The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process
Open accessAbstract
Adequate, timely and effective consultation of relevant stakeholders is of paramount importance in the requirements engineering process. However, the thorny issue of making sure that all relevant stakeholders are consulted has received less attention than other areas which depend on it, such as scenario-based requirements, involving users in development, negotiating between different viewpoints and so on. The literature suggests examples of stakeholders, and categories of stakeholder, but does not provide help in identifying stakeholders for a specific system. In this paper, we discuss current work in stakeholder identification, propose an approach to identifying relevant stakeholders for a specific system, and propose future directions for the work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Multidisciplinary project management facilitates the cooperation between those who are responsible for producing the technology (eg, technicians, designers, and health care professionals) and those who participate to ensure that eHealth technologies fit in with the needs and values (eg, end users and health care insurers/payers) [110].”
From A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies (2011) · cites this paper as [110]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2010) · Cited by 24,023
(2017) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483381411.n575 · Cited by 6,067
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Object Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach
Jacobson, I. (1992) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 2,937
Goal-directed requirements acquisition
Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., & Fickas, S. F. (1993) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/0167-6423(93)90021-g · Cited by 1,979
Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques
Kotonya, G., & Sommerville, I. (1998) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · Cited by 1,702
Industrial networks: A new view of reality
(1992) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/0024-6301(92)90436-6 · Cited by 1,497
Object-oriented software engineering: a use case driven approach
Marshall, L. (1992) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/0950-5849(92)90126-a · Cited by 1,495
Information systems failures—a survey and classification of the empirical literature
Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. (1988) · Oxford University Press eBooks · Cited by 729
Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams
DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. (1987) · Cited by 721
(1993) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-57433-6 · Cited by 698
Information Technology And Organisational Change
(2005) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203982952 · Cited by 301
Newman, W. M. (1995) · Cited by 283
(1987) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/0950-5849(87)90302-8 · Cited by 198
Conger, S. A. (1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 89
Liu, B. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19460-3_7 · Cited by 84
Pouloudi, A., & Whitley, E. A. (1997) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1038/sj.ejis.3000252 · Cited by 42
A Qualitative Scenario Approach to Managing Evolving Requirements
Galal‐Edeen, G. H., & Paul, R. J. (1999) · Requirements Engineering · doi:10.1007/s007660050016 · Cited by 31
Yeates, D. (1994) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/0263-7863(94)90010-8 · Cited by 22
Using domain knowledge in requirements capture and formal specification construction
Bolton, D. L., Furber, D., Green, S., et al. (1994) · UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) · Cited by 19
Stakeholder analysis as a front-end to knowledge elicitation
Pouloudi, A. (1997) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/bf02812443 · Cited by 17
Cooperative requirements capture: Control Room 2000
Macaulay, L. (1994) · Requirements Engineering · Cited by 13
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- galal, 1999, Thoughts on Identifying and Managing Stakeholders
- gotel, 1995, Contribution Structures, 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'95), 100
- holtzblatt, 1993, Participator?/ Design principles and practice, 177
- jacobson, 1992, Object-OrientedSoftware Engineering A Use Case Driven Approach
- maccaulay, 1994, Requirements Engineering Social and Technical Issues, 67
- 10.5465/AMR.1995.9503271992 · DOI · Paper page
- bolton, 1994, Requirements Engineering Social and Technical Issues, 141
- van lamsweerde, 1993, The meeting scheduler system ? preliminary definition
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies
van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., van Limburg, M., Ossebaard, H. C., Kelders, S. M., Eysenbach, G., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1672 · Cited by 1,126
Why Business Modeling is Crucial in the Development of eHealth Technologies
van Limburg, M., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., Ossebaard, H. C., Hendrix, R. M., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1674 · Cited by 179
van Limburg, M., Wentzel, J., Sanderman, R., & van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (2015) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.4519 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Sharp, H., Finkelstein, A., & Galal, G.
- Affiliations
- City, University of London (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings. Tenth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. DEXA 99
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 1999
- Pages
- 387-391
- ISSN
- 1529-4188 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980141873
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 2.49
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- discovery.ucl.ac.uk
- Locations
- International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA) (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Systems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
- Keywords
- stakeholder identification, requirements engineering, stakeholder consultation, stakeholder categories
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
