Ijcsit12REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING OF A WEB PORTAL USING ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS ARTIFACTS AND PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES

International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 5, No 2, April 2013
DOI : 10.5121/ijcsit.2013.5212 131
REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING OF A WEB PORTAL
USING ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS ARTIFACTS
AND PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES
Flávia Linhalis Arantes1
1
Nucleus of Informatics Applied to Education (NIED)
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil
farantes@unicamp.br
ABSTRACT
The requirements of software are key elements that contribute to the quality and users satisfaction of the
final system. In this work, Requirements Engineering (RE) of web sites is presented using an organizational
semiotics perspective. They are shown as being part of an organization, with particular practices, rules
and views considering stakeholders several differences and opinions. The main contribution of this paper is
to relate an experience, from elicitation to validation, showing how organizational semiotics artifacts were
exploited in a collaborative and participatory way to RE of a web portal. A case study is described in order
to demonstrate the feasibility of using such artifacts to RE when we think about the system as being part of
a social organization.
KEYWORDS
Requirements Engineering; Organizational Semiotics; Participatory Design.
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the measures of success of a software system is concerned about its adequacy to the
purpose for which it was intended. According to Baranauskas and colleagues [1], “Requirements
Engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the purpose for which a software system is
intended by identifying stakeholders and their needs, and documenting these in a form that is
suitable to analysis, communication, and implementation”. It is usual to have conflicts and
different views of the tasks by the stakeholders, because it depends on the perspectives of their
tasks in the system and work environment. A semiotic-based method for RE was proposed by
Baranauskas and colleagues [2, 3]. The method is based on Organizational Semiotics (OS) [4, 5],
which studies organizations considering social, political, cultural and ethical issues involved in
understanding the design problem.
The Participatory Design (PD) proposes stakeholders participation during the life cycle of a
technological product [6]. The users can actively contribute to reflect their perspectives, needs
and expectations during the design and development of the system [7].
The methodological conception of the case study presented in this paper considers the technology
in a social context, with methods and techniques from OS and PD, which was coined “semio-
participatory” methodology by Baranauskas [8]. One of the objectives of the methodology is to

132
promote the active participation of the stakeholders in the process of solution design,
implementation and evaluation.
In this work, the semio-participatory methodology [8] is applied to the RE of a web portal. The
case study presented in this paper allows us to observe the contribution of OS when we consider
the software system as being part of a social organization. The main contribution of this paper is
to relate an experience, showing a web portal case study that joins participatory practices and OS
artifacts applied to RE – i.e., elicitation, analysis/negotiation, specification, and validation.
This paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents some related work. Section 3 presents OS
artifacts and how they that can be applied to RE. Section 4 describes web information systems
from OS perspective, giving background to the fact that web information systems design should
be contextualized in a social perspective. Section 5 presents a case study, showing how the semio-
participatory methodology were applied to the RE phases of a web site. Sections 6 and 7,
respectively, present discussion and conclusion about the case study, highlighting the semio-
participatory methodology contributions.
2. RELATED WORK
The methodology adopted in this research situates the technology in a social context, with
methods and techniques from OS and PD – that is called semio-participatory methodology [8].
The use of OS artifacts in conjunction with PD techniques has been explored in previous research
work in Science Computing. Baranauskas and colleagues [2] used a semiotic approach to guide
the requirements elicitation process. Bonacin and colleagues [9] used OS as a guide to develop a
service-based architecture for e-Government. Simoni [10] and colleagues adopted a social process
to information systems development, showing a semio-participatory case study. Melo [11] used
semio-participatory techniques to the design of inclusive information systems. These works,
among others, have contributed to the definition of the semio-participatory methodology
approach, adopted in the case study presented in this paper.
Currently, the semio-participatory methodology is being explored to guide the integration of
educational laptops in a Brazilian school. The focus is the involvement of the school community
to build a participatory model for the educational laptop insertion in the school practices, and to
analyze its impacts outside the school. The semio-participatory methodology is helping to
understand how the technology is situated in the school social context. Results can be found at
[17, 18].
3. OS ARTIFACTS APPLIED TO RE
Organizational Semiotics studies organizations based on semiotics concepts and methods. This
study understands that any organized behavior is affected through and governed by the
communication and interpretation of signs by people [4, 5]. The aims of OS study are to find new
and insightful ways of analysing, describing and explaining organizations.
The OS methods and artifacts have been reviewed and used in previous work to perform several
tasks related to RE [2, 9, 10]. In the following subsections, some OS artifacts that can be used to
support RE phases are described.

