The pragmatic quality of Resources- Events-Agents diagrams: an experimental evaluation

Abstract

The Resources-Events-Agents (REA) model is a semantic data model for the development of enterprise information systems. Although this model has been proposed as a benchmark for enterprise information modelling, only few studies have attempted to empirically validate the claimed benefits of REA modelling. Moreover, these studies focused on the evaluation of REA-based system implementations rather than directly assessing the REA-modelled conceptual schemas that these systems are based on. This paper presents a laboratory experiment that measured the user understanding of diagrammatic conceptual schemas developed using the REA model. The theoretical foundation for the hypotheses are cognitive theories that explain pattern recognition phenomena and the resulting reduction in cognitive effort for understanding conceptual schemas. The results of the experiment indicate a more accurate understanding of the business processes and policies modelled when users recognize the REA model's core pattern of enterprise information in the diagram. The implication for modelling practice is that the use of the REA model improves the requirements engineering process by facilitating the user validation of conceptual schemas produced by analysts, and thus helps ensuring the quality of the enterprise information system that is developed or implemented

A conceptual modeling quality framework

“…Despite these research efforts, most conceptual modeling texts do not emphasize domain-specific patterns nor analogical reuse, and conceptual modeling notations are considered as general tools that must be mastered independently of the application domain. Poels et al (2007) and Poels (2009) showed that UML class diagrams that are used as conceptual representations of enterprise transaction cycles (e.g., order-to-cash, procure-topay, produce-to-stock, etc. ) are better understood by business users, both objectively (in terms of performance in model comprehension tasks) and subjectively (in terms of perceived ease of understanding), if these diagrams are consistently constructed using resource-event-agent patterns.…”

“…16 Transaction cycle representation (as a UML class diagram) constructed using a domain-specific pattern (resource-event-agent conceptual modeling structures) (based on (Poels 2009 applied domain knowledge quality (D3)). Furthermore, as demonstrated in (Poels, et al, 2007), business users like accountants and auditors get a far better understanding of the transaction cycle modeled if a diagram like Fig. 16 is used (i.e., higher pragmatic quality (P7)).…”

Equational zero vector databases, non-equational databases, and inherent internal control

“…Then, more than a century ago, manual EZS replaced manual NES definitively because of the inherent control deficiencies of NES (Ashworth, 1886;Barra and Griggs, 2007;Bardsley, 1900;Craig, 1898;Marshall, 1895). A computerised environment has not solved these inherent control deficiencies and the financial accounting and auditing profession has consequently largely ignored computerised NES (McCarthy, 2003;Poels et al, 2007). Just as EZS solved certain internal control deficiencies of NES in manual systems, it continues to solve those NES deficiencies in a computerised environment.…”

“…Nonetheless, modern NES such as REA have proven useful as modelling tools for building databases for business (e.g., Bradford et al, 2007;Callaghan et al, 2002;Dunn et al, 2005;Gerard, 2005;Jones et al, 2002Jones et al, , 2005Jones et al, -2006Poels et al, 2007), including non-accounting databases (e.g., Vymetal et al, 2008). Consequently, there is room for both NES and EZS in a modern AIS: one as a database design tool, the other as the target of that design.…”

How collaborative technology supports cognitive processes in collaborative process modeling: A capabilities-gains-outcome model

“…In our research we focus on the act of model creation, thereby complementing the active stream of research investigating process model interpretation [e.g., 51,56].…”