The Unified Modeling Language: An inquiry into current practices and user perceptions

10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 1722-1730

  Grossman, Martin ^a   McCarthy, Richard V ^b   Aronson, Jay E ^c  

^a NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

object oriented analysis and design; OOAD; task technology fit; UML; Unified Modeling Language

Indexed keywords

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SURVEYS;

CURRENT PRACTICES; DE FACTO STANDARD; EFFECTIVE APPROACHES; MODELING SOFTWARES; OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN; OOAD; SOFTWARE INDUSTRY; SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT; TASK TECHNOLOGY FIT; USER PERCEPTIONS;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 33744516837     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (39)

1. Akehurst, D. H. and Waters, A. G. (1999). UML deficiencies from the perspective of automatic performance model generation. OOPSLA ’99 Workshop on Rigorous Modeling and Analysis with the UML: Challenges and Limitations.
2. Agarwal, R. and Sinh, A. P. (2003). Object-oriented modeling with UML: A study of developer’s perceptions. Communications of the ACM, 46(9). 248-256.
3. Benslimane, Y., Plaisent, M. and Bernard, P. (2003). Applying the Task-Technology Fit Model to WWW-based Procurement: Conceptualization and Measurement. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03).
4. Booch, G. (1994). Object-oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 2nd edition. Redwood City: Benjamin/Cummings.
5. Cox, K. (2000). Cognitive dimensions of use cases: Feedback from a student questionnaire. In A.F. Blackwell & E. Bilotta (Eds.) Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group.
6. D’Ambra, J. (1999). Preliminary investigations of user evaluation of the WWW. Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems. August 13-15. Milwaukee, WI.
7. Dishaw, M. T. and Strong, D. M. (1998). Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools: A computed task-technology fit analysis. The Journal of Systems and Software, 44, 107-120.
8. Dishaw, M. T., Strong, D. M. and Brandy, D. B. (2001). Assessing task-technology fit in simulation modeling. Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems. Boston, MA. August 4-6.
9. Dori, D. (2001, Jan-Mar). Object-process methodology applied to modeling credit card transactions. Journal of Database Management, 12(1), 4-14.
10. Downes-Le Guin, T., Janowitz, P.,Stone, R. and Khorram, S. (April 18, 2002). Use of pre-incentives in an internet survey. The IMRO Journal of Online Research. http://www.ijor.org/ijor_archives/articles/use_of_preincentives_in_an_internet_survey.pdf
11. Erickson, J. and Siau, K. (2003). Unified Modeling Language: Theoretical and practical complexity. Proceedings of the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Tampa, FL. August 4 – 6, 1323-1327.
12. Fowler, M. and Scott, K. (2004). UML Distilled Third Edition: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
13. Garceau, L., Jancura, E., and Kneiss, J. (1993, January). Object-oriented analysis and design: A new approach to systems development. Journal of Systems Management, 44(1), 25-33.
14. th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWWSSD-10), San Diego, November 2000, 11-22.
15. Goodhue, D. L. (1998). Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information systems. Decision Sciences, 29(1), 105-138.
16. Goodhue, D. L. and Thompson, R. L. (1995, June). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236.
17. Grossman, M., McCarthy, R. V. and Aronson, J. E. (2003). Factors influencing Unified Modeling Language (UML) usage in the global software development community. Fourth Annual Global Information Technology Management (GITM) World Conference, Calgary, CA June 8-10, 294-297.
18. Halpern, T. (2001). Augmenting UML with fact orientation. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1-10.
19. Hitz, M. and Kappel, G. (1998). Developing with UML: Some pitfalls and workarounds. The Unified Modeling Language, {UML}'98-Beyond the Notation. First International Workshop. Mulhouse, France, June 1998.
20. Jacobson, I., Jonsson, P. and Overgaard, G. (1992). Object-Oriented Software Engineering, A Use Case Driven Approach. Reading: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
21. Johnson, R. A. (2000, October). The ups and downs of object oriented systems. Communications of the ACM, 43(10), 68.
22. Johnson, R. A. and Hardgrave, B. C. (1999). Object-oriented methods: Current practices and attitudes. The Journal of Systems and Software, 48, 5-12.
23. Kobryn, C. (2002, January). Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 107-110.
24. McCarthy, R. V., Aronson, J. E. and Claffey, G. (2002). Task-technology fit in data warehousing environments: Analyzing the factors that affect utilization. Proceedings of the Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Dallas, TX. August 9 – 11. 40-46.
25. McCarthy, R. V., Aronson, J. E. and Mazouz, K. (2001). Measuring the validity of task technology fit for knowledge management systems. Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems. Boston, MA. August 4-6.
26. Murthy, U. S. and Kerr, D. S. (2000). Task/technology fit and the effectiveness of Group Support Systems: Evidence in the context of tasks requiring domain specific knowledge. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. January 4-7, Maui, HI.
27. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F. and Lorenson, W.(1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
28. Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D. & Elliot, M. N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web. Rand Corporation . MR-1480-RC. http://www.schonlau.net/.
29. Shirani, A. I., Tafti, M. H. A., and Affisco, J. F. (1999). Task and technology fit: A comparison of two technologies for synchronous and asynchronous group communication. Information and Management, 36, 139-150.
30. Siau, K. and Cao, Q. (2001). Unified Modeling Language (UML): A complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management, 12(1), 26.
31. Siau, K. & Tian, Y. (2001). The complexity of Unified Modeling Language: A GOMS analysis. Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems. Boston, MA. August 4-6. 443-448.
32. Simons, A. J. H. and Graham, I. (1999). 30 things that go wrong in object modeling with UML 1.3. in Precise Behavioral Specification of Businesses and Systems, H. Kilov, B. Rumpe, and I. Simmonds (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
33. Smyth, R. (2001). Challenges to successful ERP use (Research in Progress). The 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, June 27-29.
34. Srivihok, A., Ho, R. and Burstein, F. (2000). An instrument for web measurement: End user evaluation of Web application effectiveness. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Information Systems 2000. Brisbane, Australia.
35. Tjahjono, B., Fakun, D., Greenough, R. and Kay, J. (2001). Evaluation of a manufacturing task support system using the task technology fit model. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, March 30-April 3. Orlando, FL.
36. Wang, S. (2001). Experiences with the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems. Boston, MA. 1289-1293.
37. Wells, J. D., Sarker, S., Urbaczewski, A. and Sarker, S. (2003). Studying Customer Evaluations of Electronic Commerce Applications: A Review and Adaptation of the Task-Technology Fit Perspective. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03).
38. Yourdon, E. (1996). Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer. Upper Saddle River: Yourdon Press.
39. Zigurs, I., Buckland, B. K., Connolly, J. R. and Wilson, E. V. (1999). A test of task-technology fit theory for Group Support Systems. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 30(3), 34-50.