133
3.1. OS Onion and Stakeholders Analysis
The semiotic onion (or OS onion) is a conceptual artifact that represents the computational
system using different layers of meaning. Each layer has to be considered in the system analysis
and design. The relationship between the semiotic onion conceptual layers of an information
system is illustrated in Figure 1(a) [4].
As illustrated in Figure 1(a), at the informal system layer there is a sub-culture in which meanings
are established, intentions are understood, beliefs are formed and commitments with
responsibilities are made. In the formal system layer, form and rule replace meaning and
intention. Finally, in the technical layer, part of the formal system is automated by a computer
system. The informal level contains the formal one that, by its turn, contains the technical level.
Changes in some level have impact in others.
The OS onion allows investigating and identifying the stakeholders that have influences or
interests in the information system development. Firstly, the design problem has to be clarified
and the stakeholders should be identified and organized in the OS onion layers [2, 9]. Figure 1(b)
illustrates the semiotic onion adapted to guide the design problem clarification, stakeholders
identification and analysis.
Figure 1. (a) Organizational Semiotics Onion [4]. (b) Organizational Semiotics onion adapted to problem
clarification and stakeholders analysis. (c) The Semiotic Ladder [4]. (d) Evaluation frame structure.

134
3.2. Semiotic Ladder
The semiotic ladder (Figure 1(c)) is an artifact that supports a semiotic view of information
systems requirements considering the different aspects of information that are organized in
different levels of information. This artifact expresses the idea of constructing the system in each
level from the ones identified in lower levels [12].
The semiotic ladder has been used to support information system analysis in several phases of
software life cycle [2, 13]. The artifact offers the opportunity of analysing semantic, pragmatic
and social levels of relationship, while traditional methodologies emphasize mostly technical
issues.
3.3. Evaluation Frame
Evaluation frames are used to analyze the current system and understand what is expected from
the new one. This artifact allows to identify and organize interests, ideas, questions and problems
identified by each stakeholder category [2, 9, 10]. Figure 1(d) illustrates an example of the
evaluation frame structure.
3.4. Ontology Model
The ontology model shapes a context that involves concepts and words used in the domain of a
specific problem. It is a semantic model of the problem domain.
An ontology model can be used to represent user’s requirements in a formal and precise model
[4]. The required system functions are specified in the model, which describes a view of
responsible agents in the focal business domain and their actions or patterns of behavior called
“affordances” [14]. It is a process of conceptualization of a business organization, in which the
organizational behavior and the language used to express the problem are analyzed and captured
in the ontology model. The primary focus of the formalization is on the agents in action. The
agents and their patterns of behavior (affordances) have a graphical representation, which
includes [4]:
• Agent (graphically represented as an ellipse): Actors who build and interact with the reality.
• Affordance (rectangle): Semantic primitive representing possible patterns of agent actions or
behaviors.
• Ontology Relation (line): Define the limit or period of existence of an affordance related to
the agent that holds it. The antecedent in the relation is represented on the left and the
dependent on the right.
• Determiner (preceded by #): Invariant property that distinguish one instance from others.
• Role (half circle): An agent can have a particular role when he or she is involved in relations
and actions.
• Whole-part Relationship (line with a dot): Define a possible subdivision of an agent,
represented from the left (whole) to the right (part), according to the ontological dependence.
• Generic-specific Relationship (box): specifies whether agents of affordances possess shared
properties.
The design problem description and the requirements elicitation performed by users can
collaborate to define semantic units that may indicate agents, affordances and their relationships
to formalize and model the problem in focus. In section 5.4 an ontology model example is
described.

135
4. WEB INFORMATION SYSTEMS WITH AN OS PERSPECTIVE
According to Melo [11], the semiotic onion and the semiotic ladder can support information
systems analysis to web information system in general. If we consider the web as an example of
technical information system, then the global society could be seen as the informal information
system. The norms to rule their actions (development, maintenance, for example) would be part
of the formal information system.
If we take an institutional portal as example, then the informal layer of the onion would be
represented by the institution that owns the portal, and by other groups interested on its activities.
In the formal level, the focus would be in the norms, for example, work procedures, privacy
policies, legislation, internal regulation, etc.
The following items describe how the semiotic ladder can be used to support web information
systems analysis [11]:
• Physics: hardware infra-structure particularly related to the problem in focus. For example:
servers, transmission channels, client computers, etc.
• Empirics: bandwidth, network protocols, data transmission, access efficiency, throughput,
etc.
• Syntactics: relates to development frameworks, programming and markup languages used in
the web (PHP, ASP, HTML, CSS, etc), W3C recommendations, file systems, documentation,
browsers, and so on.
• Semantics: this layer can support different point of views. For example, (1) who are the users,
their needs and interests; (2) the meaning of interface elements; etc.
• Pragmatics: established communication, adopted procedures, users intentions, etc.
• Social World: values, expectations, cultural influences, beliefs, compromises, legislation, and
so on.
5. A WEB PORTAL CASE STUDY
The Nucleus of Informatics Applied to Education (NIED) web portal is the object of this case
study. NIED is a research nucleus, which aggregates researchers and projects from several areas,
with focus on informatics in education. Its web portal is expected to highlight the nucleus team,
projects and advances.
NIED’s current web portal was contracted as a third party service. There was no stakeholders
participation during the design process. This problem leaded to dissatisfaction and frustration
when the portal was delivered.
The portal is now under a (re)design process. Participatory practices [7] are being considered and
supported by OS artifacts. Figure 2 illustrates the semio-participatory methodology [8] adopted
for the portal RE process – from stakeholders identification to requirements validation. In the
following subsections, the Requirements Engineering phases applied to NIED’s portal design are
described, together with the OS artifacts adopted in four participatory workshops.

136
Figure 2. Methodology outlined for the portal Requirement Engineering process – from stakeholders
identification to requirements validation.
5.1. Stakeholders Identification
The clarification of the design problem and the identification of the stakeholders were the first
steps to requirements elicitation. The identified stakeholders were about to take part in the
participatory practices. A brief participatory workshop was conducted with NIED’s board
members in order to perform these two activities.
The OS onion artifact, presented in Figure 1(b), was used to support this activity. The first
activity of the workshop was to expose the design problem as being “the development of a web
portal to meet NIED’s interdisciplinary nature and to highlight the nucleus projects and
advances”. The workshop mediator explained the OS onion artifact to the participants. During a
brainstorming, the stakeholders were identified and classified in the semiotic onion layers. Figure
3 summarizes the results.
According to the Figure, in the inner layer, the problem of design (NIED’s web portal) is
represented. In the technical layer, part of the formal system is automated – so technical
stakeholders were identified. In the formal layer, norms, work procedures and internal rules are
established, so people who rule work procedures at NIED were identified. In the informal level,
social groups interested on NIED’s activities were identified.

137
Figure 3. OS onion applied to NIED's web portal stakeholders identification.
5.2. Requirements Elicitation
Once the stakeholders were identified, another semio-participatory workshop were conducted
with focus on requirements elicitation. At least one person of the following stakeholders groups
took part in the workshop: developers, analysts, web designers, researchers, secretary,
informatics, undergraduates, PhD candidates, scholars, trainees, COCEN and GGTE.
In the second workshop, the mediator firstly revisited the OS onion artifact, filled in the first
workshop. The design problem was also reviewed, as some participants were not present in the
first workshop because they were identified as stakeholders in that occasion.
The workshop mediator presented two artifacts that would be used to requirements elicitation: the
evaluation frame (Figure 1(d) and the semiotic ladder (Figure 1(c)).
With support of the evaluation frame artifact, the mediator asked the participants to identify
questions, problems, ideas and solutions for the portal and write them in post-its. The
stakeholders of each layer (informal, formal and technical) were all together in this activity. After
writing in the post-its, each one exposed to the group his/her questions and ideas to NIED’s
portal, according to the vision they had of the system. In order to organize and register the users
contributions, an evaluation frame poster was filled with the post-its by the mediator.
User participation in different semiotic levels led to heterogeneous ideas of the system. When
these ideas were exposed to the group, they were enriched in a participatory manner. The items
below summarize the evaluation frame main results, showing contributions to the informal,
formal and technical layers, respectively. The complete evaluation frame results are shown in
Tables 1 to 3.
• Informal: The main contributions to the informal level were related to keep the portal up to
date, to show NIED’s history (including projects and people), to integrate NIED’s
community, to make internationalization, to make the portal more interesting and interactive
(using blogs and community contributions).
• Formal: In the formal level, the requirements were related to buy books (electronic
commerce), to create an Intranet to administrative subjects, to customize some common areas
in the portal, to design simple administration interfaces, to integrate the portal with NIED’s
research projects, to make a digital library, and to allow multiple users to edit events and
news.

138
• Technical: The technical level contributions were mainly related to make the portal
accessible (at least to visual impaired users), to adopt RSS and/or social networks, to make
the site map, and to access the portal using mobile devices (such as PDAs).
Table 1. Evaluation frame results for informal layer.
Questions and Problems Ideas and Solutions
1) The projects in the portal are usually
outdated.
1) Someone have to cover the project’s
upgrade.
2) Tell the story of NIED, including projects
and people.
2) Make a time line, indicating projects,
participants, and important events.
3) More integration of NIED’s community
(students, researchers, teachers, ...).
3) Create NIED’s community as a social
network and access it from the portal.
4) NIED’s web portal internationalization 4) Use automatic translation (like google
translate)
5) In the current portal, it is difficult to find
NIED’s address and location.
5) Put these information in the main page.
6) Make the portal more interesting. 6) Increase the visibility of projects with
multimedia.
7) Make the portal more interactive 7) Use blogs
Table 2. Evaluation frame results for formal layer.
1) Enable users to buy books. 1) Implement electronic commerce.
2) Lack of administrative resources in the
current portal.
2) Create an Intranet to administrative subjects.
3) Problems with meeting schedule in NIED’s
physical space.
3) Implement scheduling to NIED’s meeting
room.
4) Customize some common areas in the
portal.
4) Make a minimum template to projects and
personal home pages.
5) Problems to keep private areas up to date. 5) Design simpler administration interfaces to
encourage users to update their areas.
6) More integration with NIED’s research
projects.
6) Allow access to projects’ web pages
according to user permissions.
7) More integration with NIED’s research area. 7) Allow community contributions related to
projects research focus.
8) It is difficult to keep the portal up to date
with events and news.
8) Decentralize – allow multiple users to to
edit this area.
9) It is difficult to keep productions (books,
memos, papers) up to date.
9) Decentralize – each researcher responsible
for his/her projects.
10) Ease access to NIED’s books. 10) Make a digital library.

139
Table 3. Evaluation frame results for technical layer.
1) Make the portal accessible (at least to visual
impaired users).
1) Adopt W3C WAI (Web Accessibility
Initiative).
2) See NIED’s news without entering the
portal.
2) Use RSS and/or social networks.
3) It is difficult to find information in the
current portal.
3) Make the site map.
4) Access the portal using other platforms. 4) Consider mobile devices (such as PDAs).
The semiotic ladder (Figure 1(c)) was also adopted to support requirements elicitation (mainly
non-functional requirements). With this artifact some human aspects of information related to
social world (compromises), pragmatics (intentions) and semantics (meanings) were identified.
Some compromises registered in the semiotic ladder were related to information security and
availability, compliance with legislation (norms, W3C recommendations, accessibility laws),
different browsers compatibility, and keeping the portal up to date.
The intentions observed about the stakeholders needs and interests were related to ease the
content management, to improve the portal visibility, to improve NIED’s projects visibility, and
to make the portal more intuitive and dynamic.
The observations about meaning focused on usability, accessibility, internationalization,
understandable interfaces, conceptualization of the interface by the stakeholders, and the use of
timeline metaphor.
After the workshop, the semiotic ladder were reviewed and updated mainly with infrastructure
aspects. The complete semiotic ladder results are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Semiotic ladder artifact applied to NIED’s web portal.

140
5.3. Requirements Negotiation and Prototype
The second workshop results were discussed with the technical team and the coordination, aiming
to delimit the scope of the (re)design.
The third participatory workshop was organized with the stakeholders for the purpose of
negotiation. The requirements were classified into functional and non-functional.
Firstly, the semiotic ladder and the evaluation frame developed in the last workshop were
revisited. Afterward, the functional and non-functional requirements were presented and
considered one by one.
The most prioritized functional requirements were related to other ways to spread news (RSS and
social networks), to ease the access to NIED’s books and projects, to customize projects and staff
pages, to decentralize content management, and to represent NIED’s community.
The non-functional requirements highlighted by the stakeholders were related to accessibility,
usability, metaphor to content organization (timeline view), visual identity, updated content, and
emphasis on NIED’s projects.
After some discussion, the stakeholders agreed that the following items should be reformulated
based on the coordination recommendations and the technical team limitations:
• Electronic commerce does not fit in NIED’s educational nature;
• There is already an Intranet for some administrative matters;
• Community contributions to projects and blogs also imply in responsibilities with posted
content;
• Digital library and mobile devices access were considered interesting requirements, but
due to the limited development team they will not be considered for now.
After the requirements negotiation, we started a participatory prototype in order to know what the
stakeholders expected from the portal main page. The braindraw participatory technique [7] was
adopted to this activity. The stakeholders were separated in pairs. Each pair had 5 to 10 minutes
to draw the main page of the portal on a sheet. The sheet with the contributions of each pair was
passed to the right until all pairs had contributed in each sheet.
The result was very interesting: part of the stakeholders focused on NIED’s projects and the other
part focused on the institution, which resulted in two prototypes for the main page. The
prototypes were discussed with the stakeholders in the requirements validation phase (session
5.6).
5.4. Semantic Analysis
After the 3rd participatory workshop, the analyst and development team accomplished the
Semantic Analysis in order to formalize and model the system requirements. The semantic
analysis can be summarized in four main parts: problem definition, generation of candidate
affordances, affordances grouping, and ontology diagram creation [4].
The computational problem definition was introduced in section 5.1 by the following statement:
“the development of a web portal to meet NIED’s interdisciplinary nature and to highlight the
nucleus projects and advances”. The problem statement can serve as an initial source of agents
and affordances. But, like any initial statement, vague as this one, the information that resulted

141
from the participatory workshops contributed much more to the discovery of agents, affordances,
system properties, and so on. The candidate affordances are listed below.
portal, site map, news, events, time line, team, contact, mission,
vision, projects, publications, UCA, TelEduc, XO, FAQ, languages,
address, phone, location, photos, videos, partnerships, RSS, logo,
community, restricted access, creative-commons, papers, research,
twitter, facebook, books, login, password, menus, lattes, memos,
regulation, reports, user, W3C accessibility, participants, templates,
social networks, translation, permissions, edit, responsible, upgrade.
During the next phase of semantic analysis – affordances grouping – new relevant semantic units
were identified. The following affordances grouping refers to an overview of the technological
context.
Agents:
Society (root agent)
Person (agent - affordance of Society - part of Society)
User (role of a Person in the portal)
Administrator (User specification)
Researcher (User specification)
Teacher (User specification)
Secretary (User specification)
Internet (agent - affordance of Society - part of Society)
Web (agent - affordance of Internet - part of Internet)
Portal (agent - affordance of Web - part of Web)
Administration (agent - affordance of Portal - part of Portal)
Session (agent - affordance of Portal - part of Portal)
Site Map (Portal specification)
News (Portal specification)
Events (Portal specification)
Time line (Portal specification)
Team (Portal specification)
Lattes (Team property)
Mission (Portal specification)
Projects (Portal specification)
Publication (Portal specification)
Memos (Publication specification)
Books (Publication specification)
Papers (Publication specification)
FAQ (Portal specification)
Location, Contact (Portal specification)
Photos, Videos, Logo (Portal specification)
Partnerships (Portal specification)
RSS, twitter, facebook (Portal specification)
Affordances:
- Data (User property - determiner)
- Browse the portal (User affordance)
- Responsible for (User affordance)
- Language (Portal affordance)
- Accessibility links (Portal affordance)
- Choose (User affordance, depends on Language and Accessibility links)
- Identification (User affordance, depends on User Data)
- Edition (User affordance, depends on User Identification)
- Team (Portal affordance, depends on User Identification)
- Projects (Portal affordance, depends on User Identification)

142
- FAQ (Portal affordance, depends on User Identification)
- News (Portal affordance, depends on User Identification)
- Events (Portal affordance, depends on User Identification)
- Publications (Portal affordance, depends on User Identification)
- Partnerships (Portal affordance, depends on User Identification)
The affordances grouping presented in this section is a general view of NIED’s web portal. A
detailed description can be given for each affordance, using the same format. For example, the
affordance “Events” may have properties “begin date”, “begin time”, “end date”, “end time”,
“location”, “duration”, “summary”, “related links”, and so on.
As the last part of the semantic analysis, the ontology diagram was constructed using the
identified agents and affordances. Figure 5 illustrates an ontology diagram that describes the
domain problem as a whole. Specific parts of the problem, such as “News”, “Publications”,
“Events”, and others, can be represented in specific ontology diagrams. The diagram represents
the understanding and the expression of the designer for NIED’s web portal and its context of use.
Such understanding takes into account the expectations of users who have worked in the
participatory activities.
In Figure 5 diagram, there is a root agent – “Society” – where users’ actions and meanings on the
Internet are shared. The ontological dependence between agents and affordances is represented
from left to right. For example, the affordance “browse” depends on the existence of a “User” –
“Person” role in “Site” – and the affordance “language” depends on the existence of the “Site”
agent, where this language is expressed.
Figure 5. Ontology Diagram – problem context general view, based on the affordances grouping.
5.5. Requirements Specification
At this stage, the requirements specification document was produced. It contains the following
sections:

143
• Introduction: The main topics are related to goals and target audience of the document,
system scope, and document overview.
• General Description: It specifies user characteristics, system perspective, functions,
constraints, assumptions, and dependencies. The general ontology diagram showed on Figure
5 was used to illustrate the system functions.
• Functional Requirements: The system requirements were described in natural language. The
requirements related to the affordances “Edition”, “Team”, “Projects”, “FAQ”, “News”,
“Events”, “Publications”, and “Partnerships” were detailed in specific ontology diagrams.
• Non-Functional Requirements described in natural language.
5.6. Requirements Validation
The fourth and last workshop was conducted to make sure that the requirements document
produced corresponds, in fact, to the system that the stakeholders intends to.
The requirements were reviewed one by one using natural language description and the
ontologies diagrams.
The two prototypes of the portal main page, resulted from the 3rd workshop braindraw (section
5.3), were presented. One of them had its focus on NIED’s projects, while the other one focused
NIED as institution. As stakeholders continued in doubt about which one to choose, they
suggested to join them into one, resulting in the main page prototype illustrated in Figure 6.
As shown in Figure 6, the portal prototype has five areas: the header containing logos,
accessibility links, internationalization links, and main menu; the left area showing NIED’s
projects with photos, video and a brief description; the middle (or main) area containing NIED’s
description with links and photos related to news and events; the right area with a calendar, and
links to news and events; and finally, the footer showing creative commons license, NIED’s
location, contact, RSS and social networks links.
6. DISCUSSION
It is an agreement that software cannot function in isolation from the organizational and social
context in which it is embedded [2, 4, 15, 16]. The design of technological products is strongly
related to social and organizational dynamics.
According to Erickson [15], the design process can be more effective by developing a better
understanding of how concrete artifacts support communication in design. According to Kuutti
[16] the organizational context where a computer system is embedded is a social system, so the
relationship between the social system and the technical one should be considered and discussed
in the system design [16].
OS artifacts in conjunction with PD techniques have been explored in previous work of this
research group [9, 10, 11]. According to Baranauskas et al. [2], the OS methods allowed to
encompass a system level view, involving the team into considerations about the formal and
informal levels; instead of emphasizing the behavior of the software system as usually proposed
by traditional methodologies.

144
Figure 6. The main page prototype with focus on both - NIED's projects and NIED as institution.
The artifacts and activities carried out during the workshops deal mainly with the three upper
layers of the semiotic ladder, which are concerned with the use of signs to communicate
meanings (semantic layer), intentions (pragmatic layer), and their social consequences (social
layer). The activities executed in the workshops dealt with information that involves cultural,
behavioral and ethical aspects.
As a multidisciplinary and human-centred process, the participatory approach facilitated
discussion among the stakeholders during the workshops, leading to a better understanding of the
context and social implications of the system. Communication between the stakeholders was
facilitated by the OS artifacts, which allowed meaning negotiation and context understanding by a
shared representation of the data being captured, analyzed, and discussed. With participatory
workshops the concepts were naturally originated from the stakeholders themselves, who express
their ideas in post-its, and discuss their viewpoints and goals with others in the group.
Using the artifacts, a list of agreed requirements was derived, allowing a big picture of the
problem and the main requirements. The requirements considered stakeholders’ needs, intentions,
beliefs, existing conflicts, etc. They were represented with the use of an ontology model,
providing elements to specification and documentation.

145
7. CONCLUSION
Inefficient RE has been one of the causes of systems that do not meet their customers’
requirements; like happened with NIED’s current web portal when it was delivered.
In this paper, an experience with NIED’s web portal was presented. It showed how the semio-
participatory methodology [8] can be used to join OS artifacts and PD practices to support web
sites Requirements Engineering. The outlined methodology, illustrated in Figure 2, can be
considered a general guide to be applied in other web sites RE phases.
Results achieved in this case study, as well as in other application of the theoretical framework of
OS to information system design [3, 9, 10], encourage its use in other information systems
engineering.
The portal implementation is a work in progress. Some future work includes participatory
evaluation and requirements management.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to users that took part in the participatory workshops.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Nuseibeh and S. M. Easterbrook, “Requirements engineering: a roadmap”, in ICSE - Future of SE
Track, 2000, pp. 35–46.
[2] M. C. C. Baranauskas, J. Schimiguel, C. A. C. Simoni, and C. B. Medeiros, “Guiding the process of
requirements elicitation with a semiotic approach”, in Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, L. E. A. Inc., Ed., vol. 3, Las Vegas, USA, 2005, pp.
100–110.
[3] R. Bonacin, M. Baranauskas, and K. Liu, “From ontology charts to class diagrams: semantic analysis
aiding systems design”, in Proceedings of 6th ICEIS, Porto, Portugal, 2004.
[4] K. Liu, Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000.
[5] R. Stamper, Information in business and administrative systems. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1973.
[6] P. Ehn, Usability: Turning technologies into tools. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press,
Inc., 1992, ch. Scandinavian design: on participation and skill, pp. 96–132.
[7] M. J. Muller, J. H. Haslwanter, and T. Dayton, Handbook of Human- Computer Interaction. Elsevier,
1997, ch. Participatory Practices in the Software Lifecycle, pp. 255–297.
[8] M. C. C. Baranauskas, EAD e Reflexão sobre a Prática: A Formação do Profissional Reflexivo. São
Paulo: Avercamp, 2009, ch. Design de Sistemas e o Profissional Reflexivo: Um Modelo Semio-
Participativo, pp. 183–203.
[9] R. Bonacin, C. A. C. Simoni, A. M. Melo, and M. C. C. Baranauskas, “Organisational semiotics:
guiding a service-oriented architecture for e-government,” in Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Organisational Semiotics, M. C. C. Baranauskas and K. Liu, Eds., Campinas, SP,
Brazil, 2006, pp. 47–58.
[10] C. A. C. Simoni, A. M. Melo, and M. C. C. Baranauskas, Project Management and Risks
Management in Complex Projects. Springer, 2007, ch. Towards a social-based process for
information system development: a case study, pp. 177–192.
[11] A. M. Melo, “Design inclusivo de sistemas de informação na web,” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of
Computing, Unicamp, December 2007.

146
[12] R. K. Stamper, Information, organization and technology: studies in Organisational Semiotics.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, ch. Organisational Semitics: information without the
computer?, pp. 115–171.
[13] J. Schimiguel, “Um framework para a avaliação de interfaces de aplicações sig web no domínio
agrícola,” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Computing, Unicamp, Campinas, Brazil, 2006.
[14] D. A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, reprint paperback ed. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
[15] T. Erickson. Notes on design practice: stories and prototypes as catalysts for communication, pages
37-58. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1995.
[16] K. Kuutti. Work processes: scenarios as a preliminary vocabulary, pages 19-36. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1995.
[17] T. Amiel, F. L. Arantes, L. C. Miranda, M. C. Martins, and M. C. C. Baranauskas. “A Participatory
Approach to Scenario Co-Construction for the OLPC/XO in Brazil”. In: ED-MEDIA 2011 - World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, 2011, Lisbon.
Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
2011. Chesapeake: AACE, 2011. p. 48-57.
[18] M C. C. Baranauskas (Org.), M. C. Martins (Org.), and R. Assis (Org.) . XO na Escola: Construção
Compartilhada de Conhecimento - Lições Aprendidas. 1. ed. Campinas: NIED/UNICAMP, 2012.
357p
.AUTHOR
Flávia Linhalis Arantes received the Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from
Universidad e de São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil, in 2007. She is currently a researcher at
Nucleus of Informatics Applied to Education (NIED), State University of Campinas
(UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. Her research interests include participatory design,
social web and e-learning.

Ijcsit12REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING OF A WEB PORTAL USING ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS ARTIFACTS AND PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Ijcsit12REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING OF A WEB PORTAL USING ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS ARTIFACTS AND PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Ijcsit12REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING OF A WEB PORTAL USING ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS ARTIFACTS AND PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES