Facilitating Effective Stakeholder Communication in Software Development Processes

  • Vladimir A. ShekhovtsovEmail author
  • Heinrich C. Mayr
  • Christian Kop
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 204)


Effective communication in software development is impaired when parties perceive communicated information differently. To address this problem, the project QuASE has been established. It aims at a solution that supports understandability and reusability of communicated information as well as the quality of decisions based on such information. In this paper, we focus on the architectural aspects of the QuASE system and on its knowledge base which consists of two ontologies: a site ontology defining the site-specific communication environment, and a “quality ontology” that incorporates all knowledge necessary for supporting communication. We describe the overall architecture of the system, introduce the ontologies as well as their interplay, and outline the approach for gathering knowledge necessary to form the QuASE site ontology.


Stakeholders View harmonization Software development process Software quality Communicated information Communication environment 


  1. 1.
    Anda, B., Sjøberg, D., Jørgensen, M.: Quality and understandability of use case models. In: Lindskov Knudsen, J. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, pp. 402–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aurum, A., Jeffery, R., Wohlin, C., Handzic, M. (eds.): Managing Software Engineering Knowledge. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barcelos, P.P.F., dos Santos, V.A., Silva, F.B., Monteiro, M.E., Garcia, A.S.: An automated transformation from OntoUML to OWL and SWRL. In: ONTOBRAS 2013. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1041, pp. 130–141. (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bjørnson, F.O., Dingsøyr, T.: Knowledge management in software engineering: a systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 1055–1068 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ernst, N.A., Murphy, G.C.: Case studies in just-in-time requirements analysis. In: 2012 IEEE Second International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE), pp. 25–32. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity–relationship diagrams. Data Knowl. Eng. 64, 534–557 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Twente (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guizzardi, G., Falbo, R., Guizzardi, R.S.: Grounding software domain ontologies in the unified foundational ontology (UFO): the case of the ODE software process ontology. In: RESE 2008, pp. 244–251 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 12207:2008, Information technology – software life cycle processes. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin-Cherng, L., Kuo-Chiang, W.: A model for measuring software understandability. In: Proceedings of CIT 2006, pp. 192–192 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    JIRA Issue Tracking System. Accessed 8 May 2014
  12. 12.
    Kagdi, H., Collard, M.L., Maletic, J.I.: A survey and taxonomy of approaches for mining software repositories in the context of software evolution. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res. Pract. 19, 77–131 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kagdi, H., Maletic, J.I., Sharif, B.: Mining software repositories for traceability links. In: ICPC 2007. pp. 145–154. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kamsties, E., von Knethen, A., Reussner, R.: A controlled experiment to evaluate how styles affect the understandability of requirements specifications. Inf. Softw. Technol. 45, 955–965 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kontchakov, R., Rodríguez-Muro, M., Zakharyaschev, M.: Ontology-based data access with databases: a short course. In: Rudolph, S., Gottlob, G., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) Reasoning Weg 2013. LNCS, vol. 8067, pp. 194–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin, J.-C., Wu, K.-C.: Evaluation of software understandability based on fuzzy matrix. In: Fuzzy Systems, (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence), IEEE International Conference on FUZZ-IEEE 2008, pp. 887–892. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Machot, F.A., Mayr, H.C., Michael, J.: Behavior modeling and reasoning for ambient support: HCM-L modeler. In: Ali, M., Pan, J.-S., Chen, S.-M., Horng, M.-F. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8482, pp. 388–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mehmood, K., Cherfi, S.S.: Data quality through model quality: a quality model for measuring and improving the understandability of conceptual models. In: MDSEDQS 2009, pp. 29–32. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michael, J., Mayr, H.C.: Conceptual modeling for ambient assistance. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 403–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Hum. 41, 449–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schneider, K.: Experience and Knowledge Management in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shekhovtsov, V., Mayr, H.C., Kop, C.: Harmonizing the quality view of stakeholders. In: Mistrik, I., Bahsoon, R., Eeles, R., Roshandel, R., Stal, M. (eds.) Relating System Quality and Software Architecture, pp. 41–73. Morgan-Kaufmann, Waltham (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Mayr, H.C.: Let stakeholders define quality: a model-based approach. In: Linssen, O., Kuhrmann, M. (eds.) Qualitätsmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle - 19. Workshop der GI-Fachgruppe Vorgehensmodelle, pp. 101–110. Shaker Verlag GmbH (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Mayr, H.C.: Managing quality related information in software development processes. In: CAiSE-Forum-DC 2014. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1164, pp. 73–80. (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Mayr, H.C.: Towards managing understandability of quality-related information in software development processes. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A., Torre, C., Rocha, J.G., Falcão, M.I., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2014, Part V. LNCS, vol. 8583, pp. 572–585. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Mayr, H.C., Kop, C.: Acquiring empirical knowledge to support intelligent analysis of quality-related issues in software development. In: Faria, J.P., Silva, A., Machado, R.J. (eds.) QUATIC 2012, pp. 153–156. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Mayr, H.C., Kop, C.: Stakeholder involvement into quality definition and evaluation for service-oriented systems. In: USER 2012 Workshop at ICSE 2012, pp. 49–52. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Mayr, H.C., Kop, C.: Towards conceptualizing quality-related stakeholder interactions in software development. In: Kop, C. (ed.) UNISON 2012. LNBIP, vol. 137, pp. 73–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shekhovtsov, V.A., Mayr, H.C., Lubenskyi, V.: QuASE: A tool supported approach to facilitating quality-related communication in software development. In: da Silva, A.R., Silva, A.R., Brito, M.A., Machado, R.J. (eds.) QUATIC 2014, pp. 162–165. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thung, F., Lo, D., Jiang, L.: Automatic defect categorization. In: WCRE 2012, pp. 205–214. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vandecruys, O., Martens, D., Baesens, B., Mues, C., De Backer, M., Haesen, R.: Mining software repositories for comprehensible software fault prediction models. J. Syst. Softw. 81, 823–839 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir A. Shekhovtsov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Heinrich C. Mayr
    • 1
  • Christian Kop
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Applied InformaticsAlpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations