nach oben

Software and Systems Modeling

Erschienen in:

27.11.2021 | Regular Paper

GoRIM: a model-driven method for enhancing regulatory intelligence

verfasst von: Okhaide Akhigbe, Daniel Amyot, Gregory Richards, Lysanne Lessard

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Regulators are under constant pressure to demonstrate if and how the regulations they administer, which impose many requirements on various systems and processes, achieve intended societal outcomes. Traditionally, regulators have relied on impact assessments, risk analysis, and cost–benefit analysis to assess compliance with regulations. These methods, however, are effort and time intensive and focus on the efficiency of regulatory processes rather than on the effectiveness of the regulatory initiatives meant to improve compliance to regulations and the latter’s impact on intended societal outcomes. Goal-oriented modelling and data analytics approaches provide the basis for the development of more sophisticated methods and tools to better address the needs of regulators. This paper introduces the goal-oriented regulatory intelligence method (GoRIM), which enables effective management of regulations through modelling and data analytics. Through continuous monitoring, assessing, and reporting on efficiency and effectiveness aspects, GoRIM is meant to facilitate the analysis of feedback loops between regulations, regulatory initiatives, and societal outcomes. To demonstrate the applicability and perceived usefulness of GoRIM in addressing the first feedback loop between regulations and initiatives, we evaluated it through three case studies involving regulators from different contexts, with positive results. GoRIM extends the concept of regulatory intelligence beyond the analysis of compliance. It also provides practical guidelines and tools to regulators for making, in a timely way, evidence-based decisions related to the addition, modification, or repeal of regulations and related regulatory initiatives. In addition, GoRIM helps better identify software and information needs for enabling such decisions.

Vorheriger Artikel Model-driven development of asynchronous message-driven architectures with AsyncAPI

Nächster Artikel Using two case studies to explore the applicability of VIATRA for the model-driven engineering of mechatronic production systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Coglianese, C.: Measuring Regulatory Performance: Evaluating the Impact of Regulation and Regulatory Policy. OECD Publishing, Paris (2012). https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/1_coglianese%20web.pdf

Plantin, G.: When Insurers Go Bust: An Economic Analysis of the Role and Design of Prudential Regulation. Princeton University Press, USA (2016)

OECD: OECD best practice principles for regulatory policy. OCSD iLibrary (2014). https://doi.org/10.1787/23116013CrossRef

Ellig, J., Broughel, J.: Regulation: What’s the Problem? George Mason University, USA (2011). https://www.mercatus.org/publication/regulation-whats-problem

Crain, W.M., Crain, N.V.: The Cost of Federal Regulation to the US Economy, Manufacturing and Small Business. National Association of Manufacturers (2014). https://bit.ly/30GB3iB

Head, B.W.: Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Aust. J. Public Adm. 67(1), 1–11 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.xMathSciNetCrossRef

Parker, D., Kirkpatrick, C.: Measuring Regulatory Performance: The Economic Impact of Regulatory Policy: A Literature Review of Quantitative Evidence. OECD Publishing, Paris (2012). https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/3_Kirkpatrick%20Parker%20web.pdf

Akhigbe, O., Amyot, D., Richards, G.: Information Technology Artifacts in the Regulatory Compliance of Business Processes: A Meta-Analysis, pp. 89–104. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17957-5_6CrossRef

Gasmi, F., Noumba, P., Recuero Virto, L.: The role of institutional design in the conduct of infrastructure industry reforms—an illustration through telecommunications in developing countries. S. Afr. J. Inf. Commun. 200(9), 4–16 (2008). https://doi.org/10.23962/10539/19776CrossRef

10.

Gasmi, F., Noumba, P., Recuero Virto, L.: Does political accountability matter for infrastructure regulation? The case of telecommunications. In: Infrastructure Regulation: What Works, Why and How Do We Know? pp. 61–82. World Scientific (2011). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814335744_0003

11.

Berg, S.V.: Developments in best-practice regulation: principles, processes, and performance. Electr. J. 13(6), 11–18 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1040-6190(00)00120-2CrossRef

12.

Berg, S.V.: Seven elements affecting governance and performance in the water sector. Util. Policy 43, 4–13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.04.013CrossRef

13.

Hahn, R., Hird, J.: The costs and benefits of regulation: review and synthesis. Yale J. Regul. 8(1), 233 (1991)

14.

Savaya, R., Waysman, M.: The logic model: a tool for incorporating theory in development and evaluation of programs. Adm. Soc. Work 29(2), 85–103 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v29n02_06CrossRef

15.

Knowlton, L.W., Phillips, C.C.: The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results. SAGE, London (2012)

16.

Felgate, T.: What is Regulatory Intelligence? (definitions) (2013). https://regulatory-intelligence.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-is-regulatory-intelligence.html

17.

Hynes, C.: Regulatory Intelligence: Implications for product development. TOPRA (2014). http://bit.ly/2pr5UiY

18.

Badreddin, O., Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D., Behnam, S.A., Rashidi-Tabrizi, R., Braun, E., Richards, G.: Regulation-based dimensional modeling for regulatory intelligence. RELAW 2013, 1–10 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/RELAW.2013.6671340CrossRef

19.

Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: User requirements notation: the first ten years, the next ten years (invited paper). J. Softw. 6(5), 747–768 (2011)CrossRef

20.

International Telecommunication Union.: Rec. Z.151 (10/18): User Requirements Notation (URN)-Language definition (2018). https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en

21.

Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: A requirements management framework for privacy compliance. In: WER’07, pp. 149–159 (2007). http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~wer/WERpapers/artigos/artigos_WER07/Qwer07-ghanavati.pdf

22.

Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Alhaj, M., Mussbacher, G., Shamsaei, A., Richards, G.: Towards outcome-based regulatory compliance in aviation security. In: 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 267–272 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2012.6345813

23.

Pourshahid, A., Amyot, D., Peyton, L., Ghanavati, S., Chen, P., Weiss, M., Forster, A.J.: Business process management with the user requirements notation. Electron. Commer. Res. 9(4), 269–316 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-009-9039-zCrossRef

24.

Akhigbe, O., Amyot, D., Richards, G.: A systematic literature mapping of goal and non-goal modelling methods for legal and regulatory compliance. Requir. Eng. 24(4), 459–481 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0294-1CrossRef

25.

Aparicio, M., Costa, C.J.: Data visualization. Commun. Des. Q. 3(1), 7–11 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2721882.2721883CrossRef

26.

Radaelli, C., Fritsch, O.: Measuring regulatory performance: evaluating regulatory management tools and programmes. OECD Expert Paper No. 2 (2012). https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2_Radaelli%20web.pdf

27.

Akhigbe, O., Amyot, D., Mylopoulos, J., Richards, G.: What can information systems do for regulators? A review of the state-of-practice in Canada. In: IEEE Eleventh International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 57–65 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2017.7956518

28.

Nielsen, V., Parker, C.: Is it Possible to Measure Compliance? SSRN 935988 (2006). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=935988

29.

Robertson, A.S., Reisin Miller, A., Dolz, F.: Supporting a data-driven approach to regulatory intelligence. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-020-00101-4CrossRef

30.

Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quart. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRef

31.

Wieringa, R.J.: Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43839-8_1CrossRef

32.

Engström, E., Storey, M.A., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Baldassarre, M.T.: How software engineering research aligns with design science: a review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 25(4), 2630–2660 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09818-7CrossRef

33.

Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Design science in action: developing a modeling technique for eliciting requirements on business process management (BPM) tools. Softw. Syst. Model. 14, 1159–1188 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0412-6CrossRef

34.

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302CrossRef

35.

Gregor, S., Hevner, A.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quart. 37(2), 337–356 (2013). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01CrossRef

36.

Braatz, B., Brandt, C.: A framework for families of domain-specific modelling languages. Softw. Syst. Model. 13, 109–132 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0271-yCrossRef

37.

van Brocke, J., Winter, R., Hevner, A., Maedche, A.: Special issue editorial—accumulation and evolution of design knowledge in design science research: a journey through time and space. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 21(3), 9 (2020). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00611CrossRef

38.

Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 77–89 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36CrossRef

39.

Payne, G., Payne, J.: Key Concepts in Social Research. SAGE, London (2004)CrossRef

40.

Mills, A., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E.: Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, California (2010). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397

41.

Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn. SAGE, New York (2013)

42.

Feldt, R., Magazinius, A.: Validity threats in empirical software engineering research—an initial survey. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 374–379 (2010).

43.

Perry, D.E., Porter, A.A., Votta, L.G.: Empirical studies of software engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 345–355 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/336512.336586

44.

Wieringa, R., Daneva, M.: Six strategies for generalizing software engineering theories. Sci. Comput. Program. 101, 136–152 (2015)CrossRef

45.

Amyot, D., Shamsaei, A., Kealey, J., Tremblay, E., Miga, A., Mussbacher, G., Alhaj, M., Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N.: Towards advanced goal model analysis with jUCMNav. In: Advances in Conceptual Modeling (ER 2012), LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33999-8_25

46.

OMG.: Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM), Version 2.0, formal/2008-04-01 (2008). https://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/

47.

Kampars, J., Zdravkovic, J., Stirna, J., Grabis, J.: Extending organizational capabilities with Open Data to support sustainable and dynamic business ecosystems. Softw. Syst. Model. 19, 371–398 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00756-7CrossRef

48.

Shamsaei, A.: Indicator-based Policy Compliance of Business Processes. Doctoral thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada (2012). https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-6171

49.

Akhigbe, O.: A Goal-Oriented Method for Regulatory Intelligence. Doctoral thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada (2018). https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-22507

50.

Akhigbe, O., Alhaj, M., Amyot, D., Badreddin, O., Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Richards, G., Mussbacher, G.: Creating quantitative goal models: governmental experience. In: 33rd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2014), LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 466–473 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_40

51.

Rashidi-Tabrizi, R., Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D.: Transforming regulations into performance models in the context of reasoning for outcome-based compliance. RELAW 2013, 34–43 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/RELAW.2013.6671344CrossRef

52.

Liaskos, S., Jalman, R., Aranda, J.: On eliciting contribution measures in goal models. In: 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 221–230 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2012.6345808

53.

Trinkenreich, B., Santos, G., Perini Barcellos, M.: SINIS: a GQM+strategies-based approach for identifying goals, strategies and indicators for IT services. Inf. Softw. Technol. 100, 147–164 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.04.006CrossRef

54.

Hassine, J., Amyot, D.: An empirical approach toward the resolution of conflicts in goal-oriented models. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(1), 279–306 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-015-0460-6CrossRef

55.

Fan, Y., Anda, A.A., Amyot, D.: An arithmetic semantics for GRL goal models with function generation. In: SAM 2018, LNCS, vol. 11150, pp. 144–162 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01042-3_9

56.

Horkoff, J., Barone, D., Jiang, L., Yu, E., Amyot, D., Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Strategic business modeling: representation and reasoning. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 1015–1041 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0290-8CrossRef

57.

IBM.: IBM Cognos Analytics (2016). https://www.ibm.com/ca-en/products/cognos-analytics

58.

Akhigbe, O., Heap, S., Islam, S., Amyot, D., Mylopoulos, J.: Goal-oriented regulatory intelligence: how can watson analytics help? In: 36th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2017), LNCS, vol. 10650, pp. 77–91 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_7

59.

Government of Canada.: Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22) (1994). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/

60.

Environment and Climate Change Canada.: Birds Protected Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (2011). https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-birds-legal-protection/convention-act.html

61.

Government of Canada.: Migratory Birds Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1035) (2016). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1035/index.html

62.

Government of Canada.: Migratory Birds Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1035) - Game Birds (2016). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1035/page-3.html

63.

Amyot, D., Horkoff, J., Gross, D., Mussbacher, G.: A lightweight GRL profile for i* modeling. In: Advances in Conceptual Modeling-Challenging Perspectives (ER 2009), LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 254–264 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04947-7_31

64.

Amyot, D., Rashidi-Tabrizi, R., Mussbacher, G., Kealey, J., Tremblay, E., Horkoff, J.: Improved GRL Modeling and Analysis with jUCMNav 5. In: 6th International i* Workshop (iStar 2013), CEUR-WS, vol. 978, pp. 137–139 (2013). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-978/paper_26.pdf

65.

Government of Canada.: Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (SOR/2002-222) (2002). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-222/PITIndex.html

66.

Government of Canada.: Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14) (2007). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-14/

67.

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRef

68.

Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15(3), 234–281 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

69.

Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Shamsaei, A., Behnam, S.A., Richards, G., Mussbacher, G., Alhaj, M., Tawhid, R.: Drafting and modeling of regulations: is it being done backwards? In: RELAW 2012, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/RELAW.2012.6347802

70.

Nair, C., de la Vara, J.L., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(7), 689–717 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.03.001CrossRef

71.

Johnsen, S.O., Hoem, Å., Stålhane, T., Jenssen, G., Moen, T.: Risk-based regulation and certification of autonomous transport systems. In: Safety and Reliability—Safe Societies in a Changing World (ESREL 2018), pp. 1791–1799 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351174664

72.

de la Vara, J.L., Ruiz, A., Attwood, K., Espinoza, H., Panesar-Walawege, R.K., López, Á., del Río, I., Kelly, T.: Model-based specification of safety compliance needs for critical systems: a holistic generic metamodel. Inf. Softw. Technol. 72, 16–30 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.11.008CrossRef

73.

Sharifi, S., McLaughlin, P., Amyot, D., Mylopoulos, J.: Goal modeling for fintech certification. In: iStar 2020, CEUR-WS 2641, pp. 73–78 (2020). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2641/paper_13.pdf

74.

Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L., Siena, A., Perini, A., Susi, A.: Integrating business strategies with requirement models of legal compliance. Int. J. Electron. Bus. 8(3), 260–280 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEB.2010.034171CrossRef

75.

Ghanavati, S., Humphreys, L., Boella, G., Di Caro, L., Robaldo, L., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Compliance with multiple regulations. In: ER 2014: Conceptual Modeling, pp. 415–422 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_35

76.

Rabinia, A., Ghanavati, S., Humphreys, L., Hahmann, T.: A methodology for implementing the formal legal-grl framework: a research preview. In: REFSQ 2020, LNCS, vol. 12045, pp. 124–131 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44429-7_9

77.

Islam, S., Mouratidis, H., Jürjens, J.: A framework to support alignment of secure software engineering with legal regulations. Softw. Syst. Model. 10, 369–394 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-010-0154-zCrossRef

78.

Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., van den Heuvel, W., Papazoglou, M.: Formalizing and applying compliance patterns for business process compliance. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 119–146 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0395-3CrossRef

79.

El Kharbili, M.: Business process regulatory compliance management solution frameworks: a comparative evaluation. In: APCCM’12, pp. 23–32 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5555/2523782.2523786

80.

Jiang, J., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., Wang, S., Baida, X.: Regulatory compliance of business processes. AI Soc. 30(3), 393–402 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-014-0536-9CrossRef

81.

Ghanavati, S., Hulstijn, J.: Impact of legal interpretation in business process compliance. TELERISE 2015, 26–31 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/TELERISE.2015.13CrossRef

82.

Boella, G., Tosatto, S.C., Ghanavati, S., Hulstijn, J., Humphreys, L., Muthuri, R., Rifaut, A., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Integrating legal-URN and eunomos: towards a comprehensive compliance management solution. AICOL 2013, 130–144 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45960-7_10CrossRef

83.

Ingolfo, S., Jureta, I., Siena, A., Perini, A., Susi, A.: Nòmos 3: Legal compliance of roles and requirements. In: ER 2014: Conceptual Modeling, pp. 275–288 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_22

84.

Giorgini, P., Rizzi, S., Garzetti, M.: GRAnD: a goal-oriented approach to requirement analysis in data warehouses. Decis. Support Syst. 45(1), 4–21 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.12.001CrossRef

85.

Fekete, D, Vossen, G.: The GOBIA method: towards goal-oriented business intelligence architectures. In: FGDB 2015, CEUR-WS 1458, pp. 409–418 (2015). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1458/H03_CRC44_Fekete.pdf

86.

Barone, D., Topaloglou, T., Mylopoulos, J.: Business intelligence modeling in action: a hospital case study. In: CAISE 2012, LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 502–517 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_33

87.

Burnay, C., Jureta, I.J., Linden, I., Faulkner, S.: A framework for the operationalization of monitoring in business intelligence requirements engineering. Softw. Syst. Model. 15, 531–552 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-014-0417-1CrossRef

88.

Lavalle, A., Maté, A., Trujillo, J., Rizzi, S.: Visualization requirements for business intelligence analytics: a goal-based, iterative framework. In: IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 109–119 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2019.00022

89.

Soltana, G., Sannier, N., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: Model-based simulation of legal policies: framework, tool support, and validation. Softw. Syst. Model. 17, 851–883 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-016-0542-0CrossRef

90.

Mazur, E.: Outcome Performance Measures of Environmental Compliance Assurance: Current Practices, Constraints and Ways Forward. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 18. OECD Publishing, Paris (2010). https://doi.org/10.1787/5kmd9j75cf44-en

91.

Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering. Springer (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41467-1CrossRef

92.

Griffo, C., da Silva Teixeira, M.G., Almeida, J.P.A., Gailly, F., Guizzardi, G.: LawV: Towards an ontology-based visual modeling language in the legal domain. In: ONTOBRAS 2020, CEUR-WS 2728, pp. 75–88 (2020). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2728/paper6.pdf

Titel: GoRIM: a model-driven method for enhancing regulatory intelligence
verfasst von: Okhaide Akhigbe
Daniel Amyot
Gregory Richards
Lysanne Lessard
Publikationsdatum: 27.11.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00949-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

Editorial to theme section on open environmental software systems modeling

Utilizing multi-level concepts for multi-phase modeling

Guest editorial to the special section on PoEM’2020

SOCAM: a service-oriented computing architecture modeling method

Introduction to the theme section on Agile model-driven engineering

Agile MERODE: a model-driven software engineering method for user-centric and value-based development

Premium Partner