=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2075/PT-paper-6
|storemode=property
|title=PACAS: A Gamified Platform for Participatory Change Management in ATM Systems
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2075/PT_paper_6.pdf
|volume=Vol-2075
|authors=Elda Paja,Mauro Poggianella,Fatma Başak Aydemir,Paolo Giorgini
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/refsq/PajaPAG18
}}
==PACAS: A Gamified Platform for Participatory Change Management in ATM Systems==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2075/PT_paper_6.pdf
PACAS: A Gamified Platform for Participatory
Change Management in ATM Systems
Elda Paja1 , Mauro Poggianella1 , Fatma Başak Aydemir2 , and Paolo Giorgini1
1
University of Trento, Italy,
elda.paja@unitn.it,
http://disi.unitn.it/~paja/
2
Utrecht University, The Netherlands,
f.b.aydemir@uu.nl
Abstract. In this paper, we report on the development of a web-
based platform for Participatory Architectural Change Management in
Air Traffic Management Systems (ATM) as part of the SESAR H2020
project PACAS. The platform is the result of an iterative requirements
engineering process that actively involves ATM domain experts, starting
from stakeholder analysis, to requirements elicitation, scenario definition,
and validation.
Key words: Requirements Engineering, Gamification, Automated Rea-
soning, Air Traffic Management.
1 Introduction
Most of today’s software systems are part of larger complex systems, that include
not only technical components, but also humans and organizations. These larger
systems are otherwise known as socio-technical systems [10] and they stand at
the core of how people work and collaborate with others while using the technical
systems to get things done. Examples include healthcare systems, e-commerce
sites, and air traffic management to mention a few.
Change is inevitable, and socio-technical systems make no exception to the
rule. Therefore, they are continuously evolving due to various possible changes:
(i) system and subsystems changes, (ii) organizational and domain changes, (iii)
normative and regulatory changes, and/or (iii) assets changes. Any of these
changes may affect the ability of the socio-technical system to satisfy its intended
requirements and function well.
Dealing with change is an important activity in order to understand the im-
plications of change, how it affects the rest of the system, whether it introduces
new requirements, and so on. In order to build a Change Management Platform,
which will facilitate understanding, modeling and analyzing changes at different
layers of abstraction, it is important to have the active participation of domain
Copyright 2018 for this paper by its authors. Copying permitted for private and
academic purposes.
2 Elda Paja et al.
experts who can analyze the impact of change from different perspectives. Most
importantly, this should be done in an iterative fashion in reingineering an al-
ready running system, so that new requirements dictated by a given change issue
do not conflict with existing ones or cause problems on the rest of the system.
In this paper, we report on the development of a web-based platform for Par-
ticipatory Architectural Change MAnagement which is triggered by a real case
concerning the evolution of Air Traffic Management (ATM) Systems as part of
the SESAR H2020 project PACAS 1 . Given that decision-making involves the
consideration of more high-level objectives, such as safety, performance, eco-
nomic efficiency, etc., the change management process should involve multiple
ATM domain stakeholders, one for each given objective, in order to explore a
vast space of alternatives and agreeing on optimal solutions. It becomes, thus,
crucial the active participation of stakeholders. Indeed, in ATM different experts
from different companies across Europe collaborate to design the future Euro-
pean ATM which is intended to improve safety, while cutting down costs and
environmental impacts. However, given the variety of experts, their different ar-
eas of expertise, as well as their geographical distribution, participatory change
management requires user engagement and tools to support and facilitate the
work of experts along their interaction. To address the first concern, in recent
years, gamification is broadly used as a tool to engage participation with the
help of game elements, such as leader-boards or challenges between users. On
the other hand, a multi-perspective, model-based approach provides important
benefits in that: (i) it allows analyzing individual perspectives without the need
of a holistic representation; (ii) it handles complexity through automated rea-
soning techniques in a transparent way to find optimal solutions as a trade-off
among different objectives.
