Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Web 2.0 for Stakeholder Analysis: StakeSource and Its Application in Ten Industrial Projects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Managing Requirements Knowledge

Abstract

Software projects often fail because stakeholders are omitted. Existing stakeholder analysis methods rely on practitioners to manually identify and prioritise stakeholders, which is time consuming, especially in large projects with many stakeholders. This chapter investigates the use of Web 2.0 technologies, such as crowdsourcing and social networking, to identify and prioritise stakeholders. The investigation is based on the application of StakeSource in practice. StakeSource is a Web 2.0 tool that uses social networking and crowdsourcing techniques to identify and prioritise stakeholders. This chapter describes our experiences of and lessons learnt from applying StakeSource in ten real-world projects from six organisations in UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada, involving more than 600 stakeholders. We find that StakeSource can yield significant benefits, but its effectiveness depends on the stakeholders’ incentives to share information. In some projects, StakeSource elicited valuable stakeholder information; in other projects, the stakeholder responses were insufficient to add value. We conclude with a description of factors that influence stakeholder engagement via the use of Web 2.0 tools such as StakeSource. If collaborative tools such as StakeSource were to find a place in requirements engineering, we would need to understand what motivates stakeholders to contribute.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter, practitioners refer to the requirements engineers, project managers, system analysts, business analysts or developers who are responsible for stakeholder analysis in their projects.

  2. 2.

    http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm.

  3. 3.

    http://www.stakeholder-management.com/.

  4. 4.

    StakeSource tool demo is available at http://vimeo.com/18250588. For further details about StakeSource, refer to the previous work [9, 11].

  5. 5.

    In Deutskens et al.’s study of the response rate of online surveys with different configurations (e.g., short vs. long, donation to charity vs. lottery incentive, early vs. late reminder), they found that the response rate ranged from 9.4 % to 31.4 %.

References

  1. Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp 35–46

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sharp H, Galal GH, Finkelstein A (1999) Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of the database and expert system applications workshop (DEXA), Florence, Italy, pp 387–391

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zave P (1997) Classification of research efforts in requirements engineering. ACM Comput Surv 29:315–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Macaulay L (1996) Requirements engineering. Springer Verlag, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Maiden N, Ncube C, Robertson S (2007) Can requirements be creative? Experiences with an enhanced air space management system. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp 632–641

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gottesdiener E (2002) Requirements by collaboration: workshops for defining needs. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gause DC, Weinberg GM (1989) Exploring requirements: quality before design. Dorset House, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Alexander I (2005) A taxonomy of stakeholders: human roles in system development. Int J Technol Hum Interact 1:23–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lim SL (2010) Social networks and collaborative filtering for large-scale requirements elicitation. Ph.D. thesis, University of New South Wales

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lim SL, Quercia D, Finkelstein A (2010) StakeNet: using social networks to analyse the stakeholders of large-scale software projects. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE), vol 1, Cape Town, South Africa, pp 295–304

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lim SL, Quercia D, Finkelstein A (2010) StakeSource: harnessing the power of crowdsourcing and social networks in stakeholder analysis. In: Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE international conference on software engineering (ICSE), vol 2, Cape Town, South Africa, pp 239–242

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cleland-Huang J, Mobasher B (2008) Using data mining and recommender systems to scale up the requirements process. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on ultra-large-scale software-intensive systems, Leipzig, Germany, pp 3–6

    Google Scholar 

  13. Serrano N, Torres JM (2010) Web 2.0 for practitioners. IEEE Softw 27:11–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Damian D (2007) Stakeholders in global requirements engineering: lessons learned from practice. IEEE Softw 24:21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Storey M, Treude C, van Deursen A, Cheng L (2010) The impact of social media on software engineering practices and tools. In: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on the future of software engineering research, Santa Fe, New Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grudin J (1994) Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Commun ACM 37:92–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oreilly T (2007) What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pouloudi A, Whitley EA (1997) Stakeholder identification in inter-organizational systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems. Eur J Inform Syst 6:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng BHC, Atlee JM (2007) Research directions in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering, Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp 285–303

    Google Scholar 

  20. Alexander I, Robertson S (2004) Understanding project sociology by modeling stakeholders. IEEE Softw 21:23–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scott J (2000) Social network analysis: a handbook. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lindlof TR, Taylor BC (2002) Qualitative communication research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  23. Deutskens E, De Ruyter K, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P (2004) Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Mark Lett 15:21–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yu J, Cooper H (1983) A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. J Mark Res 20:36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thayer RH, Dorfman M (1997) Software requirements engineering. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Dobson J, Blyth A, Chudge J, Strens R, Dobson J, Blyth A, Chudge J, Strens R (1994) The ORDIT approach to organisational requirements. In: Requirements engineering: social and technical issues. Academic Press Professional, San Diego, pp 87–106

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the SEGAL and CHISEL research groups at University of Victoria, Peggy Storey, and Peter Bentley for their feedback on the work and the practitioners and stakeholders for their feedback on StakeSource.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, London, UK

    S. L. Lim & A. Finkelstein

  2. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

    D. Damian

  3. National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan

    F. Ishikawa

Authors
  1. S. L. Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Damian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Ishikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Finkelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. L. Lim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics / MOBIS, University of Hamburg, Vogt-Kölln-Str. 30, Hamburg, 22527, Germany

    Walid Maalej

  2. Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH, Moosacher Str. 48, Munich, 80809, Germany

    Anil Kumar Thurimella

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lim, S.L., Damian, D., Ishikawa, F., Finkelstein, A. (2013). Using Web 2.0 for Stakeholder Analysis: StakeSource and Its Application in Ten Industrial Projects. In: Maalej, W., Thurimella, A. (eds) Managing Requirements Knowledge. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34419-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34419-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34418-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34419-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation