Quality and perceived usefulness of process models

Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 65-72

  Rittgen, Peter ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS   (Sweden)

^b VLERICK BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

business process models; model quality; usefulness of models

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT; BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT; MODEL QUALITIES; MODEL QUALITY; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; PROCESS MODEL; QUALITY DIMENSION; QUALITY METRICS; RELATIVE IMPACT; SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS;

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 77954738302     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1774088.1774105     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Ambler, S.W. The Elements of UML 2.0 Style. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.
2. Becker, J., Rosemann, M. and Uthmann, C.v. Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. in Aalst, W.v.d., Desel, J. and Oberweis, A. eds. Business Process Management, Springer, Berlin, 2000, 241-262.
3. Browne, G.J. and Ramesh, V. Improving information requirements determination: a cognitive perspective. Information & Management, 39. 625-645.
4. Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V.C., Sugumaran, V. and Ahluwalia, P. A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55. 84-102.
5. Chandra, A. and Krovi, R. Representational congruence and information retrieval: towards an extended model of cognitive fit. Decision Support Systems, 25. 271-288.
6. Davis, F. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3). 319-339.
7. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8). 982-1003.
8. Dietz, J.L.G. Understanding and modeling business processes with DEMO. in Akoka, J., Bouzeghoub, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I. and Métais, E. eds. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling ER '99, Springer, Berlin, 1999, 188-202.
9. Dunn, C.L. and Grabski, S.V. Perceived semantic expressiveness of accounting systems and task accuracy effects. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems Practice, 1 (2). 79-87.
10. Enders, A. and Rombach, H.D. A Handbook of Software and Systems Engineering: Empirical Observations, Laws and Theories. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 2003.
11. Fabbrini, F., Fusani, M., Gervasi, V., Gnesi, S. and Ruggieri, S. Achieving quality in natural language requirements. in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Software Quality Week, S. Francisco, CA, Software Research Institute, 1998.
12. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
13. Gemino, A. and Wand, Y. Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55. 301-326.
14. Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Community-based ICT Development as a Multi-Player Game. in What is an Organization? Materiality, Agency and Discourse, (Montreal, 2008), International Communication Association.
15. Kendall, K.E. and Kendall, J.E. Systems Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007.
16. Krogstie, J. Conceptual Modeling for Computerized Information Systems Support in Organizations, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Trondheim, Trondheim, 1995.
17. Krogstie, J. A Semiotic Approach to Quality in Requirements Specifications. in Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 / WG8.1 Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics: Evolving a Science of Information Systems, Kluwer, 2002, 231-249.
18. Krogstie, J. Using a semiotic framework to evaluate UML for the development of models of high quality. in Siau, K. and Halpin, T. eds. Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design, and Development Issues, Idea Group Publishing, 2001, 89-106.
19. Krogstie, J. and Jørgensen, H.D. Quality of Interactive Models. in Poels, G., Nelson, J., Genero, M. and Piattini, M. eds. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Conceptual Modeling Quality, IWCMQ 02, Tampere, Finland, Springer, Berlin, 2002.
20. Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I. and Sindre, G. Towards a deeper understanding of quality in requirements engineering. in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 95, Jyväskylä, Finland, 1995.
21. Lange, C.F.J., DuBois, B., Chaudron, M.R.V. and Demeyer, S. An Experimental Investigation of UML Modeling Conventions. in Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D. and Reggio, G. eds. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 9th International Conference, MoDELS 2006, Genova, Italy, October 1-6, 2006, Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, 2006, 27-41.
22. Liang, T.-P. and Hung, S.-Y. DSS and EIS applications in Taiwan. Information Technology & People, 10 (4). 303-315.
23. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G. and Sølvberg, A. Understanding quality in conceptual modelling. IEEE Software, 11 (2). 42-49.
24. Maes, A., Poels, G., Gailly, F. and Paemeleire, R. Measuring User Beliefs and Attitudes towards Conceptual Models: A Factor and Structural Equation Model, Ghent University, Ghent, 2005.
25. Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2 (3). 173-191.
26. Matulevicius, R. Validating an Evaluation Framework for Requirements Engineering Tools. in Krogstie, J., Halpin, T.A. and Siau, K. eds. Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, Idea Group, Hershey, PA, 2005, 148-174.
27. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A. and Cardoso, J. What Makes Process Models Understandable? in Alonso, G., Dadam, P. and Rosemann, M. eds. Business Process Management, 5th International Conference, BPM 2007, Brisbane, Australia, September 24-28, 2007, Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, 2007, 48-63.
28. Moody, D.L. Comparative Evaluation of Large Data Model Representation Methods: The Analysts Perspective. in Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T. and Kambayashi, Y. eds. Conceptual Modeling ER 2002, 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Tampere, Finland, October 7-11, 2002, Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, 2002, 214-231.
29. Moody, D.L. Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: Current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 15. 243-276.
30. Moody, D.L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T. and Sølvberg, A. Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical analysis of a conceptual model quality framework. in Dillon, L. and Tichy, W. eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2003, Portland, USA, 2003.
31. Moody, D.L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T. and Sølvberg, A. Evaluating the quality of process models: empirical analysis of a quality framework. in Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T. and Kambayashi, Y. eds. 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, ER 2002, Tampere, Finland, 2002.
32. OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG, Needham; MA, 2004.
33. Poels, G., Maes, A., Gailly, F. and Paemeleire, R. Measuring the Perceived Semantic Quality of Information Models. in Akoka, J., Liddle, S.W., Song, I.-Y., Bertolotto, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Si-Saïd Cherfi, S., Heuvel, W.-J.v.d., Thalheim, B., Kolp, M., Bresciani, P., Trujillo, J., Kop, C. and Mayr, H.C. eds. Perspectives in Conceptual Modeling, Springer, Berlin, 2005, 376-385.
34. Rittgen, P. Negotiating Models. in Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A. and Sindre, G. eds. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 19th International Conference, CAiSE 2007, Trondheim, Norway, June 2007, Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, 2007, 561-573.
35. Rittgen, Peter: Collaborative Modeling - A Design Science Approach, Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42), Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, January 5-8, 2009, CD-ROM, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2009, 10 p.
36. Scheer, A.-W. ARIS - Business Process Modeling. Springer, Berlin, 1999.
37. Schuette, R. Architectures for Evaluating the Quality of Information Models - A Meta and an Object Level Comparison. in Akoka, J., Bouzeghoub, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I. and Métais, E. eds. Conceptual Modeling - ER '99, 18th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Paris, France, November 15-18, 1999, Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, 1999, 764-765.
38. Shanks, G., Tansley, E. and Weber, R. Using ontology to validate conceptual models. Communications of the ACM, 46 (10). 85-89.
39. Shelly, G.B., Cashman, T.J. and Rosenblatt, H.J. Systems Analysis and Design. Thomson, Boston, MA, 2007.
40. Siau, K. and Tan, X. Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55 (3). 343-365.
41. Su, X. and Ilebrekke, L. Using a Semiotic Framework for a Comparative Study of Ontology Languages and Tools. in Krogstie, J., Halpin, T.A. and Siau, K. eds. Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, Idea Group, Hershey, PA, 2005, 278-299.
42. The Standish Group The CHAOS Report. The Standish Group International, Dennis, MA, 1994.
43. The Standish Group The CHAOS Report. The Standish Group International, Dennis, MA, 1999.
44. The Standish Group Unfinished Voyages. The Standish Group International, Dennis, MA, 1995.
45. Wand, Y. and Weber, R.A. Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modelling-a research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13 (4). 363-376.
46. Whitten, J.L. and Bentley, L.D. Systems Analysis and Design Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2007.