Therefore, the platform we present is a gamified one, and relies on the work
of experts that capture the implications of change with the help of a multi-view
modelling environment, which supports four default languages to allows the anal-
ysis of these four perspectives: safety, security, economic and organizational. The
collaboration of experts and decision-making, on the other hand, are supported
by automated reasoning techniques within each model and across models with
the help of natural language processing.
The paper is structured as follows. We briefly describe the PACAS project in
Section 2, while in Section 3 we describe the change management process, while
Section 4 presents the platform. Section 5 discusses related work and concludes.
2 PACAS
Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems are complex systems of systems. Par-
ticipatory Architectural Change MAnagement in ATM Systems (PACAS) is a
Horizon 2020 project in the framework of the SESAR Research and Innovation
Action (RIA). The main objective is to better understand, model and analyze
1
http://www.pacasproject.eu/
Requirements for Participatory Change Management 3
changes at different layers of the Air Traffic Management (ATM) system to sup-
port change management, while capturing how architectural and design choices
influence the overall system. Understanding all possible consequences of a design
decision in an ATM system is a challenge due to the complexity of ATM sys-
tems and the existence of tight interdependencies within the ATM architecture.
Knowing the implications of change(s) over the whole system is crucial to sup-
port decision-making, while making sure that the ATM system does not suffer
from any issues with respect to functionality, safety, security, performance, cost
efficiency, or other desired characteristics of a well-functioning ATM system. The
project aims at developing an innovative participatory change management pro-
cess wherein heterogeneous stakeholders actively participate in the architectural
evolution of the ATM system.
We provide an overview of the participatory change management process,
emphasizing the importance of active stakeholder participation. We describe
the two main support tools, i.e. gamification for stakeholder engagement, and
automated reasoning techniques for handling complexity.
During the demo, we will introduce the PACAS approach, expressly created
for architectural change management in ATM systems, and we briefly describe an
ATM example case study dealing with the Sectorless change issue, and conclude
with a demo of the framework.
In dealing with change, we use the following terminology:
– Change Issue: refers to a planned change under evaluation. For instance,
Sectorless is an ongoing change in ATM that considers moving to a sectorless
approach ATM is a novel way to tackle air traffic management in upper
airspace without conventional sectors that has already been proved feasible.
This change is expected to improve performance and organizational aspects,
with significant increase in capacity and controller efficiency, although safety
and security issues require more investigation.
– Decision point - we analyze a given change issue splitting it into several deci-
sion points. For instance, in Sectorless there are several questions one needs
to answer, such as How many aircrafts should be assigned to each air traffic
controller (ATC)?, or What criteria should be used to assign an aircraft to
a controller?, and so on. The first question is captured by the decision point
Number of flights per ATC as opposed to the existing Handover of aircrafts.
– Solution - within each decision point, we analyze different options, aka solu-
tions. In Sectorless, automatic assignment is envisioned.
– View - each solution is analyzed from a given expert perspective, aka view.
In PACAS we support these four views: safety, organizational, security and
economic.
– Contribution - in order to assess how well a given solution fares with respect
to already set objectives, we capture how a solution contributes to overall
validation targets laid down by Eurocontrol and SESAR. Example validation
targets include Increased safety and Triple capacity.
– Model - For each view, we support default modeling notations to allow ex-
perts to represent but also analyze a given solution from their perspective,
4 Elda Paja et al.
alongside the possibility to upload files should different languages or nota-
tions be used by the experts. The default languages in PACAS are: Fault
Tree [5] for safety, STS-ml [2] for security, BIM [4] for the organizational,
and an income statement (costs/revenues) for the economic view.
3 The Change Management Process
The change management of complex systems, such as ATM systems, cannot be
handled by a single person. For each change issue, i.e., for each planned change
to be done in an ATM system from the implementation of a single component in
the cocKPIt to a new way of managing traffic in the airspace, teams of experts
need to collaborate in order to specify the best modifications of the system.
As such, we support the interaction of these main types of users, namely
experts, team leaders, builders, company representatives and a game master.
The Game Master has the power to start a change issue, i.e., ask different
companies to study how to apply the change and propose the best modifications
(solutions). The Company Representatives serve as contact points in the various
companies involved in the analysis of a change issue. Thus, they deal with the
creation of teams. In PACAS teams are created per area of expertise (view).
Fig. 1: The Pacas process for change management
Team Leaders will choose the best modification(s) of the ATM system for a
change issue. They will study the diagrams/models developed or adopted by the
Experts, who represent domain experts that know at least one of the modeling
languages used to specify and analyze changes and their implications. Team
leaders interact with experts, and decide which solution provided by Builders (see
below) is the best for the change issue. Similarly to Experts, they are experienced
Requirements for Participatory Change Management 5
in at least one of the perspectives supported by the PACAS web platform, and
have a good knowledge on the part of the ATM system involved in the change
issue. Thus, a Team Leader could be an expert too. Finally, Builders are not
only domain experts, but have also a wide knowledge of the overall system. They
specify the solutions that are to be analyzed by Team Leaders and Experts.
They all interact following the process in Fig. 1 to make a decision.
4 The PACAS Platform
The novelty of the PACAS platform (Fig. 2) relies on these three main pillars:
Fig. 2: PACAS gamification, multi-view modelling, and automated reasoning
Gamification. In order to drive collaboration and keep users engaged,
PACAS makes use of psychological and social drivers for interaction [7]. In de-
signing the gamification solution for PACAS, we have performed stakeholder
characterization in better understanding the motivations of the PACAS end
users. Additionally, we have performed a deep study of the context, in order to
understand the ATM change management process, and most importantly the
roles involved, their tasks, goals, social structure and the nature of good be-
ing produced following the MAF framework [8]. From our analysis as well as
through interviews, workshops and questionnaires filled out by ATM domain
stakeholders, we have identified a number of requirements for the PACAS gam-
ification solution, including Coverage of all aspects supported in PACAS, Col-
laboration, Participation, Stakeholder identification, and Communication, among
others. At the same time, we have identified two important anti-requirements,
namely Competition, which can lead to conflicts among participants obstruct-
ing collaboration, and Time pressure, which can lead to rushing work and poor
6 Elda Paja et al.
quality to meet deadlines. As a result the PACAS gamification solutions builds
around three paths, that, while orchestrating the other gamification elements,
foster user progression along the three paths reaching different levels while us-
ing the platform. Specifically, we have defined mechanisms of challenges among
different roles, at the completion of which and after reciprocal evaluation they
gain badges to further progress. A smart avatar is used to display messages and
suggestions to users, providing timely information at all times. Finally, we sup-
port gamified tutorials for users to follow and improve their level of knowledge
and expertise regarding the PACAS platform.
Multi-view modeling . Integration of the refined modeling notations and an
automatically generated shared model for decision-making, in which contribution
links from solutions to validation targets are drawn taking into account the result
of the automated reasoning on multi-criteria decision analysis. The platform is
modular, in the sense that new modeling environments can be integrated to
support experts using different languages in representing and further analysing
aspects related to their area of expertise.
Automated reasoning techniques. PACAS supports local reasoning tech-
niques for the security view, namely well-formedness, security and threat analysis
for STS-ml [6]. In addition, to aid decision-making, the platform integrates two
reasoning services: (i) intelligent cross-view alignment (ICVA) [1], which with
the help of NLP provides suggestions to experts in verifying whether changes in
one view impact other models and views, and (ii) multi-criteria decision-making
analysis (MCDA), which allows identifying first the best solutions per valida-
tion target to then propose the best overall solution, which is a trade-off among
various aspects, in order to support making an informed decision.
