Experimental comparison of coarse-grained concepts in UML, OML, and TOS

Zendler, Andreas; Pfeiffer, Till; Eicks, Michael; Lehner, Franz

doi:10.1016/s0164-1212(00)00114-x

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(1990), Davis (1990), Jarvenpaa & Machesky (1989), Jih et al . (1989) and Zendler et al . (2001) investigated the differences between modelling methods using laboratory experiments with model construction as the task.…”

Section: Modelling Methods Comparison and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Numerous laboratory experiments on comparing modelling methods have been conducted (e.g. Jarvenpaa & Machesky, 1989; Jih et al ., 1989; Batra et al ., 1990; Davis, 1990; Batra & Davis, 1992; Siau et al ., 1995; 1996; 1997; Marakas & Elam, 1998; Agarwal et al ., 2000; Kim et al ., 2000; Bodart et al ., 2001; Zendler et al ., 2001). In a laboratory experiment, the researcher assigns subjects to treatment and control conditions, manipulates the independent variables (e.g.…”

Section: Modelling Methods Comparison and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods - a review and comparative analysis

Siau

Rossi²

2011

Information Systems Journal

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though hundreds of modelling methods are in existence today, practitioners and researchers are zealously 'producing' new modelling methods. The 'blooming' production of modelling methods is not the problem; the lack of standardized techniques for evaluating them is. To complicate the matter even further, most of the modelling methods have been introduced based on common sense and intuition of the methods' developers. Many of these methods lack theoretical foundations and empirical evidence to demonstrate their worthiness. With the current state of affairs, studies on evaluation of modelling methods have become necessary and critical. Comparing modelling methods provides us with the necessary knowledge and understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each method. This knowledge can also guide us in our quest for better modelling methods. This paper reviews various evaluation techniques used by both researchers and practitioners. The evaluation techniques are categorized into three classifications: feature comparison, theoretical and conceptual evaluation, and empirical evaluation. This research also analyses the underlying philosophies and assumptions of these evaluation techniques.

show abstract

Section: Modelling Methods Comparison and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Modelling Methods Comparison and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods - a review and comparative analysis

Siau

Rossi²

2011

Information Systems Journal

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The UML psychological complexity was examined by Siau and Cao (2001), Zendler et al (2001) and Burd et al (2002). Siau and Cao carried out a comparison of the practical complexity of UML with other ObjectOriented (OO) techniques.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there are similarities, some comparative studies (Henderson-Sellers et al, 2001;Barbier and Henderson-Sellers, 2000;Henderson-Sellers and Firesmith, 1999;Prasse, 1998) show the current divergences between the two OO methods. However, there are few empirical studies that evaluate these differences in the modeling of software applications, for example (Zendler et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical comparison of the dynamic modeling in OML and UML

Otero¹,

Dolado²

2005

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A survey of 5,453 scientific articles published in 12 leading software engineering journals and conferences in the decade from 1993 to 2002, identified 113 controlled experiments in which individuals or teams performed one or more software engineering (Sjøberg et al 2005). Four of the experiments investigated different aspects of the use of UML (Cox and Phalp 2000;Otero and Dolado 2002;Peleg and Dori 2000;Zendler et al 2001). The first investigates the construction of use case models, the second and third investigate the comprehension of UML diagrams, while the fourth compares the concepts of UML with those of two other formalisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences from introducing UML-based development in a large safety-critical project

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UML and UML-based development methods have become de facto standards in industry, and there are many claims for the positive effects of modelling object-oriented systems using methods based on UML. However, there is no reported empirical evaluation of UML-based development in large, industrial projects. This paper reports a case study in ABB, a global company with 120,000 employees, conducted to identify immediate benefits as well as difficulties and their causes when introducing UML-based development in large projects. ABB decided to use UML-based development in the company's system development projects as part of an effort to enable certification according to the IEC 61508 safety standard. A UML-based development method was first applied in a large, international project with 230 system developers, testers and managers. The goal of the project was to build a new version of a safety-critical process control system. Most of the software was embedded. The project members were mostly newcomers to the use of UML. Interviews with 16 system developers and project managers at their sites in Sweden and Norway were conducted to identify the extent to which the introduction of UML-based development had improved their development process. The interviewees had experienced improvements with traceability from requirements to code, design of the code, and development of test cases as well as in communication and documentation. These results thus support claims in the literature regarding improvements that may be obtained through Empir Software Eng (2006) 11: 555-581 the use of UML. However, the results also show that the positive effects of UML-based development were reduced due to (1) legacy code that it was not feasible to reverse engineer into UML, (2) the distribution of requirements to development teams based on physical units and not on functionality, (3) training that was not particularly adapted to this project and considered too expensive to give to project members not directly involved in development with UML, and (4) a choice of modelling tools with functionality that was not in accordance with the needs of the project. The results from this study should be useful in enabling other UML adopters to have more realistic expectations and a better basis for making project management decisions.

show abstract

Experimental comparison of coarse-grained concepts in UML, OML, and TOS

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods - a review and comparative analysis

Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods - a review and comparative analysis

An empirical comparison of the dynamic modeling in OML and UML

Experiences from introducing UML-based development in a large safety-critical project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About