<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Creativity and Conceptual Modeling for Requirements Engineering</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Jennifer Horkoff</string-name>
          <email>horkoff@city.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Neil Maiden</string-name>
          <email>n.a.m.maiden@city.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Centre for Human Computer Interaction Design, City University London</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>62</fpage>
      <lpage>68</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Creativity techniques have been applied to Requirements Engineering (RE) in order to find novel requirements, facilitating system and business innovation. Creativity has typically been applied to RE as part of an intensive, often multi-day workshop. Ideas are generated and recorded in a free-form, manual fashion, with much guidance from experienced human facilitators. Although this format has been successful, economic, time, and geographical pressures make this intensive process less feasible. The free-form representation of creative output (text and informal diagrams) provides flexibility in order to support creative thought, but the output of this form is not able to take advantage of much of the (semi-) automated analysis developed for RE, including trade-off analysis. In this work we address two major challenges 1) the limitations of existing creativity RE workshops, particularly their costliness and need for expert guidance, and 2) capturing creative output in a structured form, better amenable to (semi-) automated analysis and downstream development. We address these as part of a 2-3 year project focusing on integrating RE creativity techniques with conceptual modeling techniques such as goal modeling, with a focus on developing online, distributed creative support tools for RE.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Recent work has made the link between creativity techniques and RE (e.g., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2 ref3 ref4 ref5 ref6">1–6</xref>
        ]),
arguing that existing approaches treat the RE process as essentially a problem of
scoping and understanding activity, while effective requirement elicitation and analysis
should focus instead on problem discovery and problem solving. Finding the “right”
requirements is not about capturing stakeholder requirements, but is instead about
helping stakeholders to discover requirements they were not aware of, solving
problems they did not know they had. RE techniques should facilitate the creative
processes needed to develop innovative products - a key factor in keeping competitive.
      </p>
      <p>Although creativity techniques are key to generating ideas which evolve into novel
requirements and innovative systems, they rely heavily on expert facilitation and
manual effort. Methods which produce creative ideas are typically not tool-supported.
Creativity technique outputs are typically captured using text, storyboards, use case
descriptions, or other lightly-structured formats. As such, it is difficult to apply
systematic RE analysis methods which help to select amongst alternative requirements,
designs, or ideas. It is also challenging to translate creativity outputs into more
structure specification formats, necessary for downstream development.</p>
      <p>
        In this paper we outline ideas, initial progress, and plans for a recently-funded
multi-year research project. The project was initially aimed at exploiting the synergies
between creativity techniques and goal-oriented modeling for RE, but our focus has
broadened to generally making better use of conceptual models in creative RE
activities as part of online tool support. In this way, we aim to reduce reliance on creativity
experts and expensive workshops, capturing creative ideas in a more structured form,
taking better advantage of existing RE analysis techniques. Furthermore, the structure
of conceptual models capturing creative ideas can be used to support a more
systematic generation of creative ideas. For example, existing goal model analysis techniques
(e.g., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]) can be applied to support creative analysis (transformational, exploratory,
combinatorial) by exploring the removal of captured assumptions, automatically
suggesting new model connections, and evaluating the effectiveness of elicited ideas in
terms of system and user goals.
      </p>
      <p>Our aim is, in part, to understand the synergies between conceptual models used
for RE and creativity techniques. We begin to explore this area by conducting and
describing results of an exploratory experiment evaluating the combination of goal
models and creativity triggers.</p>
      <p>The overarching challenge of this work is to complement “irrational”, free-form
creativity with “logical”, decomposition-based models, without over compromising
the advantages provided by each technique. The overall objective is to improve RE
practice, ensuring system innovation while meeting user needs.</p>
      <p>In the rest of this paper, Sec. 2 provides background on creativity in RE, identifies
challenges, and describes an example RE model analysis technique. Sec. 3 gives an
overview of our proposed approach, including a high-level description of the intended
tool support, examples of how conceptual models can feed into creativity techniques,
and a brief description of our exploratory experiment and results. Sec. 4 concludes the
paper and discusses future plans.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Background</title>
      <p>In this section we provide background on creativity in RE and give an example of the
type of model analysis which can be used as part of creative RE elicitation.
2.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Creativity in RE</title>
        <p>
          In [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ], Maiden et al. adopt existing definitions of creativity to define creative
requirements as those that are both novel and appropriate (useful). Creativity can be
transformational, changing boundary rules to consider transformative ideas, possibly in
another paradigm [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ], exploratory, exploring a space of possibilities, or combinatorial,
combining together creative output.
        </p>
        <p>
          Several papers provide further classifications and guidance for creativity in RE.
Nguyen et al. consider how five established elements of creativity (product, process,
people, domain, and context) affect the application of creativity to RE [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
          ]. Mahaux et
al. examine the changing meaning of creativity in different contexts in order to guide
selection of creativity techniques for a given RE project [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
          ]. Further work emphasizes
the role of collaboration in RE creativity, proposing a list of factors influencing
collaborative creativity, e.g., values, and subject matter expertise [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ]. Although guidance
provided by these papers is useful, the output of our proposal aims to be more
concrete – an integrated, tool supported framework for goal-oriented creativity.
        </p>
        <p>
          Several papers have reported experience applying creativity techniques in an RE
workshop setting as part of the RESCUE process (e.g., [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ]). This approach has been
applied in settings such as Air Traffic Control, work-integrated learning (APOSDLE),
and food traceability. Workshops typically involve several stages, each of which can
be mapped to a particular type of creativity: Round Robin (exploratory), Scoping
(transformational), Creativity Triggers (exploratory), Constraints (transformational),
Ideas from presented design features (exploratory), and Storyboarding
(combinatorial). Inputs to workshops included use cases, context, and rich picture models.
Workshop outputs included collages using pictures, storyboards, idea cards placed on pin
boards, and mock-ups. Outputs were converted, primarily by analysts, into lists of
ideas, requirements, and/or use cases.
        </p>
        <p>
          The multi-day, in-person workshops, although effective, are costly, both in money
and time. Workshop facilitation requires specific soft skills, difficult to capture and
transfer. It is critical to develop effective tools which provide semi-automated support
for creative tasks. Limited tool support is available, typically focusing on supporting a
particular creative activity, e.g., mind maps, composition of document pieces (see [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ]
for a summary). Tools to guide participants in an overall creative process – candidates
to replace the workshop structure – are lacking.
2.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>RE Conceptual Model Analysis</title>
        <p>Once requirements knowledge is captured in a structured format, this knowledge can
be analyzed (reasoned over, evaluated) in order to support improved RE
understanding and decision making. We turn to qualitative, interactive goal model analysis as a
concrete example, particularly applicable to creativity activities due to its high level
of abstraction and deliberate incorporation of user input.</p>
        <p>
          Goal models (e.g., i* [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ]) capture stakeholder goals, refining goals into more
detailed goals, or into operational tasks or requirements. The i* framework, for example,
allows for a high-level representation using goals, softgoals (without clear-cut
criteria), tasks, resources, and actors (system agents and stakeholders), along with task
decomposition, means-ends alternatives, social dependencies, and softgoal
contributions. Qualitative evaluation over i* models allows users to explore the level of goal
achievement, asking “what if?” and “is this possible?” questions [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ]. Semi-automated
procedures use the underlying formal semantics of the model to propagate qualitative
labels representing goal (task, resource) satisfaction (and conversely, denial)
throughout the model. For example, in Fig. 1 (purple and green text can be ignored for now),
we show a small i* model capturing the APOSDLE work-integrated learning case.
Here we ask “what if we have commission funding, but the user does not learn
quickly?”. We see that the primary softgoals of the system are only partially achieved
(more details in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ]). In the next section we outline how this type of model analysis
can be used to support creativity in RE.
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Proposed Approach: Creativity and Conceptual Modeling</title>
      <p>In this section we give an overview of our planned approach, including tool support
and process, an example of how existing model analysis can be used to support
creativity, and details about an exploratory study examining the combination of goal
modeling and creativity.
3.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Tooling and Process Overview</title>
        <p>
          We envision a tooling platform, ideally usable in an online, distributed manner,
providing methodological guidance through various creativity techniques, connecting
to a series of interconnected and continuously evolving conceptual models. We
provide a high-level conceptualization of our tooling vision in Fig. 2. On the left hand
side we provide a rough mock-up of the creativity activity view. Here, icons are used
to represent various creativity activities, such as analogies and role play. These
activities are organized roughly following the creativity conceptualization used by the
inperson workshops, following a process of divergence and convergence through
activities aimed for preparation, transformation, exploration, combination, and evaluation.
Users will be guided through the suggested activities, with a few next possible
activities, determined using the preceding activities and the amount of progress made in
generating ideas. As-yet-unavailable activities are greyed out. Activities will link to
either guided instructions, or to external or integrated creativity tools such as
BrightSparks (http://brightsparks.city.ac.uk/) or implementations of specific RE-focused
activity methods such as in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]. Consideration must be made as to which activities
can be performed individually, or which must be performed in a group setting, and
whether these activities can be performed asynchronously.
Fig. 2. Conceptual Summary of Distributed, Online, Model-Based, Creative Requirements
Elicitation Tool Support
        </p>
        <p>On the right, we see the model/content view. Users can switch between the
selection of activities and views of several, interconnected models and other
representations. At this point, we include the models/representations used as part of the
physical workshops as well as goal modeling. Additional/alternative representations could
be used. Following conventions in the physical workshops, creative process may start
with an input of pre-existing seed models. Model content is added and changed as a
result of the creativity activities. For example, a free writing exercise may elicit an
interesting new scenario, captured as a new use case, with a corresponding textual
description, bringing to light new goals and goal connections for addition to the goal
model, and may be later selected for exploration in a visual storyboard. Although
users are encouraged to capture their ideas using model constructs, they can be
allowed to quickly capture ideas using digital post-it notes added to the models, with
encouragement to incorporate these ideas into the model proper when possible.</p>
        <p>After an iterative process of creative activities and modeling, resulting model
content can be processed automatically to form candidate textual requirements or
structured Software Requirement Specifications (SRS), feeding into downstream
development.
3.2</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Creativity and Model Analysis</title>
        <p>As an example of a back-edge (right to left) in Fig. 2, we illustrate how the structured
knowledge captured in goal models can facilitate further creativity. On the left of Fig.
1, we see an example of applying creativity triggers (in green) to a particular softgoal.
In this case, considering the convenience trigger in regards to
“Support-human-tohuman communication” provokes a new idea which results in a new softgoal,
“Support distributed communication”. Constraint analysis can be captured via the addition
and removal of domain assumptions (rectangles). Scoping activities can be explored
by including or excluding certain actors or responsibilities (tasks). Combinatorial
creativity can be facilitated by suggesting new combinations between actors or
elements, for example, what if the APSODLE actor depended on the Knowledge Owner
instead of the Knowledge Worker? Finally, analysis as described in Sec. 2.2 can be
applied to evaluate creative ideas as captured in the model (a bottom-left activity of
Fig. 2). Future work will explore more possibilities, including effective tool support.
