Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that programs are models of implementations, one may also argue that the main challenge of software engineering is to translate requirements into models. But, contrary to programs, nothing can be assumed about requirements apart from being stories told by whoever will need system support for his business process.
- While stakeholders and users may express their requirements using their own dialects, supporting applications will have to be developed under the same roof. Hence the need of some lingua franca to communicate with their builders.
- A shared language doesn’t necessary mean common understandings; as requirements usually reflect local and time dependent business opportunities and goals, they may relate to different, if not conflicting, aspects of contexts and concerns that will have to be consolidated, eventually.
From such viewpoints, the alignment of system models to business stories clearly depends on languages and narratives discrepancies.
Business to System Analyst: Your language or mine ?
Stories must be told before being written into models, and that distinction coincides with the one between spoken and written languages or, on a broader perspective, between direct (aka performed) and documented communication.
Direct communication (by voice, signs, or mime) is set by time and location and must convey contexts and concerns instantly; that’s what happens when requirements are first expressed by business analysts with regard to actual and specific goals.
Written languages and documented communication introduces a mediation, enabling stories to be detached from their native here and now; that’s what happens with requirements when managed independently of their original contexts and concerns.
The mediation introduced by documented requirements can support two different objectives:
- Elicitation: while direct communication calls for instant understanding through a common language, spoken or otherwise, written communication makes room for translation and clarification. As illustrated by Kanji characters, a single written language can support different spoken ones; that would open a communication channel between business and system analysts.
- Analysis: since understanding doesn’t mean agreement, mediation is often necessary in order to conciliate, arbitrate or consolidate requirements; for that purpose symbolic representations have to be introduced.
Depending on (1) the languages used to tell the stories and (2) the gamut of concerns behind them, the path from stories to models may be covered in a single step or will have to mark the two steps.
Context and Characters
Direct communication is rooted in actual contexts and points to identified agents, objects or phenomena. Telling a story will therefore begin by introducing characters and objects supposed to retain their identity all along; characters will also be imparted with behavioral capabilities and the concerns supposed to guide them.
With regard to business, stories should therefore be introduced by a role, an activity, and a goal.
- Every story is supposed be told from a specific point of view within the organization. That should be materialized by a leading role; and even if other participants are involved, the narrative should reflect this leading view.
- If a story is to provide a one-lane bridge between past and future business practices, it must focus on a single activity whose contents can be initially overlooked.
- Goals are meant to set specific stories within a broader enterprise perspective.
After being anchored to roles and goals, activities will have to be set within boundaries.
Casings and Splits
Once introduced between roles (Who) and goals (Why), activities (What) must be circumscribed with regard to actions (How), places (Where) and timing (When). For that purpose the best approach is to use Aristotle’s three unities for drama:
- Unity of action: story units must have one main thread of action introduced at the beginning. Subplots, if any, must return to the main plot after completion.
- Unity of place: story units must be located into a single physical space where all activities can be carried out without depending on the outcome of activities performed elsewhere.
- Unity of time: story units must be governed by a single clock under which all happenings can be organized sequentially.
Stories, especially when expressed vocally, should remain short and, if they have to be divided, splits should not cross units boundaries:
- Action: splits are made to coincide with variants set by agents’ decisions or business rules.
- Place: splits are made to coincide with variants in physical contexts.
- Time: splits are made to coincide with variants in execution constraints.
When stories refer to systems, those constraints should become more specific and coincide with interaction units triggered by a single event from a leading actor.
Filling the blanks
If business contexts, objectives, and roles can be identified with straightforward semantics set at corporate level, meanings become more complex when stories are to be fleshed out with details defined by the different business units. That difficulty can be managed through iterative development that will add specifics to stories within the casing invariants:
- Each story is developed within a single iteration whose invariants are defined by its action, place, and time-scale.
- Development proceed by increments whose semantics are defined within the scope set by invariants: operations relative to activities, features relative to objects, events relative to time-scales.
A story is fully documented (i.e an iteration is completed) when no more details can be added without breaking the three units rule or affecting its characters (role and goal) or the semantics of features (attributes and operations).
From Documented Stories to Requirements
Stories must be written down before becoming requirements, further documented by text, model, or code:
- Text-based documentation uses natural language, usually with hypertext extensions. When analysts are not familiar with modeling languages it is the default option for elicitation and the delivery of comprehensive, unambiguous and consistent requirements.
- Models use dedicated languages targeting domains (specific) or systems (generic). They are a necessary option when requirements from different sources are to be consolidated before being developed into code.
- Code (aka execution model) use dedicated languages targeting execution environments. It is the option of choice when requirements are self-contained (i.e not contingent to external dependencies) and expressed with formal languages supporting automated translation.
Whatever their form (user stories, use cases, hypertext, etc), documented requirements must come out as a list of detached items with clearly defined dependencies. Depending on dependencies, requirements can be directly translated into design (or implementation) models or will have to be first consolidated into analysis models.
Telling Models from Stories
Putting aside deployment, development models can be regrouped in two categories:
- Analysis models describe problems under scrutiny, the objective being to extract relevant aspects.
- Design models (including programs) describe solutions artifacts.
Seen from the perspective of requirements, the objective of models is therefore to organize the contents of business stories into relevant and useful information, in other words software engineering knowledge.
Following the principles set by Davis, Shrobe, and Szolovits for Knowledge Management (cf readings), such models should meet two groups of criteria, one with regard to communication, the other with regard to symbolic representation.
As already noted, models are introduced to support communication across organizational structures or intervals of time. That includes communication between business and systems analysts as well as development tools. Those aspects are supposed to be supported by development environments.
As for model contents, the ultimate objective is to describe the symbolic representations of the business objects and processes targeted by requirements:
- Surrogates: models must describe the symbolic counterparts of actual objects, events and relationships.
- Ontological commitments: models must provide sets of statements about the categories of things that may exist in the domain under consideration.
- Fragmentary theory of intelligent reasoning: models must define what artifacts can do or can be done with.
The main challenge of analysis is therefore to map the space between requirements (concrete stories) and models (symbolic representations), and for that purpose traditional storytelling may offer some useful cues.
From Fictions to Functions
Just like storytellers use cliches and figures of speech to attach symbolic meanings to stories, analysts may use patterns to anchor business stories to systems models.
Cliches are mental constructs with meanings set in collective memory. With regard to requirements, the equivalent would be to anchor activities to primitives operations (e.g CRUD), and roles to functional stereotypes.
While the role of cliches is to introduce basic items, figures of speech are used to extend and enrich their meanings through analogy or metonymy:
- Analogy is used to identify features or behaviors shared by different stories. That will help to consolidate the description of business objects and activities and points to generalizations.
- Metonymy is applied when meanings are set by context. That points to aggregate or composite objects or activities.
Primitives, stereotypes, generalization and composition can be employed to map requirements to functional patterns. Those will provide the building blocks of models and help to bridge the gap between business processes and system functionalities.