Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Linwood Watkins

dblp:156/7588 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
process modeling
0.212015
Customizing the Representation Capabilities of Process Models: Understanding the Effects of Perceived Modeling Impediments · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

grounded theory · 0.2case study · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Customizing the Representation Capabilities of Process Models: Understanding the Effects of Perceived Modeling Impediments
abstract
Process modeling is useful during the analysis and design of systems. Prior research acknowledges both impediments to process modeling that limits its use as well as customizations that can be employed to help improve the creation of process models. However, no research to date has provided a rich examination of the linkages between perceived process modeling impediments and process modeling customizations. In order to help address this gap, we first conceptualized perceived impediments to using process models as a “lack of fit” between process modeling and another factor: 1) the role the process model is intended for; and 2) the task at hand. We conducted a case study at two large health insurance carriers to understand why the lack of fit existed and then show different types of process modeling customizations used to address the lack of fit and found a variety of “physical” and “process” customizations employed to overcome the lack of fits. We generalize our findings into propositions for future research that examinethe dynamic interaction between process models and their need to be understood by individuals during systems analysis and design.
Binny M. Samuel, Linwood Watkins, Andrew Ehle, Vijay Khatri
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2