Skip to main content

Designing a Study for Evaluating User Feedback on Predesign Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Systems Development

Abstract

Predesign schemata are an attempt to overcome the communication gap between end users and computer scientists in software development. We argue that by presenting facilitated models to the users, schema interpretation is made easier. The predesign principle is also helpful in areas such as software documentation. Our uses of predesign models share the basic assumption that these models are easier to understand for end users. In this chapter we present a design for an experimental study that aims to evaluate these assumptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 22879
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 28599
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
JPY 28599
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bellström P., and Vöhringer J. (2009) Towards the Automation of Modeling Language Independent Schema Integration, In International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management, eKnow 2009, pp. 110–115.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bellström, P., Vöhringer, J., and Kop, C. (2008) Guidelines for Modeling Language Independent Dynamic Schema Integration, In: Pahl, C. (ed), Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering, ACTA Press, pp. 112–117.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gälle, D., Kop, C., and Mayr, H. C. (2008) A Uniform Web Service Description Representation for Different Readers. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Digital Society, ICDS, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 123–128.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Genero M., Piattini M., and Calero C. (2002) Empirical Validation of Class Diagram Metrics, In Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Genero M., Piattini M., and Manso E. (2004) Finding “Early” Indicators of UML Class Diagrams Understandability and Modifiability, In Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gustas R., and Gustiené P. (2004) Towards the Enterprise Engineering Approach for Information System Modelling Across Organisational and Technical Boundaries, In Enterprise Information Systems V, pp. 204–215.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hitz, M. et al. (2005) UML@Work. dpunkt.verlag, Heidelberg, ISBN 3-89864-261-5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kaindl, H. (2005) Is object-oriented requirements engineering of interest? Requirements Engineering 10, 81–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kop C., and Mayr H.C. (1998) Conceptual Predesign – Bridging the Gap Between Requirements and Conceptual Design, In Proceedings of the ICRE’98, pp. 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mayring P. (2000) Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Social Research 1(2), Art. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  11. OWL-S (2004) Semantic Markup for Web Services, W3C Member Submission, 22 November 2004, http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/

  12. Schuman, H., and Presser, S. (1996) Questions & Answers in Attitude Surveys Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context, Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Siau K., and Lee L. (2004) Are use case and class diagrams complementary in requirements analysis? An experimental study on use case and class diagrams in UML. Requirements Engineering 9, 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Siau, K.L. (2004) Theoretical and Practical Complexity of UML, In Americas Conference on Information Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stark M. (2000) Geschäftsprozessmodellierung im konzeptuellen Vorentwurf, Diploma Thesis, Institute for Applied Informatics, Research Group Application Engineering, University of Klagenfurt, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vöhringer, J., and Mayr, H.C. (2006) Integration of Schemas on the Pre-Design Level Using the KCPM-Approach. In Nilsson, A.G. et al. (eds), Advances in Information Systems Development: Bridging the Gap between Academia and Industry, Springer, pp. 623–634.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1 (2007) Core Language: W3C Recommendation, 26 June 2007; http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/.

  18. Williams, B. (2005) Moodle for Teachers, Trainers and Administrators, V.1.4.3, Manual, http://download.moodle.org/docs/en/using-your-moodle.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jürgen Vöhringer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vöhringer, J., Bellström, P., Gälle, D., Kop, C. (2011). Designing a Study for Evaluating User Feedback on Predesign Models. In: Song, W., et al. Information Systems Development. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7355-9_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7355-9_35

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-7205-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7355-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics