Advertisement

Information Systems Engineering Supported by Cognitive Matchmaking

  • S. J. Overbeek
  • P. van Bommel
  • H. A. (Erik) Proper
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5074)

Abstract

In daily practice, discrepancies may exist in the suitability match of actors and the tasks that have been allocated to them. Formal theory and the prototype of a cognitive matchmaker system are introduced as a solution to improve the fit between actors and tasks. A case study has been conducted to clarify how the proposed cognitive matchmaker system can be utilized in information systems engineering. The inductive-hypothetical research strategy has been applied when performing the case study.

Keywords

cognitive characteristics matchmaking task allocation 

References

  1. 1.
    Staab, S., Studer, R., Schnurr, H., Sure, Y.: Knowledge processes and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(1), 26–34 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weir, C., Nebeker, J., Bret, L., Campo, R., Drews, F., LeBar, B.: A cognitive task analysis of information management strategies in a computerized provider order entry environment. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 14(1), 65–75 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kako, E.: Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition 101(1), 1–42 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shakshuki, E., Prabhu, O., Tomek, I.: FCVW agent framework. Information and Software Technology 48(6), 385–392 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: Verification of workflow task structures: A Petri-net-based approach. Information Systems 25(1), 43–69 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R-Moreno, M., Borrajo, D., Cesta, A., Oddi, A.: Integrating planning and scheduling in workflow domains. Expert Systems with Applications 33(2), 389–406 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Overbeek, S., van Bommel, P., Proper, H., Rijsenbrij, D.: Matching cognitive characteristics of actors and tasks. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 371–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Overbeek, S., van Bommel, P., Proper, H., Rijsenbrij, D.: Characterizing knowledge intensive tasks indicating cognitive requirements – Scenarios in methods for specific tasks. In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 / WG8.1 Working Conference on Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences., Geneva, Switzerland, vol. 244, pp. 100–114. Springer, Boston, USA (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sol, H.: Simulation in Information Systems. PhD thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, EU (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coll, R., Coll, J.: Cognitive match interface design, a base concept for guiding the development of user friendly computer application packages. Journal of Medical Systems 13(4), 227–235 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruiz, M., Díaz, M., Soler, F., Pérez, J.: Adaptation in current e-learning systems. Computer Standards & Interfaces 30(1–2), 62–70 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaspers, M., Steen, T., van den Bos, C., Geenen, M.: The think aloud method: A guide to user interface design. International Journal of Medical Informatics 73(11–12), 781–795 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. J. Overbeek
    • 1
  • P. van Bommel
    • 2
  • H. A. (Erik) Proper
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.e-office B.V.HoutenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Capgemini Nederland B.V.UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations