skip to main content
10.1145/3535511.3535540acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbsiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluating and Evolving a Conceptual Model for Projects Observatories

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Context: observatories can be understood as information systems that support observation, providing transparency to a given phenomenon or knowledge area, through the collection, processing, storage and sharing of information. Problem: the typological and application areas diversity of the observatories has given rise to the need to develop models that help in the conceptualization and design of these observatories, respecting the specificities of their application contexts. The Model for Projects Observatories (MPO) was proposed as a conceptual model for observatories developed in the context of projects. However, the initial version of the MPO did not go through a formal evaluation process. Solution: from this scenario, this research aims to evaluate and, consequently, evolve the MPO. IS theory: the MPO was proposed from the sociotechnical approach. Methodology: this research has a descriptive character, and its evaluation was carried out through focus groups. The analysis of the results was carried out with a qualitative approach. Summary of Results: from this evaluation, 35 suggestions for improvements to the model were identified. The implementation of these improvements gave rise to a second version of the model that will be presented in this document. Contributions and Impact in the IS area: the main contribution of this article lies in the evaluation and evolution of the MPO, which understands project observatories as information systems to support observation and transparency in the context of projects.

References

  1. Renata Araujo. 2017. Information Systems and the Open World Challenges. In GranDSI-BR – Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems in Brazil 2016 - 2026. Brazilian Computer Society (SBC), Chapter 4, 42–51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jan Betta and Liudmila Boronina. 2018. Transparency in Project Management – from Traditional to Agile. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 56, Febm(2018), 446–449. https://doi.org/10.2991/febm-18.2018.103Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2008. Using thematic analysis in psychology,Qualitative Research in Psychology. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 3, 2 (2008), 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ian C. Brown. 2017. The DNA of Web Observatories. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southampton. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2010.04.020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ivaldir H De Farias Junior, Jeferson Kenedy M Vieira, and Hermano P De Moura. 2021. O Uso de Redes Sociais como Mecanismos para Promoção de Transparência e Participação dos Stakeholders no contexto dos Projetos. In X Brazilian Workshop on Social Network Analysis and Mining (BraSNAM 2021), SBC (Ed.). Florianópolis, SC, 253–262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Maximilian Heimstädt. 2017. Openwashing: A decoupling perspective on organizational transparency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 125 (2017), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.037Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jeffery S. Horsburgh, Amber Spackman Jones, David K. Stevens, David G. Tarboton, and Nancy O. Mesner. 2010. A sensor network for high frequency estimation of water quality constituent fluxes using surrogates. Environmental Modelling and Software 25, 9 (2010), 1031–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.10.012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Barbara Ann Kitchenham, David Budgen, and Pearl Brereton. 2016. Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews. CRC Press, New York. 426 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jyrki Kontio, Laura Lehtola, and Johanna Bragge. 2004. Using the focus group method in software engineering: Obtaining practitioner and user experiences. Proceedings - 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2004 (2004), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISESE.2004.1334914Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lirian Maria Meneghel and Edegar Luis Tomazzoni. 2012. A comunicação e a integração dos atores do turismo regional: o caso do observatório de turismo e cultura da serra gaúcha (OBSERVATUR). Revista Turismo Visão e Ação 14, 2(2012), 246 –260.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Marco Antonio Moreira. 2012. Mapas conceituais e aprendizagem significativa (concept maps and meaningful learning). Aprendizagem significativa, organizadores prévios, mapas conceituais, digramas V e Unidades de ensino potencialmente significativas (2012), 41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Vanessa T. Nunes, Claudia Cappelli, and Célia G. Ralha. 2017. Transparency in Information Systems. In I GranDSI-BR – Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems in Brazil 2016 - 2026, Brazilian Computer Society (SBC) (Ed.). Chapter 7, 73–89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Viviane Masseran Antunes Parreiras and Adelaide Maria de Souza Antunes. 2013. Aplicação de Foresight e Inteligência Competitiva em um Centro de P&D Empresarial por meio de um Observatório de Tendências: desafios e benefícios. Revista Gestão & Conexões 1, 1 (2013). https://doi.org/10.13071/regec.2317-5087.2012.1.1.3908.55-73Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mauricio Phélan. 2007. La red observatorios locales de Barcelona, España. Un estudio de casos para diseñar una propuesta nacional. Fermentum. Revista Venezolana de Sociología y Antropología 17, 48 (2007), 96–122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. PMI. 2018. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (6ª editioned.). Project Management Institute (PMI). 756 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlos Alexandre Porto. 2021. Um estudo sobre avaliação da maturidade em gerenciamento de projetos através dos dados de um observatório de projetos. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Marici Cristine Gramacho Sakata, Armando Malheiro da Silva, Edson Luiz Riccio, and Maria Ligia Capobianco. 2013. Construção do Observatório USP CONTECSI : Análise da dinâmica científica e impacto nacional e internacional de um congresso acadêmico. Prisma.com 20(2013), 1–41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mônica Auricélia Oliveira Santana. 2021. Diretrizes para o desenvolvimento de observatórios de projetos nos portais da transparência dos Institutos Federais de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Antonio Leopoldino da Silva, Marinilse Netto, Esperidião Amin Helou Filho, and Paulo Maurício Selig. 2013. Observatórios de informação e conhecimento: discutindo bases conceituais e perspectivas de efetividade. In IX Congreso Nacional de Excelencia em gestão. Rio de Janeiro, 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lilian Campos Soares. 2018. Observatórios de Transporte e Logística: Diretrizes para um modelo conceitual. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Católica de Brasilia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Louise Spiteri. 1998. A simplified model for facet analysis: Ranganathan 101. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 23, 1-2 (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. D. Trzeciak. 2009. Modelo de observatório para arranjos produtivos locais. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeferson K. M. Vieira, Jessyca L. P. Barbosa, Ivaldir H. Farias Junior, and Hermano P. Moura. 2020. Universal Observatory of Projects: Initial Studies. In 15th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). Sevilla, Spain, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.23919/cisti49556.2020.9141001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeferson K M Vieira, Jessyca L P Barbosa, Ivaldir H De Farias Junior, and Hermano P De Moura. 2020. Observatories: A Systematic Mapping of the Literature. International Journal of Development Research 10, 9 (2020), 39869–39876.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeferson Kenedy Morais Vieira, Ivaldir Honório de Farias Junior, and Hermano Perrelli de Moura. 2021. Model for Projects Observatories : A Preliminary Study. In XVII Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems (SBSI 2021). ACM, Uberlândia, 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3466933.3466940Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jeferson K M Vieira, Ivaldir H De Farias Jr, and Hermano P De Moura. 2021. Observatories as Transparency Instruments for Projects. In 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). AISTI, Chaves, Portugal, 23–26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Claes Wohlin. 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating and Evolving a Conceptual Model for Projects Observatories
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        SBSI '22: Proceedings of the XVIII Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems
        May 2022
        394 pages

        Copyright © 2022 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 June 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate181of557submissions,32%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format