3.3</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>Exploratory Study: Creativity and Goal Modeling</title>
        <p>We have performed an initial, exploratory study in order to understand potential
synergies between creativity techniques and conceptual modelling for RE. As experience
has been recorded with models such as use cases and context diagrams, we focused
this study on the use of goal models – new to creativity. Although our study was
exploratory in nature, we were guided by several questions, including: a) Should goal
modeling be performed before or after creativity techniques? b) Can goal models
effectively capture creative ideas? c) Does the structure of the models impede creative
thought?</p>
        <p>In order to begin exploring the space, we have performed nine one-hour sessions
with small groups of 1-4 students, primarily graduate students, all of whom have
some coursework experience with goal (i*) models. Sessions involved a total of 23
participants, studying a range of Information System-related topics, including
Business Analysis and Design, Software Engineering, Information and Technology,
Business Systems, and Business Computing.</p>
        <p>In the sessions, student were given a toy scenario, then were asked to sketch a goal
model and come up with creative ideas guided by selected creativity triggers. Five
groups performed goal modeling then creative thinking, while the other four groups
did the reverse. Participants reflected on the process via a short survey, including the
ordering of activities and potential synergies between modeling and creative thought.</p>
        <p>Results indicate that goal modeling was generally better received before creative
thinking – performing a creative activity straight off, without the shared domain
exploration provided by modeling, was often difficult. However, results for this question
were strongly influenced by the ordering of the activities in the study. Almost all
participants indicated that if they had to do the activity again, they would perform both
creativity and goal modeling; there was a general agreement that these activities work
well together. Participants were often able to express their creative ideas in terms of
the model, e.g., adding new actors or softgoals. However, due to the limited time
allotted for the experiment, most groups did not have time to actually make these
changes. Goal modeling did not appear to over-constrain creative thought, but gave
group members a common understand by which to ground their ideas.</p>
        <p>These results lead us to believe that these activities should be intertwined, as is
shown to some degree by the left-right arrows in Fig. 2, perhaps starting with some
modeling to support shared understanding, then moving into rounds of creativity
techniques, with outputs incorporated back into the model(s). We will use the insights
gained as part of this study to help shape our tooling.
4</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusions and Future Work</title>
      <p>We have provided an overview of a project aiming to enhance creativity techniques as
applied to RE using tooling with a conceptual modeling foundation. Developed tools
should be, as much as possible, online and distributed, helping to avoid costly,
inperson workshops. We aim to make creative RE elicitation more accessible while
taking advantage of existing work facilitating RE analysis. Obviously, plans are in an
early stage and much conceptual and implementation work must be done. Future
plans include application of the resulting ideas and toolset to industrial examples.</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Acknowledgments</title>
        <p>This work is supported by an ERC Marie Skodowska-Curie Intra European
Fellowship (PIEF-GA-2013-627489) and by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship (Sept. 2014 - Aug. 2016).</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Maiden</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Jones</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Karlsen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Neill</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Zachos</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Milne</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Requirements engineering as creative problem solving: A research agenda for idea finding</article-title>
          ,
          <source>” in 18th IEEE Int. Requirements Engineering Conference (RE10)</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>57</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>66</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Nguyen</surname>
          </string-name>
          and G. Shanks, “
          <article-title>A framework for understanding creativity in requirements engineering</article-title>
          ,
          <source>” Information and Software Technology</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>51</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>3</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>655</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>662</lpage>
          , Mar.
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Mahaux</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Mavin</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Heymans</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Choose your creativity: Why and how creativity in requirements engineering means different things to different people,” in Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ12)</article-title>
          ,
          <source>LNCS 7195</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>101</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>116</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Mahaux</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Gotel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Mavin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Nguyen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Mich</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Schmid</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Collaborative creativity in requirements engineering: Analysis and practical advice,”</article-title>
          <source>in IEEE Seventh Int. Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS13)</source>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>10</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Maiden</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Gizikis</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Robertson</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Provoking creativity: imagine what your requirements could be like</article-title>
          ,” Software,
          <string-name>
            <surname>IEEE</surname>
          </string-name>
          , vol.
          <volume>21</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>5</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>68</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>75</lpage>
          , Sep.
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Bhowmik</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Niu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Mahmoud</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Savolainen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Automated support for combinational creativity in requirements engineering</article-title>
          ,”
          <source>in IEEE 22nd Int. Requirements Engineering Conference (RE14)</source>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>243</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>252</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Horkoff</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Interactive goal model analysis for early requirements engineering</article-title>
          ,” Requirements Engineering, pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>33</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boden</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>The Creative Mind. London: Abacus</source>
          ,
          <year>1990</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9. E. Yu, “
          <article-title>Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering</article-title>
          ,” in
          <source>3rd IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering. IEEE</source>
          ,
          <year>1997</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>226</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>235</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>