Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An empirical study on the use of i* by non-technical stakeholders: the case of strategic dependency diagrams

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Early phases of information systems engineering include the understanding of the enterprise’s context and the construction of models at different levels of decomposition, required to design the system architecture. These time-consuming activities are usually conducted by relatively large teams, composed of groups of non-technical stakeholders playing mostly an informative role (i.e. not involved in documentation and even less in modelling), led by few experienced technical consultants performing most of the documenting and modelling effort. This paper evaluates the ability of non-technical stakeholders to create strategic dependency diagrams written with the i* language in the design of the context model of a system architecture, and find out which difficulties they may encounter and what the quality of the models they build is. A case study involving non-technical stakeholders from 11 organizational areas in an Ecuadorian university held under the supervision and coordination of the two authors acting as consultants. The non-technical stakeholders identified the majority of the dependencies that should appear in the case study’s context model, although they experienced some difficulties in declaring the type of dependency, representing such dependencies graphically and applying the description guidelines provided in the training. Managers were observed to make more mistakes than other more operational roles. From the observations of these results, a set of methodological advices were compiled for their use in future, similar endeavours. It is concluded that non-technical stakeholders can take an active role in the construction of the context model. This conclusion is relevant for both researchers and practitioners involved in technology transfer actions with use of i*.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data set and R source code for the test may be downloaded from http://www.upc.edu/gessi/iStarNonTechnical/Correlation.zip.

References

  1. The Open Group (2009) The open group architecture framework (TOGAF) version 9. The Open Group, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kilov H (2004) Using RM-ODP to bridge communication gaps between stakeholders. In: WODPEC

  3. Chou T-H, Kanno T, Furuta K (2012) Modeling and bridging the gap between different stakeholders. In: IESS

  4. Carvallo JP, Franch X (2009) On the use of i* for architecting hybrid systems: a method and an evaluation report. In: PoEM

  5. Moody DL, Heymans P, Matulevicius R (2009) Improving the effectiveness of visual representations in requirements engineering: an evaluation of i* visual syntax. In: RE

  6. Estrada H et al. (2006) An empirical evaluation of the i* framework in a model-based software generation environment. In: CAiSE

  7. Carvallo JP, Franch X (2014) Lessons learned on the use of i* by non-technical users. iStar

  8. Hadar I et al (2013) Comparing the comprehensibility of requirements models expressed in use case and tropos: results from a family of experiments. IST 55(10):1823–1843

    Google Scholar 

  9. Engelsman W, Wieringa R (2012) Goal-oriented requirements engineering and enterprise architecture: two case studies and some lessons learned. In: REFSQ

  10. Engelsman W, Wieringa R (2014) Understandability of goal concepts by requirements engineering experts. In: MReBA

  11. Engelsman W, Wieringa R (2014) Understandability of goal-oriented requirements engineering concepts for enterprise architects. In: CAiSE

  12. The Open Group (2012) ArchiMate 2.0 specification. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schultz F, Meissner J, Rosssak W (2013) Tracing the interdependencies between architecture and organization in goal-oriented extensible models. In: ECBS-EERC

  14. Marosin D, van Zee M, Ghanavati S (2016) Formalizing and modeling enterprise architecture (EA) principles with goal-oriented requirements language (GRL). In: CAiSE

  15. Yu ESK, Mylopoulos J (1994) Understanding “why” in software process modelling, analysis and design. In: ICSE

  16. Yu ESK (1995) Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto

  17. Dalpiaz F, Franch X, Horkoff J (2016) iStar 2.0 language guide. In: CoRR arxiv: 1605.07767

  18. Carvallo JP, Franch X (2012) Building strategic enterprise context models with i*: a pattern-based approach. In: TEAR

  19. Basili VR (1993) Applying the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm in the experience factory. Softw Qual Assur Meas Worldw Perspect 2:21–44

    Google Scholar 

  20. Franch X et al (2007) Systematic construction of i* strategic dependency models for socio-technical systems. IJSEKE 17(1):79–106

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moody D (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. TSE 35(6):756–779

    Google Scholar 

  22. Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. EmSE 14(2):131–164

    Google Scholar 

  23. Giachetti G et al (2017) Verifying goal-oriented specifications used in model-driven development processes. Inf Syst 64:41–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Horkoff J, Maiden NAM, Lockerbie J (2015) Creativity and goal modeling for software requirements engineering. In: Creativity and cognition

  25. PMI (2016) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guides). Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  26. Torchiano M et al (2013) Relevance, benefits, and problems of software modelling and model driven techniques: a survey in the Italian Industry. JSS 86(8):2110–2126

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ho-Quang T et al. (2017) Practices and perceptions of UML use in open source projects. In: ICSE-SEIP

  28. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1esRTM6awLD0rPXatlGydWNL0YD-8h2a-cdpQe5QXcPo/edit#slide=id.g15b2e35842_0_1504

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Pablo Carvallo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carvallo, J.P., Franch, X. An empirical study on the use of i* by non-technical stakeholders: the case of strategic dependency diagrams. Requirements Eng 24, 27–53 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0300-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0300-7

Keywords

Navigation