Mapping Activity Theory Diagrams into i* Organizational Models


  • Genésio Gomes da Cruz Neto Faculdade Integrada do Recife (FIR), Madalena Recife, PE, Brazil
  • Alex Sandro Gomes Cento de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, PE, Brazil
  • Jaelson Brelaz de Castro Cento de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, PE, Brazil


Ethnograph, Context Analysis, Organizational Modelling and Activity Theory


Modern requirement engineering approaches divide the elicitation process in two different stages: one focused on analyzing the context where the system-to-be will be used and another centered on designing software solutions appropriated to the context modeled. An adequate framework for assisting context analysis is offered by the Activity Theory, a philosophic and interdisciplinary structure to study different forms of human practice that adopts the activity as the basic unit of analysis. However, there are still no methods for integrating context analysis based on Activity Theory and traditional requirement specifications techniques. In a previous work, the authors presented a requirement engineering process that integrates ethnographic analysis based on Activity Theory with requirement specification techniques based on organizational modelling. In this work we present an evolution of the process proposed by including a set of mapping guidelines to systematically transform Activity Theory diagrams into i* based organizational models. Moreover, we apply the guidelines in the development of a virtual project based learning environment.


Download data is not yet available.


[1] S. Bødker, “Activity theory as a challenge to systems design”, In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein and R. Hirscheim (eds.): Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 551-564.
[2] J.B. Castro, F.M.R. Alencar, and G.A.A.Cysneiro Filho, “Integrating Organizational Requirements and Object Oriented Modeling”, Proceeding of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, Canada, 2001, p.146 – 153.
[3] J.B. Castro, M. Kolp, and J. Mylopoulos, “Towards Requirements-Driven Information Systems Engineering: The Tropos Project”, Information Systems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands. v. 27, n. 6, p. 365-389, 2002.
[4] P. Collins, S. Shukla, and D. Redmiles, “Activity Theory and System Design: A View from the Trenches”, Nardi, B. A., Redmile, D., (eds), Activity Theory and the practice of Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work., 2002, Vol. 11, Nos. 1-2. pp 55-80.
[5] G.G. Cruz Neto, A.S. Gomes, P. Tedesco, “Aliando Teoria da Atividade e TROPOS na Elicitação de Ambientes Colaborativos de Aprendizagem” (in Portuguese), Proceeding of the VI Workshop on Requirements Engineering (WER 2003), Piracicaba, Brasil, 2003, pp 63-77.
[6] Y. Engeström, Learning by Expanding, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit, 1987.
[7] M. Korpela, H.A. Soriyan, K.C. Olufokunbi, “Activity Analysis as a Method for Information System Development: General introduction and experiments from Nigeria and Finland”, Scandinavian Journal of Information System, 2000, vol 12, pp 191-210
[8] A. N. Leontév, “The Problem of Activity in Psychology”, J. Werstch (Ed.), The concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, inc., 1979.
[9] C. Macaulay, D. Benyon, and A. Crerar, “Ethnography, Theory and System Design: From Intution to Insight”, Journal of Human Computer Studies, 2000, 53, 35-60.
[10] L. E. G. Martins, and B. M. Daltrini, “An Approach to Software Requirement Elicitation Using Percepts from Activity Theory”, Proceeding of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ́99), Florida, USA, 1999.
[11] D. Mwanza, “Where Theory meets Practice: A Case for Activity Theory based Methodolgy to guide Computer System Design”, Interact’2001, Japan, 2001.
[12] B.A. Nardi, (ed), Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, London: MIT Press, 1996.
[13] B. A. Nardi, and D. Redmile, (eds), Activity Theory and the practice of Design, Computer Supported Cooperative Work., 2002, Vol. 11, Nos. 1-2
[14] T.J. Richards, and L. Richards, “Using Computers in Qualitative Research”. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.): Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Sage Publication, 1998, pp. 211-243.
[15] J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch, The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison Wesley, 1999.
[16] V.F. Santander, and J.F. Castro, “Deriving Use Cases from Organizational Modeling”, IEEE Joint International Requirements Enginnering Conference, RE ́2002, University of Essen, Germany, September 9-13, 2002, pp. 32-39.
[17] C. R. B. Souza, “Interpreting Activity Theory as a Software Engineering Methodology”., Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), 2003.
[18] P. Turner, and S. Turner, “From description to requirements: an activity theoretic perspective”, Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work. Arizona, 1999, pp. 286-295.
[19] S. Viller, and I. Sommerville, “Social Analysis in the Requirement Enginnering Process: From Etnography to Method”, 4th IEEE International Symposium on Requirement Engineering. Limerick, Ireland, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, 1999, pp. 6-13.
[20] E. Yu, Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering, Phd thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science, 1995.




How to Cite

Cruz Neto, G. G. da, Gomes, A. S., & Castro, J. B. de. (2005). Mapping Activity Theory Diagrams into i* Organizational Models. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 5(02), p. 57–63. Retrieved from



Original Articles