<!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>The Role of Goals in Design Reasoning</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of Twente, Department of Computer Science, Information Systems Group P.</institution>
          <addr-line>O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NL">The Netherlands</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2013</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>978</volume>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Designers reason from real or imagined stakeholder goals about a problem
context, to desired properties of artifacts that should contribute to these goals in
this context. The general pattern of reasoning is the same in software engineering,
information systems and industrial product design: Given stakeholder goals G
and assumptions about a context C, nd artifact requirements R such that
C R ) G. Design reasoning is creative, as goals are usually not given
readymade to designers, the problem context is often partly unknown, assumptions
about it are usually incomplete, and the artifact does not exist yet. Increased
understanding of one of the three components (goals, context, artifact) changes
the designer's understanding of the other two. This is not a stepwise re nement
process but a non-monotonic process in which earlier beliefs may have to be
retracted. The result, the contribution argument C R ) G, is defeasible (it
may turn out to be wrong).</p>
      <p>After an analysis of design reasoning, I will zoom in on the role of goals
in this kind of reasoning. I will de ne goals as stakeholder desires for which
the stakeholder has committed resources (time and money) to achieve them.
Stakeholders have di erent levels of goal awareness, ranging from unaware to
actively pursuing the goal. Goals change, and in particular they can change by
introduction of an artifact. Pursuing a goal entails having a problem theory that
provides explanations, right or wrong, of the current state of the world, and
predictions, right or wrong, about the future evolution of the world, and about
the impact of di erent possible events on goal achievement.</p>
      <p>I will end the talk by discussing implications for goal-oriented requirements
speci cation languages such as i* at two levels. At one level, my analysis has
implication about what aspects of goal-oriented design reasoning can be
represented in a goal-oriented language. At another level, my analysis can be used to
assess the role of i* as artifact used in a requirements context to contribute to
goals of requirements engineers.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list />
  </back>
</article>