Abstract
We are developing a semi-formal business process modeling notation based on the modification of theatrical blocking notation that is more cognitively effective for application in requirements engineering communication than extant notations. The Socio-Technical System Notation (STSN) incorporates ontological, semantic, and visual design improvements over extant languages that were pinpointed by prior research as areas for improvement to existing notations, such as the UML and BPMN, for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of errors and misinterpretation during the encoding and decoding processes. The research-in-progress paper follows a design science research approach to motivate the development of the STSN, to present a prototype of the notation, and to set the stage for the empirical evaluation of the language based on its design objectives. The research presents a process notation that enables the encoding of more detailed requirements information into a visual representation than extant notations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements engineering: From system goals to UML models to software specifications. John Wiley, Chichester (2009)
Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling–a research agenda. Information Systems Research 13(4), 363–376 (2002)
Davidson, E.J.: Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly 26(4), 329–358 (2002)
Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9(4), 248–260 (2004)
El Emam, K., El Emam, K., Koru, A.G.: A replicated survey of IT software project failures. IEEE Software 25(5), 84–90 (2008)
Hofmann, H.F., Lehner, F.: Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Software 18(4), 58–66 (2001)
OMG: Business process modeling notation (BPMN) version 2.0. (2011)
OMG: Unified modeling language: Infrastructure. (2011)
OMG: Unified modeling language: Superstructure. (2011)
Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Moody, D.: The “physics” of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
Siau, K., Tian, Y.: A semiotic analysis of unified modeling language graphical notations. Requirements Engineering 14(1), 15–26 (2009)
Bunge, M.A.: Ontology I: The furniture of the world. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)
Bunge, M.A.: Ontology II: A world of systems. Reidel, Dordrecht (1979)
Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(11), 1282–1292 (1990)
Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Information Systems Journal 3(4), 217–237 (1993)
Mayer, R.E.: Multimedia learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)
Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Discenza, R.: Perception differences of software success: Provider and user views of system metrics. The Journal of Systems & Software 63(1), 17–27 (2002)
Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E., Neale, M.A.: Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly 27(2), 265–287 (2003)
Mohtashami, M., Marlowe, T., Kirova, V., et al.: Risk management for collaborative software development. Inf. Syst. Manage. 23(4), 20 (2006)
Vlaar, P.W.L., van Fenema, P.C., Tiwari, V.: Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: How members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS Quarterly 32(2), 227–255 (2008)
Holmström, J., Sawyer, S.: Requirements engineering blinders: Exploring information systems developers’ black-boxing of the emergent character of requirements. European Journal of Information Systems 20(1), 34–47 (2011)
Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: A roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland. ACM, New York (2000)
Jarke, M., Loucopoulos, P., Lyytinen, K., et al.: The brave new world of design requirements. Inf. Syst. 36(7), 992–1008 (2011)
Chen, Y., Bharadwaj, A.: An empirical analysis of contract structures in IT outsourcing. Information Systems Research 20(4), 484,506,604 (2009)
Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Wu, S.P.J., et al.: The relation of requirements uncertainty and stakeholder perception gaps to project management performance. The Journal of Systems & Software 82(5), 801–808 (2009)
Keil, M., Cule, P.E., Lyytinen, K., et al.: A framework for identifying software project risks. Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM 41(11), 76 (1998)
Wallace, L., Keil, M.: Software project risks and their effect on outcomes. Commun. ACM 47(4), 68 (2004)
Yang, H., de Roeck, A., Gervasi, V., et al.: Analysing anaphoric ambiguity in natural language requirements. Requirements Engineering 16(3), 163–189 (2011)
Paivio, A.: Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press, New York (1986)
Bertin, J.: Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps, 1st edn. ESRI Press (2010)
Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Krogstie, J.: Ontology- versus pattern-based evaluation of process modeling languages: A comparison. Communications of AIS 2007(20), 774–799 (2007)
Recker, J., Rosemann, M.: The measurement of perceived ontological deficiencies of conceptual modeling grammars. Data Knowl. Eng. 69(5), 516–532 (2010)
Weber, R.: Conceptual modelling and ontology: Possibilities and pitfalls. J. Database Manage. 14(3), 1 (2003)
Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: An analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Fazio, L.: Stage manager: The professional experience. Focal Press, Boston (2000)
Checkland, P., Scholes, J.: Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley (1990)
ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Kiepuszewski, B., Barros, A., et al.: Workflow patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases 14(1), 5–51 (2003)
Burton-Jones, A., Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Guidelines for empirical evaluations of conceptual modeling grammars*. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(6), 495–532 (2009)
Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2(3), 192–222 (1991)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Miske, C., Rothenberger, M.A., Peffers, K. (2014). Towards a More Cognitively Effective Business Process Notation for Requirements Engineering. In: Tremblay, M.C., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Gupta, A., Yoon, V. (eds) Advancing the Impact of Design Science: Moving from Theory to Practice. DESRIST 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8463. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06701-8_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06701-8_26
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06700-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06701-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)