I'm stuck and confuse if I need to identify Database as an Actor since the database is given in the scenario.
I tried first to make it as an actor since based on the scenario, the data needed is from database. I Also tried to create a use case for the whole scenario but not sure if correct.
Here is the link of the scenario: https://justpaste.it/7tljo
The Use Case Diagram I created:
Is the database an actor?
A database should in principle not be an actor in a use-case. Two reasons for that:
A database is in general a component used to implement a system, so it is part of the system's internals (even if it is bought from a third party and installed on a separate server). But actors must be external to the system.
Actors may represent separate systems that interact with the system. But some degree of autonomy is expected since they play a role in the case: either the system actor supports the use-case, like a human actor could do, or it uses the system for achieving its own goals.
More generally, some useful question to ask yourself about candidate system actors: does the business need to know? are users or business stakeholders interested in? is the system actor a system that would be useful if your system wouldn’t exist? could we imagine the same use case with a human user instead of a system actor?
Is the overall diagram ok?
Syntactically, the diagram looks ok. But it methodically break down features/functionality in smaller pieces. This is called functional decomposition: Although it is not forbidden by UML, it leads to complex and unreadable diagrams. This is why the use-case community recommends not to do this, and instead prefer to align use case on user goals.
Hint: if you start to think about workflows, order of operations or user interface components when you design your use-cases (e.g. review contract, approve contract), you probably should consider using an activity diagram instead.
Related
Imagine that we are building a Library system. Our use cases might be
Borrow book
Look up book
Manage membership
Imagine that we can fulfill these use cases by a librarian person or a machine. We need to realize these use cases.
Should we draw different use case realizations for different flows?
If not, it is very different to borrow a book from a machine and a person. How can we handle it?
Moreover, what if we have updated version of library machines some day? (e.g. one with keyboard and the other is with touch screen) What should we do then? The flow stays the same, however the hardware and the software eventually be different.
What would you use to realize use cases and why?
It might be a basic question, but I failed to find concrete examples on the subject to understand what is right. Thank you all in advance.
There is no single truth or one way you "should" do it. I will give you my approach, based on the Unified Process.
The use case technique is primarily used to describe a dialog between a human user (actor) and an application. It is modeled as an ellipse and further specified as an activity diagram or just a list of steps: 1 The actor does A, 2 The system does B, 3 The actor does C etc. In this approach, the application is regarded as a black box.
A "use case realization" describes how the system performs its steps (white box), e.g. in terms of collaborating components, transparent to the user.
It is possible, but much less common, to have so-called business use cases. In that case, the "system" represents an enterprise or a business unit. In your case, it would be the library. The "actor" represents an external person or organization, e.g. a client or a supplier. In your case, it would be a client. With business use cases, the library is regarded as a black box. The steps are still in format "actor does A; system does B", but here, it is not specified which of the library's actions are performed by humans and which by applications. The system is the organization, interfacing with external actors, regardless of whether this is implemented by employees or by applications.
A "business use case realization" specifies how the system performs its steps (white box) and specifies which parts are done by employees and which parts by machines.
Now, let me answer you questions one by one.
Question 1.
If you have described your use case as a business use case, and it is at such a high level of abstraction that the steps for client-librarian interaction are the same as for client-machine interaction, then you will have one business use case "Borrow book" and two business use case realizations for this business use case.
However, it is more common practice to have only use cases for user-application interaction. If the client interacts with the system in the same way as a librarian would do on behalf of the client, then you will have only one use case "Borrow book", with actor "Person". This actor has two specializations: "Client" and "Librarian". There will be only one use case realization per use case.
Otherwise, you would have one use case "Borrow book online" describing the flow of events when a client interacts directly with the application, connected to actor "Client" and another use case "Borrow book for client" describing the flow of events when a librarian interacts with the application while talking to the client. The latter use case has "Librarian" as its actor. Again, there will be only one use case realization per use case.
You may choose to model the Client-Librarian interaction separately, or not at all, depending on the purpose of your model.
Question 2.
Let's take use case "Borrow book online". You may have two use case realizations for this use case: one for the keyboard machine and one for the touch screen machine. If these use case realizations are very similar, then I would just make only one use case realization and describe the fact that there are two possible input devices inside that single realization.
Question 3.
For a business use case realization, I would use BPMN 2.0 or a UML activity diagram. These are well suited for business workflow specification.
For a normal use case realization, I usually make a sequence diagram, where the lifelines in those diagrams refer to components defined in a common component diagram. In the left margin of the sequence diagrams, I usually write the steps of the use case in UML note symbols. The sequence diagram focuses on the interaction between components, using their interfaces. This gives a nice overview of the collaboration between components in the context of a particular use case.
For more information, please refer to my white paper Which UML models should we make?. The use case realization is described on page 19.
UML is method-agnostic. Even when there are no choices to make, there are different approaches to modeling, fo example:
Have one model and refine it succesfully getting it through the stages requirements, analysis (domain model of the problem), design (abstraction to be implemented), implementation (classes that are really in the code).
Have different models for different stage and keep them all up to date
Have successive models, without updating the previous stages.
keep only a high level design model to get the big picture, but without implementation details that could be found in the code.
Likewise, for your question, you could consider having different alternative models, or one model with different alternatives grouped in different packages (to avoid naming conflicts). Personally, I’d go for the latter, because the different alternatives should NOT be detailed too much. But ultimately, it’s a question of cost and benefits in your context.
By the way, Ivar Jacobson’s book, the Object advantage applies OO modeling techniques to business process design. So UML is perfectly suitable for a human solution. It’s just that the system under consideration is no longer an IT system, but a broader organisational system, in which IT represents some components among others.
UML has collaboration elements to show different implementations. The use cases are anchors since the added value for the actors does not change. However, you can realize these use cases in different ways. And that is where the collaborations come into play. A collaboration looks like a use case but has a dashed border. And you draw a realize relation from one or many collaborations towards a use case. Inside the collaborations you show how the different implementation's classes collaborate (hence the name).
P.213 of UML 2.5 in paragraph 11.7 Collaborations:
The primary purpose of Collaborations is to explain how a system of communicating elements collectively accomplish a specific task or set of tasks without necessarily having to incorporate detail that is irrelevant to the explanation. Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns.
A CollaborationUse represents the application of the pattern described by a Collaboration to a specific situation involving specific elements playing its collaborationRoles.
I want a use case - store information system. I am to present the owner's requirements on a use case diagram, incl. a customer who, after logging in, does shopping, and an admin, who after logging in, manages prices, etc.
Can I log into the system generalize from one use case - two actors combined with one use case (below)? How can I 'improve' the diagram?
UML does not specify the semantic when more than one actor is associated to the same use-case. It can mean for example that one of the actors only is involved without the other, that the two actors are involved at the same time, or that the two actors are involved one after the other.
For sure, actors and use-cases are classifiers. You can therefore use generalization of use-cases or of actors (as explained with an example here) .
But your diagram, while syntactically correct, has some issue:
First Admin account is not a use-case: it does not produce any observable results to the actor; it is an internal detail of the sytem. So it does not correspond to the UML criteria of a use-case.
Then, Login, Confirm password (and perhaps Checkout?) do not correspond to user goals. As explained here, this is not fundamentally wrong according to the UML specifications, but it is a bad practice. Use-cases are meant to describe actor goals, and not details of a process or a user interface.
Maybe i'm old school, but you should also surround the use-cases with a box representing the "subject", i.e. the system under consideration.
There's no special magic about it, UML Use Case describes a case and can have more than one user.
Maybe just moving the shared Use Cases next.
But, since Use Case diagrams support User Inheritance as if they were classes, maybe adding a generic abstract superclass alike GenericUser with the shared Use Cases, and subclass alike User and Admin with their own specific Use Cases would be useful.
I have a system in which there is a controller and a robot that interact to do something. The system is self sufficient, in the sense that once online and functioning, the entity that we called controller takes decisions on its own on what the robot should do, so every "use case" in the diagram is "made" by the controller. Since the actor in a use case diagram is, by definition, an external entity that interact with the system, what is the right way to model my system with this diagram? The controller cannot be an actor since it's part of the system, but then how can I model the functionalities?
If the system is really autonomous you can ask it: what is the added value you get? I bet it can't answer. So it's not autonomous on itself (like you hopefully are). It acts on behalf of its constructor or purchaser. And they will have an added value. So that's the one perspective.
Now you implement a system. This is intended to fulfill the added value. It does not matter whether this is done autonomously or not.
What you can do, is to detail the system and construct technical use cases. So to control visual perception you have sub-systems with own use cases. Or to sense something. But that is a different level and not to be mixed up with the business logic behind it all.
According to UML specification sensor can be treated as an actor.
Your system presumably is not a complete black box. It reacts on some external events (usually - timer first of all) triggered by some sources. Straightforward way is to introduce sources of those events (timer, accelerometer, valves, etc) as actors who are triggering scenarios.
In your case the only involvement of such actors could be potentially denoted to only triggering the scenarios. If so take a shortcut and do not introduce the actors, just write in the use case trigger: "pressure drops below ..."
You may or may not want to separate the system actor to the robot and the controller actors (i.e. establish System under Discussion one level lower). Who will be reader of your documentation? Customers are not interested in what's inside the black box, but two development team writing each of the pieces will push you to separate and define precise interfaces.
I need to model a few business processes in an orchard. These business processes should be enchanced with a system I need to build. In my case these are:
Store process
Sales process
Harvest process
Firstly, I needed to create a Business Use Case diagram. And I have created something like this:
Let me explain this. When we need to harvest, we contact with work agency to get some workers, we give them a job etc...
When we want to sale or store our harvests we need to call transport company to transport our stuff to warehouse or wholesale to sell it.
Ofc, this is so much simplified then it is in real life.
My problem is: becouse system I'm bulding will be used inside a company/orchard there is no external actor in this diagram that USE an usecase. There is noone who can USE use cases. Is it correct? Next step is to create a sequence diagram, and it looks like the Orchard needs to initiate the flow.
Or maybe I should exculde some actors like: Manager. He will initiate flow. But where i can put him in my Business Use Case diagram then?
Can someone give me some advices how this should look like?
An use case and an actor have a 1:1 relation (despite what you might read about secondary actors). The use case describes the added value which its actor receives. If you identify both the actor and the added value you can describe the use case. Else you can't. If you have an actor that does not play a role then it is not an actor. Also forget about "internal" and "external" actors. An actor is always external. The use case sits at the boundary of the system under consideration. And the actor outside.
In case of your manager you should think about the added value. Starting a process sounds simple but it takes a bit to actually do it (or why is his salary so high?). So most likely there is a use case. Often it's just hard to find.
You say you need to create a business use case diagram. Why do you need to? Are you using a particular method, like Rational Unified Process, which you have to follow?
Personally, I think a business use case diagram is not a very good technique for specifying business processes. They can't be used for internal processes, exactly as you point out. Instead, I would use activity diagrams. A business process is a UML 'activity'. This gives a good starting point to further decompose each business process using activity diagrams that model the process flows. I have explained my objections against business use case diagrams in more detail in my paper "Which UML models should we make?. See the paragraph titled "More business analysis".
To capture a high-level view of the Business, sometimes we are talking to non technical individuals to gather the business story via interviews to try to ascertain the functional requirements of the business. The context and system DFD can be a good way to bounce your understanding of the business with the client/ maybe handy when meeting again with the business/customer.
These tasks, may well lead to further discussions about what you can do for the business; i.e. to improve a system they use as part of their business GOAL. For example an improve an accounting program by expanding the functions.
On a Use Case diagram can you show things that an actor cannot do, for example because they won't have permissions to do it?
Or is it just implied due to the fact that they won't have a line joining them to the particular use case?
If the Use Case you are diagramming is the case where an actor attempts to do something that is not permitted and is then denied, then yes, I would show it.
Otherwise, I would stick to only including things that are actually part of the use case.
No. An Actor would be connected to everything that he can do. If the Actor can't do it, then it's not shown.
This is what alternate paths are for. The basic path (a.k.a. happy path) will show what happens when the correct Actor initiates the Use Case. In the alternate paths you can show what happens if the wrong Actor attempts to initiate it.
You might model Role actors that can do the task. You could then have another use case that has the original actor attempting to acquire the given Role.
IMHO this question and most of the answers give a wrong impression about the way use cases should be used.
Use case was intended as a requirements technique that uses natural language. It is most and quite effective that way.
It can be a thoroughly destructive technique when it is combined with too much UML/modeling. Structured modeling of use case texts for example by modeling main and alternative flows using UML Activity Diagrams is a tried and tested way for example to create Use Cases of Mass Destruction.
A use case diagram can be useful but we should remember the purpose of use case as a technique which is first and foremost to identify the user goals a system should support. Subsequently we can capture more details using natural language in use case texts using main flow, alternative flows etc.
Using diagramming tools we can visualize some simple information:
- For each user goal we can create model element type Use Case.
- Show system boundary using a box for the system with use case elements in it.
- Create a relationship between actor and use case to show the actor has a particular goal against the system.
Keeping an up-to-date list of actors mapped to goals is however of secondary importance. Doing a stakeholder analysis, drawing up lists of actors is a means to identify the users goals. After user goals have been identified it is strictly speaking not longer necessary to keep the lists of actors around.
If we are asking questions about how to put user permissions in a use case model we are most likely trying to capture too much information. We should abstract model elements away so that the model does not try to answer/capture these type of detailed design questions.