1. Goal and Requirement Change Management in Enterprise Architecture Abelneh Teka 13, June 2012

2. 22/03/2012 2 Background A Computer Science master student at University of Twente, Netherlands. This research plan is based on the early works of my on going master Project. Master Project: Analysis of Indirect Influence Relations. 4 Supervisors Involved in this project and deserve credit: Nelly Condori Fernandez and Ivan Kurtev: From University of Twente Wilco Engelsman and Dick Quartel: From BiZZdesign.. Conducted on the Premise of BiZZdesign B.V.

3. 3 Research Context: Enterprise Architecture(EA) and Goal change management. Business environments and Processes are highly dynamic. Technology supporting/enabling these processes is also highly dynamic. But “important” changes are manifested as changes in stakeholders’ goals and requirements. IDoPROFES:2012 EA designs should also be adaptable to cope with these changes to sustain the intended functionality of the EA. Changes in business environments can be triggered by various events. e.g. business Law changes, company policy changes, Government policy changes, technology advancements…. Bottom Line: Goal change management is crucial for EA adaptability.

4. IDoPROFES:2012 4 Industrial Context: BiZZdesign, ArchiMate and TOGAF BiZZdesign is a company in Netherlands involved in business process and EA designs as well as tool support and consultation for client organizations. For EA design, it uses TOGAF and ArchiMate EA modeling language. Both ArchiMate and TOGAF support modeling of requirements and other intentional elements like goals and stakeholders. BiZZdesign has also a tool named BiZZdesign Architect to design EA models via ArchiMate EA modeling language. Encryption Strength System Security System Performance ++ -

5. 5 Industrial Problem: The goal to goal relations are not semantically well defined in ArchiMate. IDoPROFES:2012 Can’t predict goal change effects ≈ Limited Adaptability of EA. Limited Decision Support  Alternate resource allocation problem. No Semantic definition ≈ No reasoning on goal Relations. No Reasoning ≈ Can’t predict goal change impacts.

6. - Industrial Problem: Simple Example Should the company manger hire a tester or a marketer?

7. 7 So what do we expect from the PROFES community? About the reasoning technique selected for goal analysis. Possible validation approaches in addition to example test cases. IDoPROFES:2012

8. 8 What are the existing formalizations of the goal oriented approaches, and what kind of reasoning do they allow? Research Questions Is the reasoning for indirect influence possible with them(after modification)? How the previous two can be combined and extended to support analysis of alternative resource allocations? How can we visualize these change impacts and how can we simulate this visualization? IDoPROFES:2012

9. 9 Research Approach

10. REFSQ:2012 10 Goal and Requirement change management is not a new topic for the software engineering community. e.g. NFR, KAOS, TROPOS, DEPRIVSIM, First order logic based definition of goal relations. Research Question 1 Two candidate approaches are selected/adapted:  based on Simplicity for users, applicability for indirect goal influence analysis, documentation availability and complexity for development:  Non Functional Requirement Framework  TROPOS based approach What are the most relevant existing formalizations of the goal oriented approaches? Research Question 2.

11. REFSQ:2012 11  Non functional Requirements as soft goals.  Goals can be partially or Fully satisfied as well as Denied.  Contribution relations can be Strongly positive, weakly positive as well as negative. Non Functional Reuirements Frameweork Individual Impact of offspring with label: Upon Parent label, given off-spring parent contribution types Break( --)HURT (-)?HELP(+)Make(++) Denied(D)S PS UPDD Conflicting (C)CCUCC Unknown(U)UUUUU Satisfied(S)DPDUPSS

12. REFSQ:2012 12 NFR’s qualitative Reasoning can be extended using Fuzzy logic based inference engine. What kind of reasoning do these approaches allow? : Fuzzy Reasoning  Soft(Goal) satisfaction level measurement is difficult.  Vague nature of soft(goals).  Fuzzy logic can be applicable on these kind of vague(fuzzy) concepts.  A single element in a fuzzy set can belong to two sets. e.g: 10 °C, Warm or Cold temperature? - 85, Fully or Partially Denied?

13. 13 TROPOS: Agent oriented software development methodology.  Supports early phases of requirement engineering activities.  Each Goal is assigned two variables: one for satisfiability and the other for deniability.  The variables can only take Full(F), Partial(P) or None (N) evidence availability for Goal Satisfiability and Deniability. What kind of reasoning do these approaches allow? : TROPOS IDoPROFES:2012

14. 14 Preliminary Software Architecture: IDoPROFES:2012

15. 22/03/2012REFSQ:2012 15 What kind of reasoning is applicable for indirect influence management? : Preliminary Empirical Study Design How efficient and effective is the algorithm proposed in comparison to other existing approaches? Is the efficiency and effectiveness of the algorithm proposed affected by the functional size of “goal model”?

16. REFSQ:2012 16 Current Status of the Research: Both approach seems to be consistent when applied to one test case study. Performance wise, the two approaches behave similarly Prototype application of TROPOS and fuzzy logic based NFR reasoning approaches is realized.(RQ 4) Future Work Combining good features of both approaches (RQ3) More test cases for validating the selected method TROPOS is better in handling conflicts. Fuzzy Reasoning gives more detailed and concrete predictions.

17. 17 Do you have any question? IDoPROFES:2012

18. 22/03/2012 18 So what do we expect from the PROFES community again? About the reasoning technique selected for goal analysis. Possible validation approaches in addition to example test cases. IDoPROFES:2012