Stakeholder Communication

  • S. J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers
  • W. van Stokkum
  • M. E. Iacob
  • I. Wilmont
  • D. J. T. van der Linden
  • C. Amrit
  • M. Joosen
Part of the The Enterprise Engineering Series book series (TEES)


In this chapter, we address the issue of communication with stakeholders in agile development projects. Our approach pivots round ‘communication situations’ that occur in such communication; we do not cover all communication that may occur in projects but focus mainly on the model-oriented kind and on situations in which stakeholders (apart from developers) play an important role. We provide some context and background but also concrete ways of analysing and guiding communication situations using some dedicated instruments. We illustrate this with examples from practice.


Modelling Language Domain Model Domain Expert Business Rule Communication Situation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Beck K et al (2001) Manifesto for agile software development.
  2. Bennett C, Ryall J, Spalteholz L, Gooch A (2007). The Aesthetics of Graph Visualization. In: Cunningham DW, Meyer G, Neumann L (eds) Proceedings of the computational aesthetics in graphics, visualization, and imaging, Banff, Canada, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  3. Cañas A J, Hill G, Carff R, Suri N, Lott J, Eskridge T, Gómez G, Arroyo M, Carvajal, R (2004). CmapTools: a knowledge modeling and sharing environment. In: Cañas AJ, Novak JD, González FM (eds) Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping, Pamplona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  4. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Eichelberger H, Schmid K (2009) Guidelines on the aesthetic quality of UML class diagrams. Inform Software Tech 51(12):1686–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham I (2007) Business rules management and service oriented architecture: a pattern language. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics III: speech acts. Academic, New York, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  8. Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology and information systems. In Guarino N (ed) Formal ontology in information systems. Proceedings of the FOIS’98, Trento, Italy. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 6–8 Jun 1998, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  9. Hoppenbrouwers SJBA, Wilmont I (2010) Focused conceptualisation: framing questioning and answering in model-oriented dialogue games. In: van Bommel P, Hoppenbrouwers S, Overbeek S, Proper E, Barjis J (eds) The practice of enterprise modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 190–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoppenbrouwers SJBA (2003) Freezing language; Conceptualisation processes across ICT supported organisations. PhD Thesis, University of NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoppenbrouwers SJBA (2008) Community-based ICT development as a multi-player game. In: Benoit-Barné C, Brummans BH, Cooren F, Giroux H, Létourneau A, Raymond D, Robichaud D (eds) What is an organization? Materiality, agency, and discourse: a tribute to the work of James R. Taylor. Department of Organizational Communication, University of Montreal, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoppenbrouwers SJBA, Proper HA, Weide TP van der (2005) Formal modeling as a grounded conversation. In: Goldkuhl G, Lind M, Haraldson S (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international working conference on the language action perspective on communication modelling (LAP’05). Kiruna, Sweden, Linköpings Universitet and Hogskolan I Boras, Linköping, Sweden, pp 139–155Google Scholar
  13. Lankhorst M et al (2009a) Enterprise architecture at work: modelling, communication and analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lankhorst M et al (2009b) Enterprise architecture at work, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Linden DJT van der, Hoppenbrouwers SJBA, Lartseva A, Proper HA (2011) Towards an investigation of the conceptual landscape of enterprise architecture. In: Halpin T, Nurcan S, Krogstie J, Soffer P, Proper E, Schmidt R, Bider I (eds) Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling; 12th international conference, BPMDS 2011, and 16th international conference, EMMSAD 2011, held at CAiSE 2011, London, UK. LNBIP series vol 81, Part 8. Springer, Berlin, June 20–21 2011, pp 526–535Google Scholar
  16. Meszaros G, Doble J (1998) A pattern language for pattern writing. In: Coplien JO, Schmidt DC (eds) Pattern languages of program design. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, pp 529–574Google Scholar
  17. Moody DL (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans Software Eng 35(6):756–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum P (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  19. Schwaber K, Beedle M (2002) Agile software development with scrum. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  20. Sowa JF (2000) Ontology, metadata, and semiotics conceptual structures. In: Ganter B, Mineau GW (eds) Conceptual structures: logical, linguistic, and computational issues, vol 1867, LNAI series. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilmont I, Barendsen E, Hoppenbrouwers S, Hengeveld S (2012) Abstract reasoning in collaborative modeling. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaiian international conference on the system sciences, HICSS-45; Collaborative systems track, Collaborative modeling minitrack. IEEE digital proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  22. Ylvisaker M, Szekeres SF, Feeney T (1998) Cognitive rehabilitation: executive functions. In: Ylvisaker M (ed) Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: children and adolescents. Butterworth-Heinemann, NewtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. B. A. Hoppenbrouwers
    • 1
  • W. van Stokkum
    • 2
  • M. E. Iacob
    • 3
  • I. Wilmont
    • 1
  • D. J. T. van der Linden
    • 4
  • C. Amrit
    • 3
  • M. Joosen
    • 5
  1. 1.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Everest’s-Hertogenbosch’s-HertogenboschThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.CRP Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  5. 5.Everest’s-HertogenboschThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations