The goal of this work was to provide a holistic overview of current frameworks for requirements elicitation. They can be catogrized as goal- or process-oriented ones. For achieving this goal, I conducted a structured literature review and summarized the results within in tables. Hence, this work can serve as reference manual for quickly getting an overview of possbile requirements elicitation approaches.
There exist a couple of approaches for the elicitation of requirements for software projects. Usually, it is difficult to identify the most relevant ones in order to have a coherent software development process. In general, it is distinguished between functional and non-functional requirements. Functional ones describe what a system has to do, what a system has to perform. Non-functional ones put constraints on the software, meaning they are quality attributes such as availability and security.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and related Work
2.1 Evolution of Requirements Engineering
2.2 The process- and goal-oriented approach
3. Research Method
3.1 Research Approach Overview
3.2 Preliminary Results: Keyword Search
3.3 Analytical research framework
4. Results
4.1 Overview of RE Approaches
5. Discussion
5.1 Comparison of RE Approaches
5.1.1 Kind of analysis/Context
5.1.2 Notation
5.1.3 Rationale
5.1.4 Advantages/Disadvantages of PORE and GORE
6. Conclusions
6.1 Contributions
6.2 Limitations
6.3 Future directions
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to provide a comparative literature review of process- and goal-oriented requirements engineering approaches, examining their methodologies, differences, and practical applicability for stakeholders in software development projects.
- Evolution of requirements engineering methodologies
- Distinction between process-oriented (PORE) and goal-oriented (GORE) approaches
- Analytical framework for comparing different RE frameworks
- Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of existing RE techniques
- Challenges in requirements specification and interdependencies
Excerpt from the Book
The process- and goal-oriented approach
Examining the existing body of literature and hence to encounter the problems mentioned above, researchers developed two main approaches. These, known as process- and goal-oriented approach, consider the dynamic of the environment and provide holistic techniques to develop requirements for a proposed system (Panayiotou et al. 2015; van Lamsweerde 2001). In order to promote the understanding of both, the process- and goal-oriented approach, requirements and goals should be defined and distinguished from each other:
Usually, requirements are derived from qualitative data, for example from interviews with stakeholders. There are functional as well as non-functional requirements. Functional ones define the task a feature has to do. Non-functional ones are quality attributes which promote e.g. usability, performance, security, portability etc. (Chung and Leite 2009; Hill and Wang 2004; Mylopoulos et al. 1999). Non-functional requirements are not always complementary, they may also be contrary. For example, a credit card system has to process online transactions (the task) in an accurate, secure, fast and user-friendly way (quality attributes). Security is absolutely necessary since without a high degree of security, the user is exposed to the danger of abuse. A highly implemented secure mechanism requires more processing time, because several numbers have to be put in the graphical user interface (GUI) and thus, decelerates the whole process, also affecting the user-friendliness (Haley et al. 2008).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the significance of requirements engineering and introduces the necessity of comparing process- and goal-oriented methodologies to mitigate common development issues.
Theoretical Background and related Work: Provides an overview of the evolution of requirements engineering and defines the foundational differences between process- and goal-oriented frameworks.
Research Method: Details the literature review process, the search strategies used, and the analytical framework established to categorize the different RE approaches.
Results: Presents an overview and characterization of identified RE frameworks through a structured classification scheme.
Discussion: Offers a deep-dive comparison of RE approaches across four dimensions: analysis method, notation, rationale, and specific advantages/disadvantages.
Conclusions: Summarizes the key contributions of the study, notes current research limitations, and suggests future directions for empirical case studies in the field.
Keywords
Requirements Engineering, Process-oriented, Goal-oriented, PORE, GORE, Software Development, System Analysis, Business Alignment, Non-functional Requirements, KAOS, TROPOS, i*, Methodology Comparison, Literature Review
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary purpose of this research paper?
The paper performs a comparative literature review to identify existing process- and goal-oriented requirements engineering (RE) approaches and determines how they differ from each other.
What are the central themes of the research?
The research focuses on the classification and comparison of modern RE frameworks, specifically examining their analysis techniques, notations, underlying rationales, and their respective pros and cons.
What is the core research question?
The main question is: "What are the current process- and goal-oriented approaches in RE and how do they differ?"
Which methodology was used to conduct the study?
The author conducted a structured literature review based on the recommendations of Webster and Watson, involving an initial review, database keyword searches, and a backward search.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body evaluates RE frameworks through four specific categories: the kind of analysis/context, the notation used, the fundamental rationale, and the inherent advantages and disadvantages of each.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
The key themes are Requirements Engineering, Process-oriented (PORE), Goal-oriented (GORE), methodology comparison, and frameworks such as KAOS, TROPOS, and i*.
What is the main difference between PORE and GORE as described by the author?
PORE focuses primarily on business processes, streamlining them, and aligning them with existing systems, while GORE focuses on using goals to elicit, refine, and model non-functional requirements within a dynamic environment.
What are the limitations of the provided frameworks according to the author?
The author notes that while these frameworks are useful, many lack integration of environmental dynamics and some, like KAOS, utilize extreme formalization that can be difficult for stakeholders to interpret without specialized training.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Oliver Götz (Autor:in), 2016, The Goal- and Process-Oriented Approach in Requirements Engineering, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/355109
