![](bg6.png)
If analysts can visualize such variations, they might
be able to get more precise information with regard to
these variations, and thus, deal with the requirements
changes.
4 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we presented an analysis method of the
context of stakeholders by extending the SD model
of the i* framework. By applying the method to
the software development project of the non-life in-
surance company, the model was able to visualize
the sources. Within this context, there were present
the sources of requirements changes that were out of
scope in the original SD model. In the case study,
we analyzed the context of stakeholders base on re-
quirements changes. Although we did not predict the
changes, we could get domain knowledge of the con-
text of the stakeholders. In order to predict changes in
requirements, analysts have to increase their knowl-
edge of the domain and the context of the stakehold-
ers. The study proved effective for those analysts. As
a result of the case study, the analysts could realize
the necessity of the analysis of the social environment
of the agents and the visualization of the context of
their requirements throughout the application of the
extended SD model. We did not compare the positive
and negative cost of the application of the method. Of
course, the analyst who applies the method to his/her
project is required more work than ever in the require-
ments analysis phase. However, we consider that the
loss cased by the unexpected requirements changes is
more expensive than the application of the method.
We will evaluate the reliability of the consideration in
our future work.
REFERENCES
Alexander, I. and Robertson, S. (2004). Understanding
project sociology by modelling stakeholders. IEEE
Software, 21(1):23–27.
Bano, M., Imtiaz, S., Ikram, N., Niazi, M., and Usman, M.
(2012). Causes of requirement change-a systematic
literature review. In Evaluation and Assessment in
Software Engineering , pages 22–31. The institute of
Engineering and Technology.
Damas, C., Lambeau, B., and van Lamsweerde, A. (2006).
Scenarios, goals, and state machines: a win-win part-
nership for model synthesis. In SIGSOFT ’06/FSE-14:
the 14th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on
Foundations of software engineering, pages 197–207.
ACM.
Ebert, C. and D., M. J. (2005). Requirements uncertainty:
influencing factors and concrete improvements. In
The 27th International Conference on Software Engi-
neering, pages 553–560. IEEE.
Faily, S. and Flechais, I. (2009). Context-sensitive re-
quirements and risk management with iris. In The
21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering
Conference (RE’09), volume 0, pages 379–380, Los
Alamitos, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of social-
ity: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Psychological Review, 99(4):689–723.
Kotonya, G. and Sommerville, I. (1998). Requirements En-
gineering: Processes and Techniques. John Wiley &
Sons.
MacAulay, L. (1996). Requirements Engineering. Springer.
Nakatani, T. and Tsumaki, T. (2014). Predicting require-
ments changes by focusing on the social relations.
In The 10th Asia-Pacific Conferencs on Conceptual
Modeling, pages 65–70. Australian Comupter Society.
Nurmuliani, N., Zowghi, D., and Fowell, S. (2004). Anal-
ysis of requirements volatility during software devel-
opment life cycle. In The 2004 Australian Software
Engineering Conference (ASWEC’04), pages 28–37.
Pohl, K. (2010). Requirements Engineering: Fundamen-
tals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer.
Robertson, S. and Robertson, J. (2005). Requirements-Led
Project Management. Addison-Wesley.
Sommerville, I. and Sawyer, P. (1997). Requirements
Engineering-A good practice guide. John Wikey &
Sons.
Sutcliffe, A., Feckas, S., and Sohlberg, M. M. (2005). Per-
sonal and contextual requirements engineering. In The
13th International Requirements Engineering Confer-
ence (RE’05), pages 19–30. IEEE.
van Lamsweerde, A. (2004). Goal-oriented requirements
engineering: A roundtrip from research to practice.
In The 12th International Requirements Engineering
Conference (RE’04), pages 4–7. IEEE.
Williams, B. J., Carver, J., and Vaughn, R. (2006). Change
risk assessment: Understanding risks involved in
changing software requirements. In The International
Conference on Software Engineering Research and
Practice (SERP 2006), pages 966–971.
Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., and Mylopoulos, J., editors
(2011). Social Modeling for Requirements Engineer-
ing. MIT Press.
Yu, E. S. K. and Mylopoulos, J. (1998). An actor depen-
dency model of organizational work –with applica-
tion to business process reengineering. In Conference
on Organizational Computing Systems (COOCS’98),
pages 258–268.
Zowghi, D. and Nurmuliani, N. (2002). A study of the im-
pact of requirements volatility on software project per-
formance. In Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Con-
ference, pages 3–11. IEEE.
ICSOFT-EA2014-9thInternationalConferenceonSoftwareEngineeringandApplications
362