Use case scenarios

[Pete Moreton]

I would like to partition the use case steps (scenarios) into user and system actions. I would also like to reference other aspects of the model such as requirements, business rules and business requirements against a specific scenario item. Ideally i would like to see the single cell allocated to a scenario divided into several cells to enable the above to be implemented. Is this possible or is there another solution to this ?

[jeshaw2]

Pete;

partition the use case steps (scenarios) into user and system actions.

  :-? I do not understand this part of your question.  A scenario is an ordered sequence of Actor/System interactions.  Some use case steps can be a part of multiple scenarios.  How and why would you want to separate them into different partitions? :-/

Jim

[Pete Moreton]

Jim

Thanks for your response.

the use of scenarios in our organisation appears to be to such that a scenario documents a single use case step. Having looked at other examples of use case documentation it looks as if scenarios are used as their name implies to document a multiple step use case which reflects a particular scenario. However, none of this really matters in the context of my question as what I am looking for are extra dimensions to a the scenario text cell which would enable the following to be documented at an individual use case step level with each section partitioned for clarity rather than mixed up in one text area.

User Actions -        
System Actions      
Requirements Reference -  a reference to detail such as processing rules/calculations etc. which is not dialogue interaction - simply a cross reference to detail held elsewhere.
Business Rule Requirements Reference - a reference to rules documented in the Requirements       view - simply a cross reference.
Business Requirements Reference - a reference to features documented in the Requirements view - simply a cross reference.
                        
The overall purpose is not to clutter the use case dialogue with processing detail and to cross reference the use case to requirements detailed elsewhere for traceability purposes, but to do this at a use case step level.

Having looked at the forum it looks as if others have had problems with the limited diemensions of scenario documentation. Suggestions are to document use cases outside EA and to cross reference e.g. through the file link, or possibly use linked digrams to achieve the same.

[Robert Sheridan]

An option is to create your own stereotype of a use case in a UML profile and add tags for all the bits of data you want to keep.

Alternatively you can use associations and other links to create a relationship between use cases and relevant design artefacts, but you will not be able to do this at the use case step level as EA does not provide a structure to do this (unless you can extend it via  Profile to support it, I have no experience of using profiles in this way).

When I write a use case steps I reference which of the actors associated with the use case execute a particular step (e.g. librarian puts book on trolley).  I use activity diagrams with swimlanes to show this graphically.

[Oliver F.]

An option is to create your own stereotype of a use case in a UML profile and add tags for all the bits of data you want to keep.

This is the approach we are using. In fact we have created stereotyped  use cases for business and system cases (and the same for actors). While the business cases include the pure business functionality as scenarios (
"1.) actor A is pressing a button. 2.) while actor B complains about his lazyness") include the system cases the technical aspects ("A parametrisable heartbeat is sent between system X and Y") in the scenarios.

This gives us some freedom to link and relate the scenarios.

I hope this helps.

Oliver