IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/04-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Pragmatic Quality of Resources-Events-Agents Diagrams: An Experimental Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • G. POELS
  • A. MAES
  • F. GAILLY
  • R. PAEMELEIRE

Abstract

The Resources-Events-Agents (REA) model is a semantic data model for the development and integration of conceptual schemas of accounting information systems. Although in the Accounting Information Systems literature, the REA model is proposed as a benchmark against which to evaluate newly proposed accounting data models, only few studies have been undertaken to empirically validate the claimed benefits of REA modeling. Moreover, these studies focused on REA-based accounting system implementations and not on problem space representations. The work presented in this paper addresses this gap. Starting from theoretical frameworks for conceptual model quality and method evaluation in the IS field, and from previous research on comparative analysis of data modeling formalisms, a laboratory experiment was organized to evaluate the understanding of diagrammatic conceptual schemas that are developed using the REA model. The experimental results indicate that the REA modeling of accounting systems is effective in terms of the accuracy of understanding. On the other hand, little support was found for its efficiency in terms of faster comprehension of schemas that are developed according to the REA model.

Suggested Citation

  • G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "The Pragmatic Quality of Resources-Events-Agents Diagrams: An Experimental Evaluation," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/219, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:04/219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_04_219.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. François Bodart & Arvind Patel & Marc Sim & Ron Weber, 2001. "Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 384-405, December.
    2. M. Genero & G. Poels & M. Piattini, 2003. "Defining and Validating Metrics for Assessing the Maintainability of Entity-Relationship Diagrams," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/199, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ben Roelens & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Development and Experimental Evaluation of a Focused Business Model Representation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(1), pages 61-71, February.
    2. G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "User Comprehension of Accounting Information Structures: An Empirical Test of the REA Model," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/254, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    3. H. T.J. Smit & W. De Maeseneire, 2005. "The role of investor capabilities in public-to-private transactions," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 05/290, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ben Roelens & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Development and Experimental Evaluation of a Focused Business Model Representation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(1), pages 61-71, February.
    2. A. Maes & G. Poels, 2006. "Development of a user evaluations based quality model for conceptual modeling," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/406, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    3. Paul L. Bowen & Robert A. O'Farrell & Fiona H. Rohde, 2009. "An Empirical Investigation of End-User Query Development: The Effects of Improved Model Expressiveness vs. Complexity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 565-584, December.
    4. Boot, Walter R. & Dunn, Cheryl L. & Fulmer, Bachman P. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2022. "An eye tracking experiment investigating synonymy in conceptual model validation," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. Yair Wand & Ron Weber, 2002. "Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 363-376, December.
    6. Jan Mendling & Jan Recker & Hajo A. Reijers & Henrik Leopold, 2019. "An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 1111-1135, October.
    7. Andrew Burton-Jones & Peter N. Meso, 2006. "Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 38-60, March.
    8. Vijay Khatri & Iris Vessey & V. Ramesh & Paul Clay & Sung-Jin Park, 2006. "Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 81-99, March.
    9. Roman Lukyanenko & Wolfgang Maass & Veda C. Storey, 2022. "Trust in artificial intelligence: From a Foundational Trust Framework to emerging research opportunities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1993-2020, December.
    10. Guan, Jian & Levitan, Alan S. & Kuhn, John R., 2013. "How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 21-38.
    11. Sebastian Schlauderer & Sven Overhage, 2018. "BoSDL: An Approach to Describe the Business Logic of Software Services in Domain-Specific Terms," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(5), pages 393-413, October.
    12. Roger Clarke & Andrew Burton-Jones & Ron Weber, 2016. "On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 365-382, June.
    13. G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "User Comprehension of Accounting Information Structures: An Empirical Test of the REA Model," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/254, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    14. Oktay Turetken & Ahmet Dikici & Irene Vanderfeesten & Tessa Rompen & Onur Demirors, 2020. "The Influence of Using Collapsed Sub-processes and Groups on the Understandability of Business Process Models," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(2), pages 121-141, April.
    15. Palash Bera & Andrew Burton-Jones & Yair Wand, 2014. "Research Note ---How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 401-419, June.
    16. Andreas L. Opdahl & Brian Henderson-Sellers, 2004. "A Template for Defining Enterprise Modelling Constructs," Journal of Database Management (JDM), IGI Global, vol. 15(2), pages 39-73, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:04/219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.