TELKOM
NIKA
, Vol.14, No
.2, June 20
16
, pp. 784~7
9
0
ISSN: 1693-6
930,
accredited
A
by DIKTI, De
cree No: 58/DIK
T
I/Kep/2013
DOI
:
10.12928/TELKOMNIKA.v14i1.3333
784
Re
cei
v
ed
Jan
uary 5, 2016;
Re
vised
Ma
y 16, 2016; Accepted Ma
y 28
, 2016
Hierarchical
i
* Modeling in Requirement Engineering
Kridanto Surendro*, Cicely
Martini
Schoo
l of Elect
r
ical En
gin
eeri
ng & Info
rmatic
s
, Bandun
g Ins
t
itute of
T
e
chnolo
g
y
,
Jl. Ganesa 1
0
Band
un
g, Indo
nesi
a
*Corres
p
o
ndi
n
g
author, e-ma
i
l
: endro
@
infor
m
atika.org
A
b
st
r
a
ct
Req
u
ire
m
ent e
ngi
neer
in
g is fi
rst phase
of in
fo
rmati
on syst
em
dev
elo
p
m
e
n
t process. Thi
s
phas
e
ai
ms to fully o
b
serve a
nd d
e
fine the n
e
e
d
s of system
an
d users. In this phase,
the defi
n
ed ne
eds w
ill
be
formu
l
ate
d
int
o
a for
m
that c
an si
mplify the
ana
l
ysis pr
oc
ess. Req
u
ire
m
ent en
gi
neer
in
g ap
pro
a
ch w
i
t
h
intenti
o
n
a
l pers
pective is o
ne
of ar
gu
me
nt which is co
mi
ng
to surface in
re
quir
e
ment en
gi
neer
ing top
i
cs. In
intenti
o
n
a
l
mo
d
e
lin
g, the
focus
w
ill b
e
p
o
inte
d
on th
e
moti
v
e
of actors, h
o
w
they fulfi
ll
every
nee
d, a
nd w
h
at
are d
e
p
end
en
cies a
l
on
g th
e
i
r success sto
r
ies. So
me
ex
isting inte
ntion
a
l mo
del
lin
gs still
stan
d
u
n
d
e
r
li
mitatio
n
s. F
o
r
exa
m
p
l
e, this
mo
de
lli
ng
ap
pr
oach
has
co
mp
lexity
prob
le
m
w
hen it
is us
ed
to re
al
big
cas
e
s.
Moreov
er, the li
mitatio
n
is p
o
i
n
ted o
n
how
to descri
be
hier
archic
al co
nditi
ons int
o
the i
n
tention
a
l
mo
de
l.
T
h
is researc
h
is focused on t
he i
m
prov
e
m
e
n
t of existi
ng i
n
tentio
na
l mo
d
e
lli
ng to ha
nd
l
e
the li
mitati
on
s in
descri
b
in
g the
hier
archic
al co
nditi
ons.
Ke
y
w
ords
: Re
quir
e
ment En
gi
neer
ing, Goa
l
base
d
w
o
rkflow
, i* hierarchy,
intentio
na
l mo
deli
n
g
Copy
right
©
2016 Un
ive
r
sita
s Ah
mad
Dah
l
an
. All rig
h
t
s r
ese
rved
.
1. Introduc
tion
Req
u
ire
m
ent
engi
nee
ring
app
roa
c
h
t
h
rou
gh i
n
ten
t
ional p
e
rspe
ctive is on
e
of the
argu
ment
s th
at appe
ar i
n
requi
rem
ent
engin
eeri
ng t
opics. Th
e a
r
gument
say
s
that wh
en
we
need to d
e
fin
e
system
req
u
irem
ent, we
also n
eed to
examine a
n
d
unde
rstand
the relatio
n
ship
among
soci
al
acto
rs in
do
main [1]. Th
e
focu
s i
n
Req
u
irem
ent Eng
i
neeri
ng i
s
no
long
er fo
cu
sed
on und
erstan
ding of syste
m
s’ beh
avio
r,
but it is more about ho
w t
he syste
m
he
lps soci
al act
o
rs
to improve relation
ship
a
m
ong th
em i
n
their o
r
ga
n
i
zation. Inte
n
t
ional mo
deli
ng fo
cu
s o
n
the
desi
r
e
of eve
r
y a
c
tor, h
o
w ea
ch
acto
r
can
a
c
hieve
their
d
e
si
re
s and dep
ende
ncie
s anythin
g
contai
ned in t
he effort to achieve its aspirations.
The relation
ship am
ong
social
acto
rs i
n
the d
o
main
cau
s
e
s
inte
ntionality that can
b
e
descri
bed by
using th
e G
oal Ori
ented
Req
u
ir
e
m
ent
Enginee
ring
(GORE
)
app
roach [2]. GORE
introdu
ce
s th
e und
erstand
ing that orga
nizatio
n
an
d
the acto
rs as the so
urce
of requi
rem
e
nt.
GORE ap
pro
a
ch mo
del
s goal becau
se the goal is th
e rea
s
on of why do som
e
actors have a
n
intentionality, which will di
rectly
becam
e
the candidate of the
system requi
rem
ents. Generally,
GORE
app
ro
ach
involve
s
the un
dersta
nding
of
why
is
a
system
function
is re
quire
d, an
d h
o
w
the system fu
nction
s can b
e
impleme
n
te
d.
There are so
me intention
a
l modeli
ng that
use GO
RE
app
roa
c
h
.
Those are obje
c
tiv
e
modelin
g, Go
al Based
Workflow, KAOS
model a
nd
i
*
[3, 4]. The re
quire
ment e
n
g
inee
ring i
ssue
s
are ab
out co
mplexity, ease of performi
ng hierar
chy rep
r
e
s
entatio
n, and easi
n
e
ss of pe
rform
i
n
g
rep
r
e
s
entatio
n activities co
ncu
r
ently. Those mo
del
s
are failed wh
e
n
they are rel
a
ted to hiera
r
chy
and o
r
ga
niza
tion whi
c
h
a
dopts
dele
g
a
t
ion co
ncept. It drives the
need
of a
simple hie
r
a
r
chy
rep
r
e
s
entatio
n whi
c
h rep
r
esents
co
op
eration
withi
n
org
ani
zatio
n
. In orde
r to handle th
is
hiera
r
chi
c
al probl
em,
a
prop
osed
i
n
tentional
mo
deling
is de
veloped. It
puts
hie
r
archy
rep
r
e
s
entatio
n and del
egat
ion insi
de the
intentional m
odelin
g.
2. Rese
arch
Model
The rep
r
e
s
e
n
t
ation
of re
search
challen
ge
can
b
e
seen th
ro
ugh
Figure 1.
It shows
a
merg
er of m
odelin
g inte
ntional
Goal
B
a
se
d
Wo
rkflo
w
, KAOS a
n
d
i
*.
Me
rg
ed model
s whi
c
h
is
combi
ned
wit
h
mod
e
l hie
r
a
r
chy
and
dele
gation m
odel
will con
s
tru
c
t
a ne
w m
odel
of
i
* hie
r
arch
y.
These mod
e
l will be teste
d
using F
a
ilu
re mod
e
and
effects analy
s
is (FMEA). An FMEA is the
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
1693-6
930
Hierarchi
c
al i
*
Modelin
g in Req
u
ir
em
ent Enginee
ring (Kridanto
Su
re
ndro
)
785
first step of a system reli
ability study. It involv
es revi
ewing as many
components, assemblies,
and sub
s
yste
ms a
s
po
ssibl
e to [5].
Figure 1. Mind Map of Re
search
i
* Hi
era
r
chy [6]
3. Proposed
Model
Req
u
ire
m
ent
s a
r
e often
defined
un
cl
early. Fo
r ex
ample: "
I ne
ed a
system
that can
im
prove the
efficien
cy of
m
y
departm
e
n
t
". Finally the expressio
n
of req
u
ire
m
ent ha
s to
be
broken
down
in detail. Thi
s
activity result
will be
used
as the
base to build the
sy
stem. Thus,
we
begin to
re
cogni
ze the
expre
ssi
on l
e
vels of
th
e
req
u
ire
m
ent
. It starts from findin
g
the
requi
rem
ent expre
ssi
on of
stake
hold
e
rs. After t
hat,
we have to d
i
scover p
o
ten
t
ial and suita
b
le
solutio
n
. By usi
ng th
e
multiple laye
rs of
requi
rements exp
r
ession,
we
need
to tra
c
e
requi
rem
ents
in orde
r to tra
c
e do
wn the relation
ship b
e
twee
n the re
quire
ment
s of each laye
r [7].
There are several vari
ations
of
i
* framework [8]. Unfortunatel
y, there is
still an
incom
p
lete
el
ement from d
e
finition of in
heritan
ce
con
c
ept. Th
ere a
r
e
seve
ral
stu
d
ies whi
c
h
u
s
e
inherita
n
ce, b
u
t those
studi
es a
r
e not
cle
a
rly ment
ioni
ng this
con
c
e
p
t or providin
g guideli
n
e
s
for
its
us
e [9].
In the Multi-Stakehol
de
r
Distri
buted
System (MS
D
S) [10] in
which
ea
ch el
ement i
s
cre
a
ted, o
w
n
ed, an
d impl
e
m
ented
by in
dividual
stake
holde
rs, th
ere are limitatio
ns
of
i
* su
ch as
in defining ne
eds of diverse
stakehol
ders. The probl
e
m
rise
s when
MSDS mode
l need
s to use
the inhe
ritan
c
e in order to
cre
a
te hie
r
a
r
chy of a
c
tors [11]. In an o
r
gani
zatio
n
, the a
c
tor in
he
rits
the sam
e
org
anizational g
oal and they
must not
hav
e their o
w
n g
oal. Therefore, there will
be
guarantee fo
r healthy tea
m
wo
rk
witho
u
t comp
etition among
act
o
rs [1
2]. By having a well-
defined g
oal,
the acto
rs
ha
ve respon
sibil
i
ty to hel
p org
anization to reach the go
al
. By monitoring
the respon
sib
ility level of e
v
ery actor, th
e need
s can
be se
en. Ho
wever, the re
spo
n
si
bility can
be del
egate
d
by org
anizat
i
onal a
c
tors f
r
om hi
ghe
r l
a
yer to oth
e
r org
anization
al acto
rs in t
h
e
lowe
r hi
era
r
chy [13]. Once the o
r
ga
ni
zation
al st
ru
cture i
s
forme
d
, the go
al
can be
map
p
e
d
according to the hierarchy
of ac
tors who
have these g
oals [14].
3.1. Hierarch
ical i* Modeling
The b
a
se to
suppo
rt the
bu
sine
ss with
in
form
ation t
e
chnolo
g
y (IT)
usu
a
lly sta
r
ts from a
n
unde
rsta
ndin
g
of the sta
k
ehold
e
rs’ re
q
u
irem
ents.
IT
system
s a
r
e
often unabl
e
to respon
d the
busi
n
e
ss’
ne
eds be
ca
use
the la
ck un
de
rstan
d
i
ng.
Th
e un
derstan
d
i
ng o
n
requi
rements a
r
e j
u
st
viewed
from
some
sta
k
e
h
o
lder’
s
per
pe
ctive. The
use of the te
rm "
user
"
usu
a
lly dire
cts the
person
who
records requ
ireme
n
ts pe
rceive t
hat the need
s of all stakehold
e
rs h
a
ve be
en
recorded. In contra
ry, there
are still sta
k
e
holde
r’s
requi
reme
nt left and unre
c
o
r
d
e
d
[15].
One
ch
ara
c
te
ristic that
sho
u
ld b
e
seen
i
s
th
e
level of
orga
nization,
the op
eratio
n
a
l level
to the no
n-o
p
e
ration
al leve
l [15]. Re
quirements
of
so
me mod
e
ls o
n
ly captu
r
e th
e nee
ds of o
n
e
layer. This m
odel focu
s on
operatio
nal layer wh
i
c
h m
ean
s the acto
r is a system
operato
r
. As a
result, the n
eed
s of
stakehold
e
rs in t
he no
n-ope
rational laye
r su
ch
as he
ad of divi
sio
n
o
r
dire
ctors a
r
e
often not
re
corde
d
. Fo
r
an
example, a
s
we
can
see i
n
a
us
e-c
a
se
model
whi
c
h
i
s
clo
s
er to the
operational
si
de, ra
the
r
tha
n
the non-op
eration
a
l.
In describi
ng
the situation
of the organi
zation
and the
intentional u
s
e of social m
odelin
g,
h
i
e
r
arc
h
y
c
a
n b
e
for
m
ed
fro
m
e
v
er
y ac
to
r
w
h
o is in
v
o
lved. By structuri
ng th
e
hiera
r
chy, it
will
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 16
93-6
930
TELKOM
NIKA
Vol. 14, No. 2, June 20
16 : 784 – 79
0
786
result in the l
ogical structu
r
e of cla
s
sifying
and
org
a
n
i
zing the
de
scriptive rep
r
e
s
entatio
ns fro
m
the intentio
n
a
l an
d
so
cial
co
ndition
of
orga
nization
s. In a
hierarchical
st
ructu
r
e of a
c
to
rs, i
t
is
necessa
ry to descri
be som
e
layers of hi
era
r
chy as fol
l
ows:
1)
Layers of Directors
2)
Layer of Man
agers
3)
Layer of Adm
i
nistrato
rs
Layer
of Di
rectors i
s
a l
a
yer
whe
r
e
ther
e
a
r
e
act
o
rs who
hav
e bu
sin
e
ss
g
oals an
d
busi
n
ess pl
an to run the
company, as
well as the
st
rategies that
they will do to achi
eve these
goal
s. Actors in this layer
are not ne
ce
ssary to
be conne
cted to the syst
e
m
di
rectly, but they
have inte
re
st
s
whi
c
h
mee
t
the impl
em
entation
of
bu
s
i
ne
ss
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
in th
e ma
na
g
e
r
s
an
d
admini
s
trators layer, i
n
cludes th
e business processes that involv
e system. T
h
ese actors
will
get
highe
r ben
efit than the
functional ben
efits.
Layer of M
a
nage
rs i
s
a
layer whe
r
e
there
are
actors
wh
o ha
ve rule
s of
busi
n
e
s
s
pro
c
e
s
ses a
s
a con
c
rete
manifestatio
n
of the e
ffort
s to a
c
hi
eve
the bu
sine
ss go
als that
are
own
ed by the acto
r in the layer of directors. T
he
actors in thi
s
layer are
al
so the o
nes
wh
o
benefit from t
he pa
ssag
e o
f
a function
al
system
. In
ca
rrying
out its
role, ma
nag
e
r
own Bu
sine
ss
Rule
Model
whi
c
h
will inv
o
lve acto
rs from the laye
r
belo
w
them
whi
c
h m
ean
s the man
age
r will
enga
ge the a
d
minist
rators.
Actors in the
layer mana
g
e
r co
uld hav
e been di
re
ctly related to the
system, but their po
rtion i
s
not as mu
ch
as
the a
c
tors
in the layer of the administ
r
ator.
Layer of Ad
ministrator i
s
a layer in whi
c
h the a
c
tors op
erat
e system to
execute
comm
and, proce
s
s, and m
onitor the out
put of a proc
ess. In this layer, busin
ess rules b
e
com
e
more
spe
c
ific and the divi
si
on of rol
e
s o
c
curre
d
am
o
n
g
existing a
c
t
o
rs. A
c
tors in
this layer i
n
vest
the large
s
t a
m
ount of time to interact wi
th system.
Dele
gation i
s
a co
mmon t
a
sk i
n
the
org
a
n
izat
io
n. It ha
ppen
s b
e
cau
s
e of th
e presence of
certai
n po
sition in the org
anization. Every employ
ee
in an orga
ni
zation h
a
s a
certai
n po
sition in
orde
r to a
c
complish som
e
busi
n
e
ss f
unctio
n
s. Diff
erent p
o
sitio
n
s withi
n
an
orga
nization
al
hiera
r
chy hav
e different aut
onomy, deci
s
i
on maker, an
d respon
sibilit
ies [16].
By using the
form which
is contain
ed
in the hie
r
a
r
chy of an
organi
zation
,
t
hen
the
depe
nden
ce
on the to
p l
e
vel (e.g.
d
epen
den
cie
s
amon
g di
re
ctors) may
be del
egate
d
to
sub
o
rdi
nate
s
in the form
of task
or
goal.
In Fi
gure 2,
Actor1
dele
g
a
tes the ta
sks to a
c
tor2 who
acts a
s
subo
rdinate. Moreo
v
er, as we ca
n see in
figu
re 2, the D symbol refe
rs to
delegatio
n.
Figure 2. Del
egation
Relati
onship bet
we
en Actors in
Strategic
Dep
ende
ncy
The
acto
rs,
who
stand
at t
he b
o
ttom of
level, mu
st h
a
ve auth
o
ri
za
tion to
perfo
rm tasks,
and h
e
lp the
actors
wh
o st
and a
bove th
eir level
rea
c
h the go
als.
Authori
z
ation
is obtai
ned
by
usin
g d
e
legat
ion. The
u
s
e
of dele
gation
enabl
es or
ga
nizatio
n
to
cl
early di
scove
r
the
autho
ri
zed
actor to d
o
the task a
nd co
mmit to reach
the goal.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
1693-6
930
Hierarchi
c
al i
*
Modelin
g in Req
u
ir
em
ent Enginee
ring (Kridanto
Su
re
ndro
)
787
To simplify th
e modeli
ng, the Actor
1 is
perceived a
s
delegatio
n to acto
r2. Although i
n
daily life, the
dire
ctors hav
e
some m
ana
gers und
erne
ath them.
Whe
n
the
del
egation
of go
al and
task
a
r
e o
c
cu
red
at lowe
r level
s
of the hie
r
a
r
chy, we
can
create
subgo
al o
r
su
btask. The
s
e
sub
goal
and
subta
s
k a
r
e
assign
ed a
s
goal a
nd ta
sk for
lower level of hierarchy.
In modeli
ng
i
*, internal
pro
c
e
s
ses
amo
n
g
the a
c
tors
are
esta
blish
ed in the
form of goal,
task,
re
sou
r
ce, and
soft
goal. Thi
s
int
e
rnal
proces
s is de
scrib
e
d
in the St
ra
tegic
Ration
a
l
e.
There is a
se
quential p
r
o
c
ess in the Strategic
Ra
tion
ale. It is pre
s
ented a
s
mea
n
s-end
s lin
k, but
it is unable t
o
descri
be th
e seq
uen
ce
s
of
process which a
r
e pe
rf
orme
d by act
o
r
.
By using
and
applying the
prin
ciple of a
c
tivity in Goal Bas
ed Workflow on the task, each task de
comp
osit
ion
can
be
tran
sf
orme
d in
ord
e
r to
cla
r
ify the
seq
uential
ord
e
r in
i
*. F
i
gure
3
i
s
an example of
a
c
tor
whom
we na
me as a
Meeting Initiator
. As we can see at Figure 3, the left side rep
r
e
s
ent
s the
modelin
g whi
c
h i
s
usi
ng
i
*,
mean
while t
he rig
h
t part
use
s
the p
r
in
ciple of G
oal
-based workfl
ows
and KAOS. In goal-ba
s
ed
workflow a
p
p
roa
c
h the a
c
tivity of making the task i
s
an activity to
achi
eve certa
i
n goal
s,
whil
e KAOS defi
nes ta
sks
a
s
necessity. By usin
g b
o
th a
ppro
a
che
s
, the
requi
re
d tasks to rea
c
h the
goals
will be
well-structu
r
e
d
.
Figure 3. Co
mpari
s
o
n
bet
wee
n
Strategi
c Ratio
nale b
e
twee
n
i
* and
i
* with Goal Based
Wo
rkfl
ow
and KAOS ap
proa
ch
4. Case Stud
y
In this research, we use the process of se
lling items in as a case
study. Sales process
involves Sale
s, Inventory, and Fina
nce. Sales
de
p
a
rtment recei
v
es dema
n
d
s
of items from
cu
stome
r
s. In
carrying o
u
t the pro
c
e
s
s, the sal
e
s d
e
p
a
rtment
sho
u
l
d
colla
bo
rate
with Inventory
and Fina
nce.
A cu
stome
r
who
orders t
he item
s will
req
u
e
s
t the
sale
s
ord
e
r
to Sales
dep
artment.
Sales depart
m
ent will create
sales
order
item
s
whi
c
h are
requested by
customer. Afterwards,
cu
stome
r
’s o
r
der
will be ex
ecute
d
and
d
e
livered
by
the invento
r
y clerk. Th
en the order
will
be
forwa
r
d
ed to the finan
ce de
partme
n
t in orde
r to issue the payment i
nquiry.
4.1. Strate
gic Depe
nden
c
y
If we comp
are the hie
r
archy betwe
en Inventory
and Sales,
we ca
n see the
interde
pen
de
ncy an
d del
e
gation b
e
twe
en the
s
e two
depa
rtment
s. The Sale
s
Di
recto
r
d
e
leg
a
t
es
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 16
93-6
930
TELKOM
NIKA
Vol. 14, No. 2, June 20
16 : 784 – 79
0
788
goal “
sales
or
der
” and
task “
s
a
le
s or
d
e
r
in
pu
t cr
ea
tio
n
” to
the S
a
les M
ana
ge
r. Sales Ma
na
ge
r
deleg
ates g
o
a
l “
sal
e
s o
r
d
e
r
cr
eat
ion
” an
d task
“
list
s
inventory
sales
” t
o
sale
s ad
minist
r
a
t
o
r.
The Invento
r
y Dire
cto
r
del
e
gates
goal
“
in
vento
r
y creati
o
n
” a
nd ta
sk
“
shi
ppin
g
of item
s to
the bu
yer
” t
o
the Invent
ory Man
age
r. In
ventory manag
ers de
legate g
oal “
to put the sales
packa
ge to e
x
pe
dition
” to the Inventory admini
s
trato
r
.
By lookin
g at
Sales
and Inv
entory a
nd
co
nne
ctedn
ess betwe
en
invo
lved
acto
rs, we ca
n
clea
rly se
e e
a
ch fu
nctio
n
whi
c
h i
s
mu
st be existe
d fo
r ea
ch level
b
a
se
d on th
e h
i
era
r
chy in order
to do requi
re
ment engin
e
e
r
ing. The
cha
r
t hiera
r
chical
i
* can be see
n
as Figu
re 4.
Figure 4. Strategic Depe
nd
ency
bet
wee
n
Sales an
d Inventory
4.2. Strate
gic Ratio
n
ale
In the case
of item sales, Figure 5 illust
rate
s the
Strategic
Rat
i
onale for Fi
nan
cial
Administrator. Internal pro
c
e
ss of finan
cial adm
i
n
istrator is sta
r
te
d with che
c
ki
ng the paym
ent
proof. It is al
so follo
wed
b
y
che
cki
ng in
comin
g
paym
ents. After th
at, the financi
a
l admini
s
trat
or
che
c
ks th
e p
o
ssibility of custome
r
fra
u
d
, and final a
c
tivity is cre
a
ting the paym
ent re
ceipt let
t
er.
By looking at the form of the
strategi
c rationale a
s
we
can
see in G
oal-Ba
s
e
d
Workflo
w
, we
can
clea
rly see th
e contin
uity of the internal pro
c
e
s
ses of
every acto
r
.
Figure 5. Strategic Rational
e for Finan
ce
Administrator
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
TELKOM
NIKA
ISSN:
1693-6
930
Hierarchi
c
al i
*
Modelin
g in Req
u
ir
em
ent Enginee
ring (Kridanto
Su
re
ndro
)
789
5. Model Ass
essmen
t
The a
s
sessm
ent of prop
osed mod
e
l will
engag
e the risk a
s
se
ssme
nt for the pro
c
e
ss o
f
sellin
g item.
Failure Mode
and Effects Analysis
(F
MEA) provid
es an o
r
gani
zed an
d critica
l
analysi
s
to
a
s
sess
ri
sk factors which a
r
e o
c
curred
in
the
pro
c
e
s
s
or
define
d
m
e
thod
s. Fo
r
e
a
ch
risk facto
r
, we have to spe
c
ify three val
ues. Th
ose
a
r
e severity (h
ow ba
d is th
e
result of the risk
factor/ Sev), occurren
ce
(how often
the
risk fa
ctors occu
rred/O
cc), and detection
(h
o
w
detecta
ble i
s
the risk fa
cto
r
/Det). T
h
o
s
e
three
valu
es are m
u
ltiplie
d to pro
d
u
c
e
a Ri
sk P
r
iori
ty
Numb
er (RP
N
). If the RPN is lower th
an a ce
rtai
n l
i
mit, the risk is acce
ptable
whi
c
h mea
n
s we
do not nee
d to have extra
pre
c
aution.
Table 1
sho
w
s the
Risk
Level for the
assessm
ent
and
Table 2 sho
w
s the RP
N score for
Hierarchy
i
*.
Table 1. Ri
sk
Level [6]
Risk Priorit
y
N
u
mb
er (RPN
)
Risk Le
v
e
l
1-25
Ver
y
Lo
w
26-50
Lo
w
51-75
Moderate
76-100
High
101-125
Ver
y
High
Table 2. RP
N sco
re for p
r
o
posed mod
e
l Hierarchi
c
al
i
*
No
Risk Fac
t
or
Se
v
Occ
Det
RPN
Risk Le
v
e
l
1
The complexit
y
o
f
project
5
3
2
30
Lo
w
2
The resou
r
ce to
build the informat
ion sy
stem is limited
4
2
4
32
Lo
w
3
The lo
w
level of cooperation and
w
o
rking relationship in
the organization
bet
w
een the
acto
rs involved in the
organization's information s
y
stem
s
2 3
2
12
Ver
y
Lo
w
4
Requirement cha
nges both minor
and major
4
3
3
36
Lo
w
5
Lack of know
led
ge for client/user/
customer
2
3
3
18
Ver
y
Lo
w
6
T
he flex
ibility
and inflex
ibility
of ti
metable
2
2
4
16
Very
Low
7
The autho
rization is not complied
4
3
3
36
Lo
w
8
Nonfunctional re
quirement is disregarded
3
2
4
24
Ver
y
Lo
w
9
Reusable compo
nent existed
3
2
4
24
Ver
y
Lo
w
10
Testing risk
1
2
5
10
Ver
y
Lo
w
11
Model is insufficient to catch all of sy
stem
requirem
ent
5
4
4
80
High
12
Changes on ho
w
the information i
s
used
4
2
4
32
Lo
w
To find
the
compa
r
ison
wi
th othe
r mo
d
e
ls, the
p
r
op
ose
d
mo
del
o
f
hierarchi
c
al
is te
sted
by comp
arin
g
it to the Goa
l
-Bas
ed Wor
k
flow
(GB
W), KAOS,
i
*, and
i
* Hie
r
archi
c
al (
i
*H)
m
o
de
l
for the
same
ca
se.
Whe
n
RPN value
of
ea
ch
mod
e
l
comp
ared to
one
anoth
e
r,
it will b
e
fou
n
d
that the value
of RPN to
pr
opo
sed m
ode
l of hierarchi
c
al
i
* is l
o
we
r t
han oth
e
r m
o
dels, a
s
we
can
see Ta
ble 3.
Table 3. Co
m
pari
s
on b
e
tween ea
ch mo
dels
a
nd the
prop
osed mo
del hierarchi
c
al
i
*
Risk Fac
t
or
GBW
K
A
O
S
i
*
i
*
H
The complexit
y
o
f
project
75
60
60
30
The resou
r
ce to
build the informat
ion sy
stem is limited
60
32
32
32
The lo
w
level of cooperation and
w
o
rking relationship in the
organization bet
w
e
en the acto
rs involved in the organization's
information s
y
ste
m
s
32 40
12
12
Requirement cha
nges both minor
and major
64
80
36
36
Lack of know
led
ge for client/ user
/ customer
50
50
18
18
T
he flex
ibility
and inflex
ibility
of ti
metable
30
50
16
16
The autho
rization is not complied
80
100
100
36
Nonfunctional re
quirement is disregarded
48
75
24
24
Reusable compo
nent existed
48
45
24
24
Testing risk
8
16
10
10
Model is insufficient to catch all of sy
stem
requirem
ent
100
100
80
80
Changes on ho
w
the information i
s
used
64
80
32
32
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
ISSN: 16
93-6
930
TELKOM
NIKA
Vol. 14, No. 2, June 20
16 : 784 – 79
0
790
6. Conclusio
n
The implem
e
n
tation of the hiera
r
chy and dele
gati
on in
i
* mod
e
ling as
Req
u
irem
ent
Engineering
will ease the developm
ent
of Information Systems becaus
e it catches more detai
led
need
s in
every level, fro
m
Directo
r
t
o
the Admi
nistrato
r. Du
e
to highe
r lev
e
l of comple
xity
comp
ared to other mo
delin
g, the hiera
r
chy is use
d
for modeling
i
* i
n
ce
rtain cases, for exam
pl
e
in comp
anie
s
that have a tiered a
p
p
r
oval
mech
a
n
ism, as well as u
p
per level mo
n
i
toring.
Goal-B
ased
Wo
rkflo
w
a
p
p
r
oa
ch
on Stra
tegic
Ratio
nal
e in i*
mo
deli
ng e
nable
s
th
e ea
sie
r
way to o
b
se
rve what is
happ
ening
o
n
ea
ch
ac
to
r sequ
entiall
y. This coup
led with
eve
n
t
impleme
n
tation a
s
i
n
KAO
S, so th
at wo
rk’
s
seq
uen
ces to
a
c
hieve
the g
oal i
n
t
he inte
rnal
a
c
tors
are cl
ea
rly se
en.
The limitation of hierarchical i* is poi
nted
on the di
sability in describi
ng the obstacles
that may occur in the assi
gnment from
the uppe
r
level to the lower level. Dev
e
lopme
n
t of the
prop
osed mo
del can b
e
directed to acco
mmodate
diff
erent o
r
gani
zational form
s and it may also
enga
ge the compani
es
with variou
s act
o
rs.
Referen
ces
[1]
Yu, Eric, Pao
l
o Gior
gin
i
, N
e
il M
a
id
en, J
ohn M
y
l
o
pou
l
o
s. Socia
l
M
ode
lin
g for R
equ
ireme
n
ts
Engi
neer
in
g: An Introductio
n
. MIT
Press. 2011.
[2]
Lap
ouc
hni
an
A. Goal-Orient
ed Re
qu
ireme
n
ts Engi
neer
in
g: An Overvie
w
of th
e Curr
ent Res
earch
.
Dep
a
rtment of Comp
uter Scie
nc
e Un
iversit
y
of
T
o
ronto; 200
5
[3]
D Ross, K Schoma
n
. Structured Ana
l
ysis
for Requirem
ents Defin
i
tion
.
IEEE Transactions
on
Softw
are Engin
eeri
n
g
. 19
77; 3
(
1): 6-15.
[4]
Maria V, Wer
n
eck B, Padua
AD, O
liveir
a
A,
Cesar J,
Le
ite
P, São R.
C
o
mpari
ng GORE
F
r
amew
orks:
iStar and KAO
S
. Ibero-Ameri
c
an W
o
rksho
p
of Engin
eer
ing
of Requ
ireme
n
t
s. Chile. 200
9.
[5]
Raus
and M,
Ho
yla
n
A. S
y
s
t
em Reli
abi
lit
y
T
heor
y
:
M
o
d
e
ls, Statistical
Methods, an
d
Applic
atio
ns.
Secon
d
Editi
o
n
.
W
ile
y
Seri
es i
n
prob
abi
lit
y
an
d statistics. 2004: 88.
[6]
Martini M. I-star Hi
erarch
y
Mode
lin
g i
n
R
equ
ir
eme
n
t En
gin
eeri
ng. T
heses
. Band
un
g: Institute o
f
T
e
chnolog
y B
a
ndu
ng; 20
12.
[7]
Hull El
iza
beth, Jackson Ke
n, Dick Jerem
y
. R
equ
ireme
n
ts Engi
neer
in
g. Spring
er. 201
1.
[8]
Gemma Grau,
Carlos
Car
e
s,
Xav
i
er F
r
a
n
ch,
F
r
ed
y J
Navar
r
ete. A C
o
mpa
r
ativ
e A
nal
ys
is
of i*
Ag
ent-
Oriented M
o
d
e
lli
ng T
e
chn
i
q
ues. In Proc
e
edi
ngs
of
the
Eighte
enth
Internati
o
n
a
l C
onfere
n
ce
o
n
Soft
w
a
re Eng
i
n
eeri
ng an
d Kno
w
l
e
d
ge En
gi
ne
erin
g. San F
r
ancisco, USA. 2
006
[9]
Lóp
ez
L.
A C
o
mp
lete
Defin
i
ti
on of the I
nher
itance
Constru
c
t in i*
. Proc
ee
din
g
s of the E
R
20
09 Ph
D
Coll
oq
uium, affiliate
d to the 28
th Internatio
nal
Confere
n
ce o
n
Conc
eptu
a
l
Mode
lin
g. Brazil. 200
9.
[10]
Clotet R, et al.
Requ
ire
m
e
n
ts Model
lin
g for Multi-Stake
hol
der
Distrib
uted
Systems: Cha
llen
ges a
n
d
T
e
chni
ques
.
Procee
din
g
s
of the F
i
rst Internati
o
n
a
l
C
onfere
n
ce
on
Rese
arch C
hall
e
n
ges
i
n
Information Sci
ence, RCIS 20
07. Ouarzazat
e
, Morocco. 20
07.
[11]
Lóp
ez L, F
r
anch X, Marco J.
Defini
ng Inh
e
rit
ance i
n
i * at
the Leve
l
of SR Intentio
na
l
. Proceed
ings of
the 3rd Intern
ation
a
l i* W
o
rksh
op. Brazil. 20
0
8
.
[12]
Yu, Eric S. Modell
i
n
g
Strategi
c Relati
onsh
i
ps
for Process Reen
gin
eer
ing.
PhD thesis. Ca
nad
a; 199
6.
[13]
Cho
p
ra AK,
Gi
orgi
ni P.
Re
qu
ire
m
ents
Eng
i
neer
ing
for S
o
cial
App
licati
o
ns
. Proce
e
d
i
n
g
s of th
e
5th
Internatio
na
l i*
W
o
rkshop. Ital
y
. 20
11: 13
8-1
43.
[14]
Rah
w
a
n
I, Ju
an T
,
Sterling
L. Integr
ating
Soci
a
l
Mo
de
ll
ing
an
d Ag
ent
Interactio
n th
roug
h Goa
l
-
Oriented A
n
a
l
ysis.
Internatio
n
a
l Jo
urna
l of C
o
mput
er Syste
m
s Sci
enc
e &
Engi
neer
in
g
. 2
008; 2
1
(2):
87-9
8
.
[15]
Ale
x
a
nder,
I
an
F
.
A Better F
i
t – Ch
aracter
i
sin
g
the
Stake
hol
ders
. CAi
SE'
04
W
o
rksho
p
s i
n
conn
ectio
n
w
i
t
h
T
he 16th
Confer
ence
on
Advanc
ed Inf
o
rmatio
n
S
y
ste
m
s Engi
neer
in
g. Rig
a, Latvi
a
.
2004: 2
15-
223.
[16]
Kuan
PP,
Karu
nas
ek
era S, St
erlin
g L.
I
m
pr
o
v
ing Go
al
an
d
Role
Orient
ed
Analys
is for A
gent B
a
sed
System
s
. Proc
eed
ings
of the 200
5 Austral
i
a
n
Soft
w
a
re En
gin
eeri
ng C
onf
erenc
e. 200
5.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.