Slides for my StakeNet paper in the International Conference on Software Engineering 2010

1. Soo Ling Lim*, Daniele Quercia † , and Anthony Finkelstein* *University College London and † MIT SENSEable City Lab Using Social Networks to Analyse the Stakeholders of Large-Scale Software Projects

5. Stakeholder

6. Guildford, UK © River Wey

7. Software project failure rate FAILURE SUCCESS CHAOS Report, The Standish Group International, Inc.

8. Identify Prioritise

9. Build a Stake holder Net work

10. Step 1: Find initial stakeholders Users Developers Legislators Decision-makers

11. Step 2: Get recommendations

12. Step 2: Get recommendations <Alice, Director of Estates, 4>

13. Step 3: Draw social network

14. Step 3: Draw social network Alice

15. Step 3: Draw social network Alice Carl Bob

16. Step 3: Draw social network Alice Carl Bob

19. RALIC: UCL Access Control Project

20. Stakeholder Details

21. OpenR

22. ClosedR

23. Top 20 Stakeholders

24. Existing Method StakeNet lists

25. Existing Method Ground Truth list StakeNet lists

26. Existing Method Ground Truth list StakeNet lists Existing Method list

27. Example Stakeholder List 4 UCL visitor Dave 3 Student Carl 2 Head of Security Bob 1 Director of Estates Alice Priority Stakeholder Role Stakeholder

28. RQ1a. Identify stakeholder roles Found them! Omitted external library users 90% 89% Precision 90% 40% Recall StakeNet Existing Method

29. RQ1b. Prioritise stakeholder roles Accuracy ( ρ )

30. RQ2. Identify and prioritise stakeholders 57% 91% Out-degree 66% 91% In-degree 65% 91% Degree 78% 87% PageRank 56% 91% Closeness 52% 92% Betweenness No prioritisation 47% Existing method Prioritisation (Accuracy ) Identification (Recall)

31. RQ2. Identify and prioritise stakeholders Security and Access Systems

32. RQ2. Identify and prioritise stakeholders Security and Access Systems

33. RQ2. Identify and prioritise stakeholders Security and Access Systems

34. RQ2. Identify and prioritise stakeholders Security and Access Systems StakeNet List

35. RQ3. OpenR vs. ClosedR Identify stakeholder roles 95% 90% Precision 60% 90% Recall ClosedR OpenR

36. RQ4. StakeNet vs. Individuals legislators users developers directors managers StakeNet Accuracy ( ρ) 85%

37. StakeSource Tool

38. StakeSource Tool www.stakesource.co.uk

39. Current & Future Work + Different projects + Collaborative filtering + Network change over time + Prioritise across various issues

40. Soo Ling Lim [email_address] Daniele Quercia [email_address] Anthony Finkelstein [email_address] www.stakesource.co.uk

41. Extra Slides

42. StakeNet’s Output

43. Data Size

44. 68 surveys

45. Open-ended Recommendations 4463 recommendations 127 stakeholders

46. Closed-ended Recommendations 839 recommendations 76 stakeholders

47. Existing Method Ground Truth

49. 85 stakeholders 62 roles

50. Existing Method Ground Truth StakeNet

51. Open-ended: 127 stakeholders 70 roles Closed-ended: 67 stakeholders 39 roles

52. Existing Method Ground Truth StakeNet Existing Method

56. 18 stakeholders 28 roles

57. Precision & Recall

58. OpenR vs. ClosedR

59. Decision Tree

60. RQ5. Motivation to recommend 81% responded

61. Identify stakeholder roles It was established that there were 17,000 “external” library members who would require new cards if the Library turnstiles were to be de-commissioned. The Board decided that this objective should be removed as the associated costs and complications far outweighed the benefits. “ ” Post implementation report

62. Identify stakeholder roles