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

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.

[1]  Jari Veijalainen.  Developing Mobile Ontologies; Who, Why, Where, and How? , 2007, 2007 International Conference on Mobile Data Management.

[2]  Jochen Ludewig,et al.  Models in software engineering – an introduction , 2003, Software and Systems Modeling.

[3]  Andreas L. Opdahl,et al.  Experimental comparison of attack trees and misuse cases for security threat identification , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[4]  Marius Mikalsen,et al.  Experiences from Model-Driven Development of Homecare Services: UML Profiles and Domain Models , 2008, MoDELS Workshops.

[5]  John A. Zachman,et al.  A Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1987, IBM Syst. J..

[6]  Arja Vainio-Larsson.  Designing for use in a future context : five case studies in retrospect , 2003 .

[7]  S.H. Andresen,et al.  Lab and Research Activities at Wireless Trondheim , 2007, 2007 4th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems.

[8]  Beate List,et al.  Extending the UML 2 Activity Diagram with Business Process Goals and Performance Measures and the Mapping to BPEL , 2006, ER.

[9]  Graham J Hole,et al.  How to Design and Report Experiments , 2002 .

[10]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Modeling Language User Guide , 1998, J. Database Manag..

[11]  Ramez Elmasri,et al.  Advances in Conceptual Modeling - Theory and Practice, ER 2006 Workshops BP-UML, CoMoGIS, COSS, ECDM, OIS, QoIS, SemWAT, Tucson, AZ, USA, November 6-9, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, ER.

[12]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[13]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[14]  Keng Siau,et al.  Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods , 2004, J. Database Manag..

[15]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Alternative Process Notations for Mobile Information Systems , 2010, I-ESA.

[16]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[17]  Jacques Bertin,et al.  Semiology of Graphics - Diagrams, Networks, Maps , 2010 .