Reasoning about partial goal satisfaction for requirements and design engineering

ABSTRACT

Exploring alternative options is at the heart of the requirements and design processes. Different alternatives contribute to different degrees of achievement of non-functional goals about system safety, security, performance, usability, and so forth. Such goals in general cannot be satisfied in an absolute, clear-cut sense. Various qualitative and quantitative frameworks have been proposed to support the assessment of alternatives for design decision making. In general they lead to limited conclusions due to the lack of accuracy and measurability of goal formulations and the lack of impact propagation rules along goal contribution links.

The paper presents techniques for specifying partial degrees of goal satisfaction and for quantifying the impact of alternative system designs on the degree of goal satisfaction. The approach consists in enriching goal refinement models with a probabilistic layer for reasoning about partial satisfaction. Within such models, non-functional goals are specified in a precise, probabilistic way; their specification is interpreted in terms of application-specific measures; impact of alternative goal refinements is evaluated in terms of refinement equations over random variables involved in the system's functional goals. A systematic method is presented for guiding the elaboration of such models. The latter can then be used to assess the impact of alternative decisions on the degree of goal satisfaction or to derive quantitative, fine-grained requirements on the software to achieve the higher-level goals.

REFERENCES

• 1: Y. Akao, Quality Function Deployment QFD: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, Productivity Press, Cambridge MA, 1990.
• 2: L. Chung, B. Nixon, E. Yu and J. Mylopoulos, Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer Academic, 2000.
• 3: Robert Darimont , Axel van Lamsweerde, Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration, Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.179-190, October 16-18, 1996, San Francisco, California, United States
• 4: Matthew B. Dwyer , George S. Avrunin , James C. Corbett, Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification, Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, p.411-420, May 16-22, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/302405.302672]
• 5: M. S. Feather , S. Fickas , A. Van Lamsweerde , C. Ponsard, Reconciling System Requirements and Runtime Behavior, Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on Software specification and design, p.50, April 16-18, 1998
• 6: M.S. Feather, S.L. Cornford, J. Dunphy & K. Hicks, "A Quantitative Risk Model for Early Lifecycle Decision Making", in Proceedings of the Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, Pasadena, California, June 2002.
• 7: N. Fenton and M. Neil, "Making Decisions: Using Bayesian Nets and MCDA", Knowledge-Based Systems 14, 307--325, 2001.
• 8: Paolo Giorgini , John Mylopoulos , Eleonora Nicchiarelli , Roberto Sebastiani, Reasoning with Goal Models, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, p.167-181, October 07-11, 2002
• 9: H. Hansson and B.Jonsson, "A Logic for Reasoning about Time and Probability", Formal Aspects of Computing Vol.6, 1994, 512--535.
• 10: Holger Hermanns , Joost-Pieter Katoen , Joachim Meyer-Kayser , Markus Siegle, A Markov Chain Model Checker, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems: Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on the Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2000, p.347-362, March 25-April 02, 2000
• 11: Hoh In , Barry Boehm , Thomas Rodgers , Michael Deutsch, Applying WinWin to quality requirements: a case study, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, p.555-564, May 12-19, 2001, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 12: Joachim Karlsson , Kevin Ryan, A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements, IEEE Software, v.14 n.5, p.67-74, September 1997 [doi>10.1109/52.605933]
• 13: Rick Kazman , Mario Barbacci , Mark Klein , S. Jeromy Carrière , Steven G. Woods, Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis, Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, p.54-63, May 16-22, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/302405.302452]
• 14: J. Kramer, J. Magee, M. Sloman et al, CONIC: an Integrated Approach to Distributed Computer Control Systems. IEE Proceedings, Part E 130, 1, January 1983, pp. 1--10.
• 15: Marta Z. Kwiatkowska , Gethin Norman , David Parker, Probabilistic Symbolic Model Checking with PRISM: A Hybrid Approach, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, p.52-66, April 08-12, 2002
• 16: Axel van Lamsweerde , Emmanual Letier , Robert Darimont, Managing Conflicts in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.24 n.11, p.908-926, November 1998 [doi>10.1109/32.730542]
• 17: Axel van Lamsweerde , Emmanuel Letier, Handling Obstacles in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.26 n.10, p.978-1005, October 2000 [doi>10.1109/32.879820]
• 18: Axel van Lamsweerde, Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour, Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, p.249, August 27-31, 2001
• 19: Report of the Inquiry Into the London Ambulance Service. February 1993. The Communications Directorate, South West Thames Regional Authority. Also available at http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/ A.Finkelstein/las.html
• 20: E. Letier, Reasoning about Agents in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Louvain, May 2001; http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/eletier/thesis.html.
• 21: Emmanuel Letier , Axel van Lamsweerde, Agent-based tactics for goal-oriented requirements elaboration, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 19-25, 2002, Orlando, Florida [doi>10.1145/581339.581353]
• 22: Nancy G. Leveson, Safeware: system safety and computers, ACM Press, New York, NY, 1995
• 23: B. Littlewood et al, "Towards operational measures of computer security", Journal of Computer Security, Vol. 2, 1993, 211--229.
• 24: Bharat B. Madan , Katerina Goseva-Popstojanova , Kalyanaraman Vaidyanathan , Kishor S. Trivedi, Modeling and Quantification of Security Attributes of Software Systems, Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, p.505-514, June 23-26, 2002
• 25: J. Mylopoulos , L. Chung , B. Nixon, Representing and Using Nonfunctional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.18 n.6, p.483-497, June 1992 [doi>10.1109/32.142871]
• 26: http://www.objectiver.com.
• 27: A. Rifaut , P. Massonet , J-F Molderez , C. Ponsard , P. Stadnik , Axel van Lamsweerde , Tran Van Hung, FAUST: Formal Analysis Using Specification Tools, Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, p.350, September 08-12, 2003
• 28: W. N. Robinson, Negotiation behavior during requirements specification, Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Software engineering, p.268-276, March 26-30, 1990, Nice, France
• 29: Suzanne Robertson , James Robertson, Mastering the requirements process, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1999
• 30: T.L. Saati, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
• 31: Kishor S. Trivedi, Probability and statistics with reliability, queuing and computer science applications, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, 2001
• 32: Moshe Y. Vardi, Branching vs. Linear Time: Final Showdown, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, p.1-22, April 02-06, 2001
• 33: P. Vincke, Multicriteria Decision-Aid, Wiley, 1992.
• 34: V. Winter, R. Berg, and J. Ringland, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Advance Automated Train Control System: Case Study Description. Technical Report, Sandia National Labs, 1999. Also available at http://www.pst.informatik.uni-muenchen.de/dagstuhl/.
• 35: John Yen , W. Amos Tiao, A Systematic Tradeoff Analysis for Conflicting Imprecise Requirements, Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'97), p.87, January 05-08, 1997

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.1 Requirements/Specifications
          Subjects: Methodologies (e.g., object-oriented, structured)

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.1 Requirements/Specifications
          Subjects: Languages

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Languages

Keywords:
goal-oriented requirements engineering, non-functional requirements, partial satisfaction of requirements, probabilistic requirements modeling, reasoning about design alternatives