5 Conclusions
In this paper we have reported on a gamified collaborative platform for partici-
patory change management in ATM system. The resulting platform is the result
of the end-to-end inclusion of ATM domain stakeholders, who have actively
participated starting from early requirements the final release of the platform,
through a number of iterations where we have presented mockups and performed
prototype validations.
As far as our knowledge goes, there is little work that reports on such gamified
platform, the creation of which involves stakeholders active participation. RE-
fine (Snijders et al. [9]) is a gamified online platform for requirements elicitation
and refinement by involving a crowd of stakeholders: users, developers, analysts,
etc. Similarly to our approach, this is tailored to promote the long-term, sus-
tainable collaboration among stakeholders. However, while REfine is specifically
thought for requirements engineering for software products, the PACAS platform
is concerned with supporting change management in large-scale socio-technical
systems. Helms et al. [3], on the other hand, explore how class or computer-based
trainings can be (re)designed using gamification to increase student engagement
and motivation. They propose a method for the design of gamified training for
Requirements for Participatory Change Management 7
Dutsch railways. The method is based on design science research, and extends
the instructional design model ADDIE and uses a database of educational game
elements to select the latter. The PACAS gamified solution on the other hand is
based on goal models created in the context of the AGON [7] framework while
capturing acceptance and gamification knowledge.
In developing the PACAS platform we have faced several challenges, such as
the need for vast amount of domain specific knowledge to tailor a customized
platform for the ATM domain, identifying the right domain stakeholders, ter-
minology alignment, and last but not least characterizing stakeholders for the
gamification solution starting from a small representative set.
Future work considers the application of the PACAS platform in other do-
mains and scenarios requiring collaborative decision-making among different
stakeholders, studying the impact of new solutions on the strategic layer con-
sidered by PACAS, considering not only economic, organizational, security, and
safety aspects, but also integrating new ones. Potential domains include health-
care where privacy issues need to be dealt with and supported by already running
systems, especially after the latest General Data Privacy Regulation 2 .
Acknowledgments. This project has received funding from the SESAR Joint
Undertaking under grant agreement No 699306 under European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme.
References
1. F. B. Aydemir and F. Dalpiaz. Towards aligning multi-concern models via nlp. In
25th RE Conference Workshops, pages 46–50. IEEE, 2017.
2. F. Dalpiaz, E. Paja, and P. Giorgini. Security Requirements Engineering: Designing
Secure Socio-Technical Systems. MIT Press, 2016.
3. Remko W Helms, Rick Barneveld, and Fabiano Dalpiaz. A method for the design
of gamified trainings. In PACIS, page 59, 2015.
4. J. Horkoff, D. Barone, L. Jiang, E. Yu, D. Amyot, A. Borgida, and J. Mylopoulos.
Strategic business modeling: representation and reasoning. SoSYM, 2014.
5. W.S. Lee, D. L Grosh, F. A Tillman, and C. H. Lie. Fault tree analysis, methods,
and applications ? a review. IEEE transactions on reliability, 34(3):194–203, 1985.
6. E. Paja, F. Dalpiaz, and P. Giorgini. Managing security requirements conflicts in
socio-technical systems. In ER, volume 8217 of LNCS, pages 270–283, 2013.
7. L. Piras, E. Paja, P. Giorgini, and J. Mylopoulos. Goal models for acceptance
requirements analysis and gamification design. In ER, pages 223–230, 2017.
8. E. Simperl, R. Cuel, and M. Stein. Incentive–Centric Semantic Web Application
Engineering. Semantic Web Journal, 2013.
9. R. Snijders, F. Dalpiaz, S. Brinkkemper, M. Hosseini, R. Ali, and A. Ozum. Refine:
A gamified platform for participatory requirements engineering. In CrowdRE,
pages 1–6. IEEE, 2015.
10. I. Sommerville, D. Cliff, R. Calinescu, J. Keen, T. Kelly, M. Kwiatkowska, J. Mc-
dermid, and R. Paige. Large-scale complex IT systems. 55(7):71–77, 2012.
2
https://www.eugdpr.org/