-, subset- and equality- population state constraints... 192 Fig. A.2 Example legend for population state transition constraints... 194 Fig. A.3 Example legend for derivation rule constraint... 199 Fig. A.4 Two different event types that trigger the same derivation rule... 202 Fig. A.5 Two derivation rules that create instances of the same fact type... 203 Fig. A.6 Event triggering a derivation rule when a condition is satisfied (impulse)... 204 Fig. A.7 Example legend type constraints... 206 Fig. A.8 The possible temporal characteristic of impulse(s) (types)... 207 Fig. B.1 Information meta model for BIM and population constraints in NLM... 214 Table 2.1 Criteria for Requirements Specification methods... 24 Table 2.2 Dimensions that characterize the application domain... 30 Table 2.3 The definition of the domain richness criterion... 31 Table 2.4 Types of rules according to Loucopoulos and Layzell (1989:264)... 32 Table 2.5 Types of rules versus perspectives (Olle et al.,1988; Loucopoulos and Layzell, 1989)... 32 Table 2.6 The definition of the completeness criterion... 33 Table 2.7 The definition of the efficiency criterion... 34 Table 2.8 The definition of the formality criterion... 35 Table 2.9 Summary of the RDM criteria and definitions... 36 Table 3.1 Main findings of Peckham and Maryanski survey (Peckham and Maryanski, 1988:181)... 42 Table 3.2 Comparison families of approaches found in the literature... 47 Table 3.3 Summary of the comparison of EER, ORM and UML approaches on modeling deficiencies,... 71 Table 3.4 Comparison EER, ORM and UML approaches on completeness, domain richness, efficiency and formality criteria for the way of modeling, way of working and way of controlling... 73 Table 7.1 Types of rules within perspectives for completeness criterion... 178 Table 7.2 Requirements method demands for the way of modeling... 181 Table 7.3 Requirements method demands for the way of working... 182 Table 7.4 Requirements method demands for the way of controling... 183