Continued use of process modeling grammars: The impact of individual difference factors

European Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 76-92

  Recker, Jan ^a  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Continuance; Process modeling; Usage behavior; User characteristics

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949695282     PISSN: 0960085X     EISSN: 14769344     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2010.5     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. AGARWAL R and KARAHANNA E (2000) Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24(4), 665-694.
2. AGARWAL R and PRASAD J (1999) Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies. Decision Sciences 30(2), 361-391.
3. AGARWAL R, SINHA AP and TANNIRU M (1996a) Cognitive fit in requirements modeling: a study of object and process methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems 13(2), 137-162.
4. AGARWAL R, SINHA AP and TANNIRU M (1996b) The role of prior experience and task characteristics in object-oriented modeling: an empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45(6), 639-667.
5. ALTER S and BROWNE GJ (2005) A broad view of systems analysis and design: implications for research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 16(50), 981-999.
6. BAGOZZI RP and PHILLIPS LW (1982) Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly 27(3), 459-489.
7. BATRA D and DAVIS JG (1992) Conceptual data modelling in database design: similarities and differences between expert and novice designers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 37(1), 83-101.
8. BATRA D, HOFFLER JA and BOSTROM RP (1990) Comparing representations with relational and eer models. Communications of the ACM 33(2), 126-139.
9. BHATTACHERJEE A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly 25(3), 351-370.
10. BHATTACHERJEE A and PREMKUMAR G (2004) Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly 28(2), 229-254.
11. BPMI.ORG AND OMG (2006) Business Process Modeling Notation specification. Final Adopted Specification. Object Management Group. [WWW document] http://www.bpmn.org.
12. BROWN SA, MASSEY AP, MONTOYA-WEISS MM and BURKMAN JR (2002) Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems 11(4), 283-295.
13. CASTAÑEDA JA, MUÑOZ-LEIVA F and LUQUE T (2007) Web acceptance model (WAM): moderating effects of user experience. Information & Management 44(4), 384-396.
14. CHAU PYK (1996) An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of case by systems developers. Information & Management 30(6), 269-280.
15. CURTIS B, KELLNER MI and OVER J (1992) Process modeling. Communications of the ACM 35(9), 75-90.
16. DAVIES I, GREEN P, ROSEMANN M, INDULSKA M and GALLO S (2006) How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(3), 358-380.
17. DAVIS FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319-340.
18. DEHNERT J and VAN DER AALST WMP (2004) Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 13(3), 289-332.
19. DUMAS M, VAN DER AALST WMP and TER HOFSTEDE AHM (Eds) (2005) Process Aware Information Systems: Bridging People and Software Through Process Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
20. ERL T (2005) Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
21. FORNELL C and LARCKER DF (1981) Evaluating structural equations with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39-50.
22. GABLE GG (1994) Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 3(2), 112-126.
23. GEFEN D, STRAUB DW and BOUDREAU M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4(7).
24. GEMINO A and WAND Y (2004) A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9(4), 248-260.
25. GEMINO A and WAND Y (2005) Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3), 301-326.
26. GIST ME and MITCHELL TR (1992) Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review 17(2), 183-211.
27. GOODHUE DL (1995) Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science 41(12), 1827-1844.
28. GOODHUE DL and THOMPSON RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2), 213-236.
29. GREEN P and ROSEMANN M (2001) Ontological analysis of integrated process models: testing hypotheses. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 9(1), 30-38.
30. GREGORIADES A and SUTCLIFFE AG (2008) A socio-technical approach to business process simulation. Decision Support Systems 45(4), 1017-1030.
31. IGBARIA M, GUIMARAES T and DAVIS GB (1995) Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems 11(4), 87-114.
32. JASPERSON J, CARTER PE and ZMUD RW (2005) A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly 29(3), 525-557.
33. JOHNSON RD and MARAKAS GM (2000) Report: the role of behavioral modeling in computer skills acquisition - toward refinement of the model. Information Systems Research 11(4), 402-417.
34. JöRESKOG KG and SöRBOM D (2001) Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, Illinois.
35. JöRESKOG KG, SöRBOM D, DU TOIT S and DU TOIT M (2001) Lisrel 8: New Statistical Features. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, Illinois.
36. KANFER R, ACKERMAN PL, MURTHA TC, DUGDALE B andNELSON L (1994) Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: a resource allocation perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(6), 826-835.
37. KHALIFA M and VERNER JM (2000) Drivers for software development method usage. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47(3), 360-369.
38. KHATRI V, VESSEY I, RAMESH V, CLAY P and SUNG-JIN P (2006) Understanding conceptual schemas: exploring the role of application and is domain knowledge. Information Systems Research 17(1), 81-99.
39. KIM SS and MALHOTRA NK (2005) A longitudinal model of continued is use: an integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management Science 51(5), 741-755.
40. KING WR and HE J (2005) External validity in is survey research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 16(45), 880-894.
41. KLASSEN RD and JACOBS J (2001) Experimental comparison of web, electronic, and mail survey technologies in operations management. Journal of Operations Management 19(6), 713-728.
42. LEE J and TRUEX DP (2000) Exploring the impact of training in ISD methods on the cognitive structure of novice information systems developers. Information Systems Journal 10(4), 347-367.
43. LEYMANN F and ROLLER D (2006) Modeling business processes with BPEL4WS. Information Systems and e-Business Management 4(3), 265-284.
44. LIAO C, CHEN J-L and YEN DC (2007) Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customer satisfaction in the continued use of e-service: an integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior 23(6), 2804-2822.
45. LIMAYEM M, HIRT SG and CHEUNG CMK (2007) How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly 31(4), 705-737.
46. MAES A and POELS G (2007) Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 63(3), 769-792.
47. MAHMOOD MA, BURN JM, GEMOETS LA and JACQUEZ C (2000) Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52(4), 751-771.
48. MORRIS MG, SPEIER C and HOFFER JA (1999) An examination of procedural and object-oriented systems analysis methods: does prior experience help or hinder performance? Decision Sciences 30(1), 107-136.
49. NUNNALLY JC and BERNSTEIN IH (1994) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
50. OLIVER RL (1980) A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 17(4), 460-469.
51. ORLIKOWSKI WJ (1993) Case tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17(3), 309-340.
52. ORLIKOWSKI WJ, YATES J, OKAMURA K and FUJIMOTO M (1995) Shaping electronic communication: the metastructuring of technology in use. Organization Science 6(4), 423-444.
53. OUYANG C, DUMAS M, TER HOFSTEDE AHM and VAN DER AALST WMP (2008) Pattern-based translation of BPMN process models to BPEL web services. International Journal of Web Services Research 5(1), 42-61.
54. OUYANG C, VAN DER AALST WMP, DUMAS M, TER HOFSTEDE AHM and MENDLING J (2009) From business process models to process-oriented software systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology 19(1), 2-37.
55. PARSONS J and COLE L (2005) What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55(3), 327-342.
56. PHALP KT (1998) The cap framework for business process modelling. Information and Software Technology 40(13), 731-744.
57. PINSONNEAULT A and KRAEMER KL (1993) Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems 10(2), 75-105.
58. PODSAKOFF PM, MACKENZIE SB, LEE J-Y and PODSAKOFF NP (2003) Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5), 879-903.
59. PREMKUMAR G and BHATTACHERJEE A (2008) Explaining information systems usage: a test of competing models. Omega 36(1), 64-75.
60. RABHI FA, YU H, DABOUS FT and WU SY (2007) A service-oriented architecture for financial business processes: a case study in trading strategy simulation. Information Systems and E-Business Management 5(2), 185-200.
61. RAMSEY HR, ATWOOD ME and VAN DOREN JR (1983) Flowcharts versus program design languages: an experimental comparison. Communications of the ACM 26(6), 445-449.
62. RECKER J (2007) A socio-pragmatic constructionist framework for understanding quality in process modelling. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 14(2), 43-63.
63. RECKER J (2010) Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal 16(1), in press.
64. RECKER J, INDULSKA M, ROSEMANN M and GREEN P (2006) How good is BPMN really? Insights from theory and practice. In 14th European Conference on Information Systems (LJUNGBERG J and ANDERSSON M, Eds), pp 1582-1593, Association for Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden.
65. RECKER J, ROSEMANN M, INDULSKA M and GREEN P (2009) Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(4), 333-363.
66. ROCA JC, CHIU C-M and MARTINEZ FJ (2006) Understanding e learning continuance intention: an extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64(8), 683-696.
67. ROSEMANN M (2006) Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Business Process Management Journal 12(2), 249-254.
68. ROSEMANN M, RECKER J, INDULSKA M and GREEN P (2006) A study of the evolution of the representational capabilities of process modeling grammars. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering - Caise 2006 (DUBOIS E and POHL K, Eds), pp 447-461, Springer, Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
69. ROSSI M and BRINKKEMPER S (1996) Complexity metrics for systems development methods and techniques. Information Systems 21(2), 209-227.
70. RYAN SD, BORDOLOI B and HARRISON DA (2000) Acquiring conceptual data modeling skills: the effect of cooperative learning and self-efficacy on learning outcomes. ACM SIGMIS Database 31(4), 9-24.
71. SCHAEFER DR and DILLMAN DA (1998) Development of a standard e-mail methodology: results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 62(3), 378-397.
72. SCHEER A-W (2000) Aris - Business Process Modeling. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
73. SEJOON H, THONG JYL and TAM KY (2006) Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: a comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decision Support Systems 42(3), 1819-1834.
74. SHAFT TM and VESSEY I (1998) The relevance of application domain knowledge: characterizing the computer program comprehension process. Journal of Management Information Systems 15(1), 51-78.
75. SHANKS G (1997) Conceptual data modelling: an empirical study of expert and novice data modellers. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 63-73.
76. SIAU K and ROSSI M (2010) Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods - a review and comparative analysis. Information Systems Journal 20, [WWW document] DOI: 10.1111/j .1365-2575.2007.00255.x.
77. SOFFER P andWAND Y (2007) Goal-driven multi-process analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(3), 175-202.
78. SPRENG RA, MACKENZIE SB and OLSHAVSKY RW (1996) A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60(3), 15-32.
79. SUTCLIFFE AG and MAIDEN NAM (1992) Analysing the novice analyst: cognitive models in software engineering. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 36(5), 719-740.
80. TABACHNICK BG and FIDELL LS (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts.
81. THOMPSON RL, HIGGINS CA and HOWELL JM (1994) Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: testing a conceptual model. Journal of Management Information Systems 11(1), 167-187.
82. THONG JYL, SEJOON H and TAM KY (2006) The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64(9), 799-810.
83. VAN DER AALST WMP and TER HOFSTEDE AHM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30(4), 245-275.
84. VENKATESH V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 11(4), 342-365.
85. VERBEEK HMV, VAN DER AALST WMP and TER HOFSTEDE AHM (2007) Verifying workflows with cancellation regions and or-joins: an approach based on relaxed soundness and invariants. The Computer Journal 50(3), 294-314.
86. VESSEY I and GALLETTA DF (1991) Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Information Systems Research 2(1), 63-84.
87. WAND Y andWEBER R (2002) Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling - a research agenda. Information Systems Research 13(4), 363-376.
88. WOLF C and HARMON P (2006) The State of Business Process Management - 2006, www.BPTrends.com.
89. WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT COALITION (2008) Workflow management coalition workflow standard. Process definition interface - XML process definition language. Document number wfmc-tc-1025. WfMC.
90. YI MY and DAVIS FD (2003) Developing and validating an observational learning model of computer software training and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research 14(2), 146-169.
91. ZUR MUEHLEN M and RECKER J (2008) How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering - Caise 200 (LONARD M and BELLAHSNE Z, Eds), pp 465-479, Springer, Montpellier, France.