IRMA-International.org: Creator of Knowledge
Information Resources Management Association
Advancing the Concepts & Practices of Information Resources Management in Modern Organizations

A Comparison of the FOOM and OPM Methodologies for User Comprehension of Analysis Specifications

A Comparison of the FOOM and OPM Methodologies for User Comprehension of Analysis Specifications
View Sample PDF
Author(s): Judith Kabeli (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel)and Peretz Shoval (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel)
Copyright: 2005
Pages: 20
Source title: Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies: Advanced Topics in Database Research
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): John Krogstie (SINTEF, Norway ), Terry Halpin (Neumont University, USA )and Keng Siau (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-375-3.ch009

Purchase

View A Comparison of the FOOM and OPM Methodologies for User Comprehension of Analysis Specifications on the publisher's website for pricing and purchasing information.

Abstract

FOOM (Functional and Object-Oriented Methodology) and OPM (Object-Processes Methodology) are methodologies used for analyzing and designing information systems. Both integrate functional and object-oriented approaches, but differ in that the analysis specification of FOOM utilizes OO-DFDs (Data Flow Diagrams with object classes that replace traditional data-stores) and a class diagram, while OPM defines a new notational model for specifying the system’s structural and procedural requirements, which combines processes and classes in a unified diagrammatic notation. In this study, we compare FOOM and OPM from the point of view of both user comprehension of analysis specifications and user preference of specifications. The comparison is based on a controlled experiment that measured: (a) comprehension of the analysis specifications, which includes both structural and behavioral aspects of the system; (b) the time it takes to complete the task of specification comprehension; and (c) the user’s preference of models. Our results show that FOOM performed better than OPM and that the users preferred FOOM to OPM.

Related Content

Renjith V. Ravi, Mangesh M. Ghonge, P. Febina Beevi, Rafael Kunst. © 2022. 24 pages.
Manimaran A., Chandramohan Dhasarathan, Arulkumar N., Naveen Kumar N.. © 2022. 20 pages.
Ram Singh, Rohit Bansal, Sachin Chauhan. © 2022. 19 pages.
Subhodeep Mukherjee, Manish Mohan Baral, Venkataiah Chittipaka. © 2022. 17 pages.
Vladimir Nikolaevich Kustov, Ekaterina Sergeevna Selanteva. © 2022. 23 pages.
Krati Reja, Gaurav Choudhary, Shishir Kumar Shandilya, Durgesh M. Sharma, Ashish K. Sharma. © 2022. 18 pages.
Nwosu Anthony Ugochukwu, S. B. Goyal. © 2022. 23 pages.
Body Bottom