So who is impacted anyway: a preliminary study of indirect stakeholder identification in practice
Pages 36 - 40
Abstract
Due to the proliferation of disruptive technologies such as AI into almost every aspect of modern society, software systems increasingly affect the lives of people who do not directly use these systems - with potentially serious and harmful consequences. However, current software development practices do not yet account for this trend sufficiently well and frequently overlook indirect stakeholders. This paper presents the results of a preliminary interview-based study of software professionals aimed at understanding the state-of-practice of indirect stakeholder identification in the software industry. Our initial findings confirm that indirect stakeholders are often overlooked due to customer expectations, project constraints, the prevailing technology-centric software engineering culture and a lack of practical methods and tools. Based on these findings, we outline a roadmap for the investigation of methods and tools for the effective and efficient identification of indirect stakeholders.
References
[1]
Simon Adams, Alison Cartlidge, Ashley Hanna, Stuart Rance, and John A. Sowerby. 2008. ITIL V3 Foundation Handbook. Stationery Office Books, London, UK.
[2]
Bernd Aschauer, Peter Hruschka, Kim Lauenroth, Markus Meuten, and Gareth Rogers. 2018. Handbook of RE@Agile According to the IREB Standard. IREB.
[3]
Barry Boehm. 2006. Value-Based Software Engineering: Overview and Agenda. In Value-Based Software Engineering, Stefan Biffl, Aybüke Aurum, Barry Boehm, Hakan Erdogmus, and Paul Grünbacher (Eds.). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 3--14.
[4]
Pierre Bourque and Richard E. Fairley (Eds.). 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge Version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society.
[5]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.
[6]
Peter Checkland and John Poulter. 2010. Soft Systems Methodology. In Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide, Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell (Eds.). Springer in association with the Open University, London, UK.
[7]
Stacey Cowley. 2021. Racial Bias Skewed Small-Business Relief Lending, Study Says. New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2022 from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/business/ppp-loans-covid-racial-bias.html
[8]
Elizabeth Fernandez. 2020. Who Is Responsible In A Crash With A Self-Driving Car? Forbes. Retrieved January 30, 2022 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/02/06/who-is-responsible-in-a-crash-with-a-self-driving-car/?sh=5fb004584b2b
[9]
Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry. 2019. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press.
[10]
Google. 2022. Google AI principles. Google. Retrieved January 30, 2022 from https://ai.google/principles/
[11]
Kashmir Hill. 2020. Wrongfully Accused by an Algorithm. New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2022 from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html
[12]
IIBA. 2015. A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge, 3rd Edition. International Institute of Business Analysis.
[13]
INCOSE. 2015. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
[14]
International Standard Organization (ISO). 2017. ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 International Standard - Systems and software engineering - Software life cycle processes. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
[15]
International Standard Organization (ISO). 2018. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018, International Standard - Systems and software engineering - Life cycle processes - Requirements engineering. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
[16]
Carla Pacheco and Ivan Garcia. 2012. A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation. Journal of Systems and Software 85 (2012), 2171--2181. Issue 9.
[17]
Fred Schulte and Erica Fry. 2019. Death By 1,000 Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong. Kaiser Health News. Retrieved January 30, 2022 from https://khn.org/news/death-by-a-thousand-clicks/
[18]
Shalom H Schwartz. 2012. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture 2, 1 (2012), 1--20.
[19]
SEBoK Editorial Board. 2021. Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK). BKCASE Governing Board. Retrieved January 30, 2022 from https://www.sebokwiki.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_Systems_Engineering_Body_of_Knowledge_(SEBoK)
[20]
Ian Sommerville. 2016. Software Engineering (10th ed.). Pearson, Harlow, UK.
[21]
Klaas-Jan Stol, Paul Ralph, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2016. Grounded Theory in Software Engineering Research: A Critical Review and Guidelines. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 120--131.
[22]
P.A. Keller T. Pyzdek. 2014. Six sigma handbook: a complete guide for green belts, black belts, and managers at all levels, 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY, USA.
[23]
Jon Whittle, Maria Angela Ferrario, William Simm, and Waqar Hussain. 2021. A case for human values in software engineering. IEEE Software 38, 1 (Jan 2021), 106--113.
[24]
Wikipedia. 2022. Matthew effect. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 30, 2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
[25]
Till Winkler and Sarah Spiekermann. 2021. Twenty years of value sensitive design: a review of methodological practices in VSD projects. Ethics and Information Technology 23, 1 (2021), 17--21.
[26]
Daisy Yoo. 2021. Stakeholder Tokens: A constructive method for value sensitive design stakeholder analysis. Ethics and Information Technology 23, 1 (2021), 63--67.
Index Terms
- So who is impacted anyway: a preliminary study of indirect stakeholder identification in practice
Recommendations
Guest Editors' Introduction: Stakeholders in Requirements Engineering
The growing attention being paid to stakeholders' needs and desires reflects the growing importance of requirements engineering(RE) in software and systems development. This introduction reviews the RE process: identifying the stakeholders in a project,...
A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation
This paper presents a systematic review of relevant published studies related to topics in Requirements Engineering, specifically, concerning stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation, dated from 1984 to 2011. Addressing four ...
Industrial Practices on Requirements Reuse: An Interview-Based Study
Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software QualityAbstract[Context and motivation] Requirements reuse has been proposed as a key asset for requirements engineers to efficiently elicit, validate and document software requirements and, as a consequence, obtain requirements specifications of better quality ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2022
122 pages
ISBN:9781450393423
DOI:10.1145/3528579
- General Chair:
- Maria Teresa Baldassarre,
- Program Chairs:
- Lutz Prechelt,
- Gema Rodríguez-Pérez
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
- IEEE CS
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 19 July 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
- ARC Laureate Fellowship
Conference
ICSE '22
Sponsor:
ICSE '22: 44th International Conference on Software Engineering
May 21 - 29, 2022
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 47 of 70 submissions, 67%
Upcoming Conference
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 92Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)34
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 21 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in