Advertisement

Adapting UML Activity Diagrams for Mobile Work Process Modelling: Experimental Comparison of Two Notation Alternatives

  • Sundar Gopalakrishnan
  • John Krogstie
  • Guttorm Sindre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 68)

Abstract

Even if geographical aspects such as location is included in several enterprise architecture frameworks [15], enterprise modelling notations seldom capture the "where" aspect, such as the location for performing some activity in a business process. However, for mobile information systems it is often relevant to model where something is supposed to take place. In a previous paper, we suggested some alternatives for small modifications to UML Activity Diagrams to address this, but then only comparing the alternatives analytically. In this paper, we report on a controlled experiment comparing the two most promising notations from the previous paper, one adding location to the activity diagrams by annotations, another indicating location by colour. The experiment investigated both the participants’ opinions about the notations and their performance on some tasks requiring understanding of the models. For opinion there was no significant difference, but for task performance there was a significant difference in favour of the notation using colour.

Keywords

Requirements specifications mobile information systems modelbased development UML activity diagram enterprise modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Unified Modelling Language, http://www.uml.org (accessed 4.6.2010)
  2. 2.
    Business Process Modelling Notation, http://www.bpmn.org/ (accessed 4.6.2010)
  3. 3.
    Korherr, B., List, B.: Extending the UML 2 Activity Diagram with Business Process Goals and Performance Measures and the Mapping to BPEL. In: Roddick, J., Benjamins, V.R., Si-said Cherfi, S., Chiang, R., Claramunt, C., Elmasri, R.A., Grandi, F., Han, H., Hepp, M., Lytras, M.D., Mišić, V.B., Poels, G., Song, I.-Y., Trujillo, J., Vangenot, C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2006. LNCS, vol. 4231, pp. 7–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walderhaug, S., Stav, E., Marius Mikalsen, M.: Experiences from Model-Driven Development of Homecare Services: UML Profiles and Domain Models. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) Models in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 199–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gopalakrishnan, S., Sindre, G.: Alternative Process Notations for Mobile Information Systems. In: Proc. I-ESA 2010, Coventry, UK, Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andresen, S., Krogstie, J., Jelle, T.: Lab and Research Activities in Wireless Trondheim. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems, pp. 385–389. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modelling Language: User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J.: Active Knowledge Modelling of Enterprises. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Veijalainen, J.: Developing Mobile Ontologies; who, why, where, and how? In: International Conference on Mobile Data Management, Manheim, Germany, pp. 398–401. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsson, A. V.: Designing for use in a future Context – Five Case Studies in Retrospect, PhD thesis No: 1034, Institute of Tech., Linkoping Univ., Sweden (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transanctions on Software Eng. 35(6), 776–779 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Field, A., Hole, G.: How to Design and Report Experiments. Sage Publications, London (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zachman, J.A.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26(3), 276–291 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hopkins, W.G.: A New View of Statistics. University of Queensland, Australia, Brisbane (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: Experimental comparison of attack trees and misuse cases for security threat identification. Information and Software Technology 51(5), 916–932 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siau, K.: Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods. Journal of Database Management 15(1), 73–86 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sundar Gopalakrishnan
    • 1
  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  • Guttorm Sindre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations