Visualizing Stakeholder Concerns with Anchored Map


Published on

presented in Fifth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV’10) - 28 September, 2010 - Sydney, Australia

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Visualizing Stakeholder Concerns with Anchored Map

  1. 1. Visualizing Stakeholder Concernswith Anchored Map Takanori Ugai* ** ** Shinpei Hayashi , Motoshi Saeki* Fujitsu Laboratories/Tokyo Institute of Technology** Tokyo Institute of Technology
  2. 2. Motivation Software development is a cooperative work by stakeholders. It is important  to understand stakeholder concerns  to identify potential problems • imbalance of stakeholders • lack of stakeholders 1 Copyright 2010 Takanori Ugai
  3. 3. Stakeholders and concerns in AGORA 2 Copyright 2010 Takanori Ugai
  4. 4. Stakeholders and concernsStakeholders two-layer graphical representation Maintainability User1 User2 3 Portability 2 User3 Usability Admin1 5 Reliability 5 Admin2 Efficiency Admin3 Dev1 Cost Dev2 Security Dev3 Functions 3
  5. 5. Anchored Map The nodes in stakeholders, called “anchor nodes”, are arranged on the circumference The nodes in concerns, called “free nodes”, are arranged at suitable positions in relations to the adjacent anchor nodes. The strength of edge as a spring is in proportional to the value attached the edge. An anchor node and a free node are located closer to each other if the stakeholder is strongly interested in the concern. Supposing that the elements in concerns as anchor nodes and the elements in stakeholders as free nodes, a anchored map is generated with the same way 4 Copyright 2010 Takanori Ugai
  6. 6. Example Most of stakeholders are strongly interested in security and functions because they are located in the center of the circle. Developers, Admin1 and Admin3 are interested in cost but users are not. Users and Admin2 are interested in usability but developers are not. Only Admin2 is interested in maintainability. 5 Copyright 2010 Takanori Ugai
  7. 7. Example2 All users are interested in similar concerns, and Admin2 is also the same as the users. Dev2 and Dev3 are interested in similar concerns but Dev1 is slightly different from Dev2 and Dev3. All administrators are interested in different concerns. Nobody is interested in portability, reliability and efficiency. This is because the goal graph describes business domains and does not describe the system infrastructure 6 Copyright 2010 Takanori Ugai
  8. 8. Summery This study presented a technique for visualizing stakeholders concerns in a project using an anchored map. The tool produces a graph which represents the relationship between stakeholders and system concerns. The tool can switch anchors and free nodes, and stakeholder preferences for goals are aggregated with semantic tags. Requirements analysts can easily obtain an overview of the analysis,  Find which concern has high priority for end users or system administrators, or  Identify the concerns which the smallest number of stakeholders are interested. A case study shows the system visualizes imbalance of stakeholders and lack of stakeholders and the information can give analysts suggestions. 7 Copyright 2010 Takanori Ugai
  9. 9. Future work: Scalability The system is able to handle data from thousands of stakeholders, but it is difficult to understand how the system is operating in this case Clustering 8 Copyright 2010 Takanori Ugai
  10. 10. 9 Copyright 2010 FUJITSU LIMITED