Fostering the Adoption of i by Practitioners: Some Challenges and Research Directions - Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering - page 175

of actors and dependencies, which may be decomposed into simpler elements.
Reasoning techniques allow checking properties and performing some kind of
qualitative [ 29, 35] and quantitative [ 19] analysis.
The intentional nature of i ∗ is very clearly explained by Yu: “In i ∗ modelling, we
focus on intentional properties and relationships rather than actual behaviour. By not
describing behaviour directly, an intentional description offers a way to characterize
actors that respects the autonomy premise. Conventional system modelling which
offers only static and dynamic ontologies leads to an impoverished and mechanistic
view of the world. Intentional modelling provides a richer expressiveness that is
appropriate for a social conception of the world” [72] .
Arguably, it may be said that the i ∗ framework has reached a high maturity
level from the scientific point of view, as a result of the intensive work undertook
by many research groups, leading to an increasing body of knowledge available
through scientific papers and experience reports presented in world-leading jour-
nals and conferences. A growing community has been established too, with two
clearly visible meeting points: a periodical event, the i ∗ workshop; and a working
space, the i ∗ wiki [ 36] . Basic knowledge on i ∗ is offered through tutorials in scien-
tific conferences and a textbook in which the community research groups provide
a comprehensive revision of the state of the art [73] . Last, it may be mentioned the
recognition of an i ∗ -based language like URN as a telecommunication standard [ 37] .
Taking all of this research into consideration, it could be expected that the adop-
tion of i ∗ by practitioners should had grown the same. Unfortunately, it is clearly not
the case. A recent survey of practice [ 14] does not even mention i ∗ among current
requirements engineering adopted formalisms. Just a few, though valuable, experi-
ences have been reported on the use of the framework and associated tools. We may
mention:

• The air traffic control experiences by Maiden et al., see [ 41, 44] as summary.

• Experiences in Ericsson Marconi Spa about knowledge transfer and process

alignment [4, 5] .

The application of i ∗ for articulating activities around Off-The-Shelf-based and
hybrid systems in the Etapatelecom Ecuadorian company [ 11, 12] .

•

These experiences were basically successful, although they highlighted several
obstacles on the adoption of i ∗ in medium- and large-scale projects. Also, it should
be remarked that those experiences have been mainly conducted or at least super-
vised by expert i ∗ modellers, being thus uncertain to what extent novice i ∗ modellers
(e.g., the typical profile of a requirement elicitation facilitator) are able to conduct
their processes in an effective and efficient way.
Therefore, we strongly argue that the i ∗ community should dedicate the necessary
effort on exploring effective ways to transfer the framework to practitioners, mak-
ing it more usable in industrial experiences. Efforts are twofold. On the one hand,
exploration of scientific issues having to be with the framework that may enhance its
usability, improving thus chances of adoption by practitioners. On the other hand,
planning and executing strategic community actions not directly related to scientific