Transformation from manufacturing process taxonomy to repair process taxonomy: a phenetic approach

Raza, Umair; Wasim, Ahmad; Khan, A. U.

doi:10.1007/s40092-017-0232-8

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, [11] explicitly exclude one of the objective ending conditions (mutually exclusive) and justify this with a more readable and less complex taxonomy. In addition to this example, [44] discuss the degree of fulfillment of the objective ending conditions in the context of the taxonomy's domain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exhaustiveness [57], adequateness [35], compatibleness with theories [35], purposefulness [33], unambiguousness [33], usability [40], inclusiveness [40], feasibility [17], descriptiveness [44], versatileness [44], sufficiently detailedness [62], generalizability [54], appropriate wording [31], relevance [31], real-world fidelity [72], face validity [49], modifiability [25], simplicity [25], suitability [58], no unnecessary categories [4] taxonomy's application over time, and after completion (e.g., [36]), and would require additional evaluation criteria. This stipulation is also in line with design science literature, which advocates that a rigorous research process should strictly separate building from evaluation, especially when it comes to the iterative development processes of artifacts [7,18,28].…”

Section: Usefulness As Taxonomy Evaluation Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Criteria as a Prelude for Guiding Taxonomy Evaluation

Szopinski

Schoormann

Kundisch

2020

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomies are design science artifacts used by researchers and practitioners to describe and classify existing or future objects of a domain. As such, they constitute a necessary foundation for theory building. Yet despite the great interest in taxonomies, there is virtually no guidance on how to rigorously evaluate them. Based on a literature review and a sample of 446 articles, this study explores the criteria currently employed in taxonomy evaluations. Surprisingly, we find that only a minority of taxonomy building projects actually evaluate their taxonomies and that there is no consistency across the multiplicity of criteria used. Our study provides a structured overview of the taxonomy evaluation criteria used by IS researchers and proposes a set of potential guidelines to support future evaluations. The purposeful and rigorous taxonomy evaluation our study advances contributes to DSR by bridging the gap between generic evaluation criteria and concrete taxonomy evaluation criteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Usefulness As Taxonomy Evaluation Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria as a Prelude for Guiding Taxonomy Evaluation

Szopinski

Schoormann

Kundisch

2020

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these cases, the operating definition of a useful taxonomy is whether it can be used to classify a known set of data. Other means to evaluate usefulness were to express usefulness through another set of quality attributes (Aksulu & Wade, 2010;Botha et al, 2018;Diniz et al, 2019;Gibbs et al, 2016;Oberländer et al, 2018;Schneider et al, 2014;Snow & Reck, 2016;Thiebes et al, 2017), use of expert opinion (Herzfeldt et al, 2012;Raza et al, 2018;Schäffer & Stelzer, 2017), for example collected through interviews, and comparisons with other taxonomies (Jarvinen, 2000). Some definitions were tautological, that is a taxonomy is useful if it is used (Geiger et al, 2012;Snow & Reck, 2016).…”

Section: Literature Survey Of Taxonomy Quality Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For 17 quality attributes, no definitions were provided in the respective studies: utility (Almufareh et al, 2018;Alrige & Chatterjee, 2015;King & Sethi Jr, 1999;Labazova et al, 2018), efficiency (Almufareh et al, 2018;Beevi et al, 2015;Botha et al, 2018), stability (Bapna et al, 2004;Ge & Gretzel, 2018), sufficiency (Gao et al, 2018), effectiveness (Chasin et al, 2018;Herterich et al, 2015), adequateness (Schäffer & Stelzer, 2017), compatibility with theories (Schäffer & Stelzer, 2017), purposefulness (Strasser, 2017), usability (Diniz et al, 2019), descriptiveness (Raza et al, 2018), versatileness (Raza et al, 2018), sufficiently detailedness (Tönnissen & Teuteberg, 2018), appropriate wording (Herterich et al, 2015), relevance (Herterich et al, 2015), real world fidelity (Jöhnk et al, 2017), face validity (King & Sethi Jr, 1999), suitability (Cledou et al, 2018). 3 illustrates the results of our analysis.…”

Section: Literature Survey Of Taxonomy Quality Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A compendium and evaluation of taxonomy quality attributes

Unterkalmsteiner

Adbeen

2022

Expert Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Taxonomies capture knowledge about a particular domain in a succinct manner and establish a common understanding among peers. Researchers use taxonomies to convey information about a particular knowledge area or to support automation tasks, and practitioners use them to enable communication beyond organizational boundaries.Aims: Even though this important role of taxonomies in software engineering, their quality is seldom evaluated. Our aim is to identify and define taxonomy quality attributes that provide practical measurements, helping researchers and practitioners to compare taxonomies and choose the one most adequate for the task at hand. Methods:We reviewed 324 publications from software engineering and information systems research and synthesized, when provided, the definitions of quality attributes and measurements. We evaluated the usefulness of the measurements on six taxonomies from three domains. Results:We propose the definition of seven quality attributes and suggest internal and external measurements that can be used to assess a taxonomy's quality. For two measurements we provide implementations in Python. We found the measurements useful for deciding which taxonomy is best suited for a particular purpose. Conclusion:While there exist several guidelines for creating taxonomies, there is a lack of actionable criteria to compare taxonomies. In this article, we fill this gap by synthesizing from a wealth of literature seven, non-overlapping taxonomy quality attributes and corresponding measurements. Future work encompasses their further evaluation of usefulness and empirical validation.

show abstract

“…It focused on automotive assembly facilities. Cladistics has also been applied in studies of manufacturing to aerospace supply chains(Rose-Anderssen et al 2009), the hand tool industry(Leseure 2000), general manufacturing systems(James Scott Baldwin et al 2013), industrial ecosystems(James Scott Baldwin 2008), and product repair industries(Raza, Ahmad, and Khan 2018).A portion of the automotive manufacturing cladogram is shown in Figure2. Each branch of the cladogram is numbered with the characters that are significant in species evolution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%