skip to main content
research-article

System Design through the Exploration of Contemporary Web Services

Published: 31 October 2018 Publication History

Abstract

In this article, we develop a Contemporary Web Service (CWS) repository of system designs, which are encoded as metadata of contemporary web services. We examine if this CWS repository serves as an effective design tool for initial CWS design and as an effective support tool for business users and analysts working together on system design. The CWS repository reduces the cognitive load of both the analyst and the business user as they jointly explore the CWS repository of system designs. It supports an evolutionary approach to system design through rapid selection of appropriate CWS metadata. To accomplish that, we introduce several new design characteristics for the CWS repository. The evaluation results demonstrate that the CWS repository is an effective tool for supporting designers during initial service design, as well as for supporting business users and analysts during system design.

References

[1]
Radha Appan and Glenn J. Browne. 2012. The impact of analyst-induced misinformation on the requirements elicitation process. MIS Quarterly 36, 1 (2012), 85--106.
[2]
Mark H. Ashcraft. 2002. Cognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
[3]
Nigel Bevan. 2006. International studies for Hci. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://nigelbevan.com/articles/International_standards_HCI.pdf.
[4]
Corentin Burnay. 2016. Are stakeholders the only source of information for requirements engineers? Toward a taxonomy of elicitation information sources. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 7, 3 (2016), 8:1-29.
[5]
Narciso Cerpa and June M. Verner. 2009. Why did your project fail? Communications of the ACM 52, 12 (2009), 130--134.
[6]
Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319--340.
[7]
Gordon B. Davis. 1982. Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Systems Journal 21, 1 (1982), 4--30.
[8]
Thomas Erl. 2005. Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology, and Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
[9]
Carlos Flavián, Miguel Guinalíu, and Raquel Gurrea. 2006. The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Information 8 Management 43, 1 (2006), 1--14.
[10]
Göran Goldkuhl. 2004. Design theories in information systems - a need for multi-grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6, 2 (2004), 59--72.
[11]
Shirley Gregor and Alan R. Hevner. 2013. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly 37, 2 (2013), 337--356.
[12]
Marc N. Haines and Marcus A. Rothenberger. 2010. How a service-oriented architecture may change the software development process. Communications of the ACM 53, 8 (2010), 135--140.
[13]
Joseph F. Hair Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black. 1992. Multivariate Data Analysis: With Readings. New York, NY, Macmillan.
[14]
Katrina Hands, D. Ramanee Peiris, and Peter Gregor. 2004. Development of a computer-based interviewing tool to enhance the requirements gathering process. Requirements Engineering 9, 3 (2004), 204--216.
[15]
Sean Hansen and Kalle Lyytinen. 2010. Challenges in contemporary requirements practice. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE.
[16]
Jun He and William R. King. 2008. The role of user participation in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems 25, 1 (2008), 301--331.
[17]
Alan R. Hevner, Salvatore T. March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. 2004. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 1 (2004), 75--105.
[18]
Quentin J. M. Huys, Níall Lally, Paul Faulknere, Neir Eshelf, Erich Seifritz, Samuel J. Gershmang, Peter Dayanh, and Jonathan P. Roiser. 2014. Interplay of approximate planning strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, 10 (2014), 3098--3103.
[19]
International Business Machines. 2007. Websphere Commerce Information Center. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wchelp/v5r6/index.jsp.
[20]
Matthias Jarke and Kalle Lyytinen. 2015. Complexity of systems evolution: requirements engineering perspective. ACM Transactions on Management Information System 5, 3 (2015), 11:11--17.
[21]
Stan Jarzabek and Riri Huang. 1998. The case for user-centered CASE tools. Communications of the ACM 41, 8 (1998), 93--99.
[22]
Moussa Kaouan, Djelloul Bouchiha, and Sidi Mohamed Benslimane. 2017. Ontology-based web services classification for registration and discovery of web services. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing 6, 2 (2017), 129--147.
[23]
Sari Kujala. 2003. User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour 8 Information Technology 22, 1 (2003), 1--16.
[24]
Odd Ivar Lindland, Guttorm Sindre, and Arne Solvberg. 1994. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11, 2 (1994), 42--49.
[25]
M. Lynne Markus and Ji-Ye Mao. 2004. Participation in development and implementation--Updating and old, tired concept for today's IS contexts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5, 11--12 (2004), 514--544.
[26]
Sabine Matook and Marta Indulska. 2009. Improving the quality of process reference models: A quality function deployment-based approach. Decision Support Systems 47, 60--71.
[27]
Jum C. Nunnally. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
[28]
Jeffrey Parsons and Yair Wand. 2008. Using cognitive principles to guide classification in information systems modeling. MIS Quarterly 32, 4 (2008), 839--868.
[29]
Ruben Prieto-Diaz. 1991. Implementing faceted classification for software reuse. Communications of the ACM 34, 5 (1991), 88--97.
[30]
Ruben Prieto-Diaz and Peter Freeman. 1987. Classifying software for reusability. IEEE Software 4, 1 (1987), 6--16.
[31]
Arun Sen, K. Ramamurthy, and Atish P. Sinha. 2012. A model of data warehousing process maturity. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38, 2 (2012) 336--353.
[32]
Shreta Sharma and S. K. Pandey. 2013. Revisiting requirements elicitation techniques. International Journal of Computer Applications 75, 12 (2013) 35--39.
[33]
Shadi Shuraida and Henri Barki. 2013. The influence of analyst communication in is projects. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 14, 9 (2013) 482--520.
[34]
Keng Siau and Xin Tan. 2005. Improving the quailty of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data 8 Knowledge Engineering 55, 343--365.
[35]
Iris Vessey and Ajay Paul Sravanapudi. 1995. CASE tools as collaborative support technologies. Communications of the ACM 38, 1 (1995), 83--95.
[36]
Padmal Vitharana, Fatemeh “Mariam” Zahedi, and Hemant Jain. 2003. Knowledge-based repository scheme for storing and retrieving business components: A theoretical design and an empirical analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29, 7 (2003), 649--667.
[37]
Padmal Vitharana, Fatemeh “Mariam” Zahedi, and Hemant K. Jain. 2016. Enhancing analysts’ mental models for improving requirements elicitation: A two-stage theoretical framework and empirical results. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 17, 12 (2016), 804--840.
[38]
Yair Wand and Ron Weber. 2002. Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Information Systems Research 13, 4 (2002), 363-376.
[39]
Judith Weedman. 2008. Client as designer in collaborative design science research projects: What does social science design theory tell us?” European Journal of Information Systems 17, 5 (2008), 476--488.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems
ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems  Volume 9, Issue 3
Research Commentary and Regular Papers
September 2018
106 pages
ISSN:2158-656X
EISSN:2158-6578
DOI:10.1145/3281626
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 31 October 2018
Accepted: 01 August 2018
Revised: 01 August 2018
Received: 01 April 2018
Published in TMIS Volume 9, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Design science research
  2. contemporary web services
  3. repository
  4. system design

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 275
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media