Advertisement

Wirtschaftsinformatik

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 152–161 | Cite as

WI — Aktuell

  • Hans Ulrich Buhl
  • Bernd Heinrich
  • Peter Loos
  • Ulrich Frank
  • Daniel L. Moody
  • Jeffrey Parsons
  • Michael Rosemann
  • Elmar J. Sinz
  • Ron Weber
  • Achim Kindler
  • Claus Rautenstrauch
  • Peter Fettke
Article
  • 176 Downloads

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [LeBa03]
    Hevner, A. R.; March, S. T.; Park, J.; Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. In: MIS Quartely 28 (2004) 1, pp. 75–105.Google Scholar
  2. [LeBa03]
    Lee, A. S.; Baskerville, R. L.: Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. In: Information Systems Research 14 (2003) 3, pp. 221–243.Google Scholar
  3. [WaWe02]
    Wand, Y.; Weber, R.: Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling: A Research Agenda. In: Information Systems Research 13 (2002) 4, pp. 363–376.Google Scholar

References

  1. [FePG94]
    Fenton, N.; Pfleeger, S. L.; Glass, R. L.: Science and Substance: A Challenge to Software Engineers. In: IEEE Software (1994) 7, pp. 86–95.Google Scholar
  2. [Glass94]
    Glass, R. L.: The Software Research Crisis. In: IEEE Software (1994) 11, pp. 42–47.Google Scholar
  3. [Hatt98]
    Hatton, L.: Does OO Sync With How We Think? In: IEEE Software (1998) 5/6, pp. 46–54.Google Scholar
  4. [Mood03]
    Moody, D. L.: Using the World Wide Web to Connect Research and Practice: Towards Evidence-Based Practice. In: Informing Science Journal (2003) 6.Google Scholar
  5. [Mood05]
    Moody, D. L.: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Evaluating the Quality of Conceptual Models: Current State and Future Directions. In: Data & Knowledge Engineering (accepted for publication December 14, 2004), 2005.Google Scholar
  6. [Neum00]
    Neuman, W. L.: Social Research Methods — Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th edition). Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA 2000.Google Scholar
  7. [Popp63]
    Popper, K. R.: Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Keagan Paul, London 1963.Google Scholar
  8. [SRRH97]
    Sackett, D. L.; Richardson, W. S.; Rosenberg, W.; Haynes, R. B.: Evidence Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, New York 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [Siau04]
    Siau, K.: Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modelling Methods. In: Journal of Database Management 15 (2004) 1, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
  10. [SiRo98]
    Siau, K.; Rossi, M.: Evaluation of Information Modeling Methods: A Review. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1998. Hawaii: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  11. [Tich98]
    Tichy, W. F.: Should Computer Scientists Experiment More? In: IEEE Computer (1998) 5, pp. 32–40.Google Scholar
  12. [ZeWa98]
    Zelkowitz, M. V.; Wallace, D. R.: Experimental Models for Validating Technology. In: IEEE Computer (1998) 5, pp. 23–31.Google Scholar

References

  1. [BPSW01]
    Bodart, F.; Patel, A.; Sim, M.; Weber, R.: Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests. In: Information Systems Research 12 (2001) 4, pp. 384–405.Google Scholar
  2. [Bung77]
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosphy, Volume 3: Ontology. Reidel, Amsterdam 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BuWe99]
    Burton-Jones, A.; Weber, R.: Understanding Relationships with Attributes in Entity Relationship Diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Information Systems, 1999, pp. 214–228.Google Scholar
  4. [Gemi99]
    Gemino, A.: Empirical Methods for Comparing Systems Analysis odeling Techniques. Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [PaCo04]
    Parsons, J.; Cole, L.: Properties of Properties: An Experimental Examination of Property Precedence in Conceptual Modelling. In: Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, 2004, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
  6. [WaWe02]
    Wand, Y.; Weber, R.: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling: A Research Agenda. In: Information Systems Research 13 (2002) 4, pp. 363–376.Google Scholar

References

  1. [BaMa95]
    Batra, D.; Marakas, G. M.: Conceptual data modeling in theory and practice. In: European Journal of Information Systems 4 (1995) 3, pp. 185–193.Google Scholar
  2. [BeZm99]
    Benbasat, I.; Zmud, R. W.: Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance. In: MIS Quarterly 23 (1999) 1, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  3. [DGRG04]
    Davies, I.; Green, P.; Rosemann, M.; Gallo, S.: Conceptual Modeling — Why do we do it? In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2004). Shanghai, 8-12 November 2004.Google Scholar
  4. [ErSi04]
    Erickson, J.; Siau, K.: Theoretical and Practical Complexity of Unified Modeling Language: Delphi Study and Metrics Analyses. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2004). Washington, D.C., 13-15 December 2004.Google Scholar
  5. [OHFB92]
    Oei, J. L.; van Hemmen, L. J. G. T.; Falkenberg, E.; Brinkkemper, S.: The meta model hierarchy: A framework for information systems concepts and techniques. Technical Report No. 92-17, 1992, Department of Information Systems, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

References

  1. [FeSi01]
    Ferstl, O. K.; Sinz, E. J.: Grundlagen der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Band 1. 4. Auflage, Oldenbourg, München 2001.Google Scholar
  2. [Knu97]
    Knuth, D. E.: The Art of Computer Programming, Volume I: Fundamental Algorithms, Third Edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [WaWe02]
    Wand, Y.; Weber, R.: Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling — A Research Agenda. Information Systems Research 13 (2002) 4, pp. 363–376.Google Scholar
  4. [BFR04]
    Bowen, P. L.; O’Farrell, R. A.; Rohde, F. H.: How Does Your Model Grow? An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Ontological Clarity and Application Domain Size on Query Performance. Proc. Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2004), Washington, December 12-15, 2004.Google Scholar

Literatur

  1. [BuFa04]
    Bundschuh, M.; Fabry, A.: Aufwandschätzung von IT-Projekten. 2. Aufl., Bonn 2004.Google Scholar
  2. [EDBS04]
    Ebert, Chr.; Dumke, R.; Bundschuh, M.; Schmietendorf, A. (eds.): Best Practices in Software-Measurement: How to use metrics to improve project and process performance. Berlin 2004.Google Scholar
  3. [Endr04]
    Endres, A.: Sind Outsourcing und Offshoring die neuen Heilmittel bei InformatikProblemen? In: Informatik Spektrum 27 (2004) 6, S. 546–550.Google Scholar
  4. [HeKH01]
    Heinzl, A.; König, W.; Hack, J.: Erkenntnisziele der Wirtschaftsinformatik in den nächsten drei und zehn Jahren. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik 43 (2001) 3, S. 223–233.Google Scholar
  5. [KiJS05]
    Kindler, A.; Jahnke, B.; von Schneyder, W.: Aufwandschätzung von Projekten: eine Standortbestimmung. In: Projektmanagement aktuell. Sonderheft 1/2005 der GPM zur Aufwands- und Kostenschätzung (erscheint Mitte Jan. 2005).Google Scholar
  6. [Kurb04]
    Kurbel, K.: Stellungnahme zum Beitrag [LeSn04]. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik 46 (2004) 6, S. 495–496.Google Scholar
  7. [LeSn04]
    Lehner, F.; Sneed, H.: Braucht die Wirtschaftsinformatik ein eigenständiges Curriculum für Software-Engineering? In: Wirtschaftsinformatik 46 (2004) 6, S. 91–494.Google Scholar
  8. [Seib03]
    Seibert, S.: Softwaremessung, quantitative Projektsteuerung und Benchmarking: Wie helfen sie dem Software-Projektmanager? In: Projektmanagement aktuell 14 (2003) 4, S. 26–34.Google Scholar
  9. [ZaBr04]
    Zarnekow, R.; Brenner, W.: Einmalige und wiederkehrende Kosten im Lebenszyklus von IT-Anwendungen — Eine empirische Untersuchung. In: Controlling & Management 48 (2004) 5, S. 336–339.Google Scholar

Literatur

  1. [Beck99]
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA 1999.Google Scholar
  2. [GHJV97]
    Gamma, E.; Helm, R.; Johnson, R.; Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns. Addison Wesley, Reading MA 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [Raut93]
    Rautenstrauch, C.: Integration Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Bonn et al. 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [Turo03]
    Turowski, K.: Fachkomponenten. Shaker, Aachen 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Ulrich Buhl
  • Bernd Heinrich
    • 1
  • Peter Loos
    • 2
  • Ulrich Frank
    • 3
  • Daniel L. Moody
    • 4
  • Jeffrey Parsons
    • 5
  • Michael Rosemann
    • 6
  • Elmar J. Sinz
    • 7
  • Ron Weber
    • 8
  • Achim Kindler
    • 9
  • Claus Rautenstrauch
    • 10
  • Peter Fettke
  1. 1.Wirtschaftsinformatik & Financial Engineering Kernkompetenzzentrum IT &Finanzdienstleistungen Universität AugsburgDeutschland
  2. 2.Johannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzDeutschland
  3. 3.Universität Duisburg-EssenDeutschland
  4. 4.University of IcelandReykjavikIceland
  5. 5.Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’s, NLCanada
  6. 6.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  7. 7.Universität BambergDeutschland
  8. 8.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  9. 9.IMAKA Institut für Management GmbHLeonbergDeutschland
  10. 10.Institut für Technische und Betriebliche InformationssystemeOtto-von-Guericke-Universität MagdeburgMagdeburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations