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*.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Data set and R source code for the test may be downloaded from http://www.upc.edu/gessi/iStarNonTechnical/Correlation.zip.
References
The Open Group (2009) The open group architecture framework (TOGAF) version 9. The Open Group, San Francisco
Kilov H (2004) Using RM-ODP to bridge communication gaps between stakeholders. In: WODPEC
Chou T-H, Kanno T, Furuta K (2012) Modeling and bridging the gap between different stakeholders. In: IESS
Carvallo JP, Franch X (2009) On the use of i* for architecting hybrid systems: a method and an evaluation report. In: PoEM
Moody DL, Heymans P, Matulevicius R (2009) Improving the effectiveness of visual representations in requirements engineering: an evaluation of i* visual syntax. In: RE
Estrada H et al. (2006) An empirical evaluation of the i* framework in a model-based software generation environment. In: CAiSE
Carvallo JP, Franch X (2014) Lessons learned on the use of i* by non-technical users. iStar
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
Engelsman W, Wieringa R (2012) Goal-oriented requirements engineering and enterprise architecture: two case studies and some lessons learned. In: REFSQ
Engelsman W, Wieringa R (2014) Understandability of goal concepts by requirements engineering experts. In: MReBA
Engelsman W, Wieringa R (2014) Understandability of goal-oriented requirements engineering concepts for enterprise architects. In: CAiSE
The Open Group (2012) ArchiMate 2.0 specification. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel
Schultz F, Meissner J, Rosssak W (2013) Tracing the interdependencies between architecture and organization in goal-oriented extensible models. In: ECBS-EERC
Marosin D, van Zee M, Ghanavati S (2016) Formalizing and modeling enterprise architecture (EA) principles with goal-oriented requirements language (GRL). In: CAiSE
Yu ESK, Mylopoulos J (1994) Understanding “why” in software process modelling, analysis and design. In: ICSE
Yu ESK (1995) Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto
Dalpiaz F, Franch X, Horkoff J (2016) iStar 2.0 language guide. In: CoRR arxiv: 1605.07767
Carvallo JP, Franch X (2012) Building strategic enterprise context models with i*: a pattern-based approach. In: TEAR
Basili VR (1993) Applying the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm in the experience factory. Softw Qual Assur Meas Worldw Perspect 2:21–44
Franch X et al (2007) Systematic construction of i* strategic dependency models for socio-technical systems. IJSEKE 17(1):79–106
Moody D (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. TSE 35(6):756–779
Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. EmSE 14(2):131–164
Giachetti G et al (2017) Verifying goal-oriented specifications used in model-driven development processes. Inf Syst 64:41–62
Horkoff J, Maiden NAM, Lockerbie J (2015) Creativity and goal modeling for software requirements engineering. In: Creativity and cognition
PMI (2016) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guides). Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania
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
Ho-Quang T et al. (2017) Practices and perceptions of UML use in open source projects. In: ICSE-SEIP
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0300-7