Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (17)
- Part of Periodical (13)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Other (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (40)
Keywords
- Access control (1)
- Aufsatzsammlung (1)
- BPMN modeling guidelines (1)
- Begnadigung (1)
- Culture (1)
- Data federation (1)
- Deal of the Day (1)
- Gnade (1)
- Grounded theory (1)
- Information federation (1)
- Information integration (1)
- Information security (1)
- Justitiabilität (1)
- Konstitutionalisierung (1)
- Lernwelt (1)
- Loyalty (1)
- Modeling recommendations (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Process model quality (1)
- Product lifecycle management (1)
- Raum (1)
- Self-disclosure (1)
- Semantic data (1)
- Semantic web (1)
- Service orientation (1)
- Social networking sites (1)
- Structural equation modeling (1)
- Trust (1)
- Universität (1)
- Verfassungsidentität (1)
- Zahl (1)
- europäische Integration (1)
Institute
- Referat für Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (15)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (12)
- Institut für Informatik und Computational Science (3)
- Präsident | Vizepräsidenten (3)
- Dezernat 2: Studienangelegenheiten (2)
- Institut für Philosophie (2)
- Bürgerliches Recht (1)
- Institut für Slavistik (1)
- Juristische Fakultät (1)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (1)
Grußwort
()
Like versus dislike
(2012)
As Facebook's Like-button has become ubiquitous, it is the purpose of this research to investigate (1) whether Likes serve as a signal of a product's or service's quality and (2) how the introduction of a Dislike-button would alter perceptions. Following a qualitative study, we conducted an experiment in which 653 participants were presented with website screenshots featuring varying levels of Likes and Dislikes. The results indicate that the theoretical framing of Likes as a Signal is valid and that people do perceive the quality of products and services as superior when they are associated with more Likes. Signaling also explains the counter-intuitive finding that Dislikes can have a positive effect on people's quality perceptions. Results are discussed with respect to theory and practical implications.
Many organizations use business process models for documenting their business operations. In recent years, the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) evolved into the leading standard for process modeling. However, BPMN is complex: The specification offers a huge variety of different elements and often several representational choices for the same semantics. This raises the question of how well modelers can deal with these choices. Empirical insights into BPMN usage from the perspective of practitioners are still missing. We close this gap by analyzing a large set of BPMN 2.0 process models from practice. We found that particularly representational choices for splits and joins, the correct use of message flow, the proper decomposition of models, and the consistent labeling appear to be connected with quality issues. Based on our findings we give five recommendations how these issues can be avoided in the future. The work summarized in this extended abstract has been published in [LMG16].
Many organizations use business process models to document business operations and formalize business requirements in software-engineering projects. The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), a specification by the Object Management Group, has evolved into the leading standard for process modeling. One challenge is BPMN's complexity: it offers a huge variety of elements and often several representational choices for the same semantics. This raises the question of how well modelers can deal with these choices. Empirical insights into BPMN use from the practitioners' perspective are still missing. To close this gap, researchers analyzed 585 BPMN 2.0 process models from six companies. They found that split and join representations, message flow, the lack of proper model decomposition, and labeling related to quality issues. They give five specific recommendations on how to avoid these issues.