Maintaining business process compliance despite changes: a decision support approach based on process adaptations

References

• Aleliunas, R., Karp, R.M., Lipton, R.J., Lovasz, L., & Rackoff, C. (1979). Random walks, universal traversal sequences, and the complexity of maze problems. In 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979) (pp. 218–223), San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1979.34
   Google Scholar
• Awad, A. (2007). BPMN-Q: A language to query business processes. In Reichert, M., Strecker, S. & Turowski, K. (Hrsg.), (Eds.), Enterprise modelling and information systems architectures – concepts and applications (pp. 115–128). Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V.
   Google Scholar
• Awad, A., Smirnov, S., & Weske, M. (2009). Resolution of compliance violation in business process models: A planning-based approach. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, R. Meersman, T. Dillon, & P. Herrero (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2009 (Vol. 5870, pp. 6–23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Basili, V. (1992). Software modeling and measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm. University of Maryland, CS-TR-2956, UMIACS-TR-92-96, September 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Dietrich, H.-A., Steinhorst, M., & Eggert, M. (2016). Business process compliance checking – Applying and evaluating a generic pattern matching approach for conceptual models in the financial sector. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(2), 359–405. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9529-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, J., Eggert, M., Winkelmann, A., & Knackstedt, R. (2011). Towards a contingency theory based model of the influence of regulation on MIS. In Americas conference on information systems, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, J., Heddier, M., Braeuer, S., & Knackstedt, R. (2014). Integrating regulatory requirements into information systems design and implementation. In ICIS 2014 proceedings, Auckland, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Buchert, T., Ko, N., Graf, R., Vollmer, T., Alkhayat, M., Brandenburg, E., Stark, R., Klocke, F., Leistner, P., & Schleifenbaum, J.H. (2019). Increasing resource efficiency with an engineering decision support system for comparison of product design variants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1051–1062. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, E.W.L. (2019). Choosing between the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the technology acceptance model (TAM). Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9598-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coenen, T., Coertjens, L., Vlerick, P., Lesterhuis, M., Mortier, A.V., Donche, V., & Ballon, P. (2018). An information system design theory for the comparative judgement of competences. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(2), 248–261. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1445461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2012). Internal control - integrated framework: framework and appendices.
   Google Scholar
• Corea, C., & Delfmann, P. (2017). Detecting Compliance with Business Rules in Ontology-Based Process Modeling, in Leimeister, J.M.; Brenner, W. (eds.): Proceedings der 13. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2017), St. Gallen, 226–240.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Delfmann, P., Steinhorst, M., Dietrich, H.-A., & Becker, J. (2015). The generic model query language GMQL – Conceptual specification, implementation, and runtime evaluation. Information Systems, 47(1), 129–177. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2014.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, D., & Iyer, B. (2006). Enterprise architecture: A social network perspective. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06) (pp. 178a–178a), Kauia, HI, USA. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.155
   Google Scholar
• El Kharbili, M., Medeiros, A., Stein, S., & van der Aalst, W.M.P. (2008). Business process compliance checking: Current state and future challenges. Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS 2008), 107–113.
   Google Scholar
• Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., van den Heuvel, W.-J., & Papazoglou, M. (2010). Root-cause analysis of design-time compliance violations on the basis of property patterns. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, P. P. Maglio, M. Weske, J. Yang, & M. Fantinato (Eds.), Service-oriented computing (Vol. 6470, pp. 17–31). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Elgammal, A., Turetken, O., & van den Heuvel, W.-J. (2012). Using patterns for the analysis and resolution of compliance violations. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 21(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218843012400023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fdhila, W., Indiono, C., Rinderle-Ma, S., & Reichert, M. (2015). Dealing with change in process choreographies: Design and implementation of propagation algorithms. Information Systems, 49(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2014.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fdhila, W., Rinderle-Ma, S., & Reichert, M. (2012). Change propagation in collaborative processes scenarios. In 8th international conference on collaborative computing: networking, applications and worksharing (CollaborateCom),Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Fellmann, M., Thomas, O., & Busch, B. (2011). A query-driven approach for checking the semantic correctness of ontology-based process representations. In: W. Abramowicz (ed) Business Information Systems: 14th International Conference, BIS 2011 (pp. 62–73). Poznań, Poland, June 15–17, 2011. Proceedings. Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, M.E.D., & Deardorff, M.A. (2017). Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA),105(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5195/JMLA.2017.88
   Google Scholar
• Frank, U., Heise, D., Ulrich, K.H., Ferguson, D.F., Hadar, E., & Waschke, M.G. (2009). ITML: A domain-specific modeling language for supporting business driven IT management. In Proceeding of the 9th OOPSLA workshop on domain-specific modeling,Helsinki, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Gacitua-Decar, V., & Pahl, C. (2009). Automatic business process pattern matching for enterprise services design. In 2009 world conference on services – II (pp. 111–118), Bangalore, India . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/SERVICES-2.2009.28
   Google Scholar
• Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., & Peyton, L. (2009). Compliance analysis based on a goal-oriented requirement language evaluation methodology. In 17th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (pp. 133–142), Atlanta, GA, USA. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2009.42
   Google Scholar
• Governatori, G., & Sadiq, S. (2009). The journey to business process compliance. Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling, 426–454. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-288-6.ch020
   Google Scholar
• Gregor, S., & Hevner, A.R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01
   Google Scholar
• Halle, S. (2011). Causality in message-based contract violations: A temporal logic “Whodunit”. In 2011 IEEE 15th international enterprise distributed object computing conference, Helsinki, Finland . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2011.21
   Google Scholar
• Heckel, R., & Taentzer, G. (2020). Graph transformation for software engineers: With applications to model-based development and domain-specific language engineering (1st ed.). Springer eBook Collection. Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, T.J., McNab, A.L., & Basoglu, K.A. (2014). Reliability generalization of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.1.01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISACA. (2013). COBIT 5: Enabling information.
   Google Scholar
• Kittel, K., Sackmann, S., & Göser, K. (2013). Flexibility and compliance in workflow systems: The KitCom prototype. In Proceedings of the CAiSE’13 Forum at the 25th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE) (pp. 154–160), Valencia, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Klinkmüller, C., & Weber, I. (2017). Analyzing control flow information to improve the effectiveness of process model matching techniques. Decision Support Systems, 100(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knackstedt, R., Eggert, M., Heddier, M., Chasin, F., & Becker, J. (2013). The relationship of is and law - The perspective of and implications for IS research. ECIS 2013 Completed Research. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr/18/URL
   Google Scholar
• Knuplesch, D., Fdhila, W., Reichert, M., & Rinderle-Ma, S. (2015). Detecting the effects of changes on the compliance of cross-organizational business processes. In P. Johannesson, M. Lee, S. Liddle, A. Opdahl, & Ó. Pastor López (eds) Conceptual Modeling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 94–107), Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25264-3_7
   Google Scholar
• Koetter, F., Kintz, M., Kochanowski, M., Wiriyarattanakul, T., Fehling, C., Gildein, P., Wagner, S., Leymann, F., & Weisbecker, A. (2016). An universal approach for compliance management using compliance descriptors. In M. Helfert, D. Ferguson, V. Méndez Muñoz, & J. Cardoso (eds) Cloud Computing and Services Science: 6th International Conference, CLOSER 2016 (pp. 209–231). Rome, Italy, April 23–25, 2016, Springer International Publishing. Revised Selected Papers. Cham, s.l.
   Google Scholar
• Koetter, F., Kochanowski, M., Weisbecker, A., Fehling, C., & Leymann, F. (2014). Integrating compliance requirements across business and IT. In 2014 IEEE 18th international enterprise distributed object computing conference,Ulm, Germany. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2014.37
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, T., Heinzl, A., & Neben, T. (2017). Cross-organizational software development: Design and evaluation of a decision support system for software component outsourcing. In Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 343–352), Puako, Hawaii, United States. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.041
   Google Scholar
• Kriglstein, S., Leitner, M., Kabicher-Fuchs, S., & Rinderle-Ma, S. (2016). Evaluation methods in process-aware information systems research with a perspective on human orientation. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 58(6), 397–414. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-016-0427-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leopold, H., Meilicke, C., Fellmann, M., Pittke, F., Stuckenschmidt, H., & Mendling, J. (2015). Towards the automated annotation of process models. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 401–416), Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, S.T., & Smith, G.F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, S.T., & Storey, V.C. (2008). Design science in the information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 725–730. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/25148869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mican, D., Sitar-Tăut, D.-A., & Moisescu, O.-I. (2020). Perceived usefulness: A silver bullet to assure user data availability for online recommendation systems. Decision Support Systems, 139(1), 113420. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namiri, K., & Stojanovic, N. (2007). Using control patterns in business processes compliance. In WISE 2007 Workshops (pp. 178–190), Nancy, France.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R.C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for taxonomy development and its productservice in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 336–359. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V., & Bragge, J. (2006). The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information systems research. In 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST) (pp. 83–106), Claremont, California, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Radeschütz, S., Schwarz, H., & Niedermann, F. (2015). Business impact analysis—a framework for a comprehensive analysis and optimization of business processes. Computer Science – Research and Development, 30(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-013-0247-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., & Dadam, P. (2004). Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems: A survey. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 50(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2004.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., & Weber, B. (2008). On the formal semantics of change patterns in process-aware information systems. In Proc. 27th Int’l Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER’08)(pp. 279-293), Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenkrantz, D.J., Stearns, R.E., & Lewis, I.P.M.I. (1977). An analysis of several heuristics for the traveling salesman problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 6(3), 563–581. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1137/0206041
   Google Scholar
• Rudzajs, P., & Buksa, I. (2011). Business process and regulations: Approach to linkage and change management. In J. Grabis & M. Kirikova (Eds.), Perspectives in business informatics research (Vol. 90, pp. 96–109). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 131–164. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackmann, S., & Kittel, K. (2015). Flexible workflows and compliance: A solvable contradiction? In J. Vom Brocke & T. Schmiedel (Eds.), BPM - Driving innovation in a digital world (pp. 247–258). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sackmann, S., Kühnel, S., & Seyffarth, T. (2018). Using business process compliance approaches for compliance management with regard to digitization: Evidence from a systematic literature review. In International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM) (pp. 409-425), Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., & Namiri, K. (2007). Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In G. Alonso, P. Dadam, & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Business process management (Vol. 4714, pp. 149–164). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Santos, H., & Alves, C. (2017). Exploring the ambidextrous analysis of business processes: A design science research. In International conference on enterprise information systems (pp. 543–566), Porto, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, M. (2013). Enriching process models for business process compliance checking in ERP environments. International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems, 120–135, Helsinki, Finland. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_9
   Google Scholar
• Schumm, D., Turetken, O., Kokash, N., Elgammal, A., Leymann, F., & van den Heuvel, W.-J. (2010a). Business process compliance through reusable units of compliant processes. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, F. Daniel, & F. M. Facca (Eds.), Current trends in web engineering (Vol. 6385, pp. 325–337). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Schumm, D., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F., & Strauch, S. (2011). Fragmento: Advanced process fragment library. 19th International Conference onInformation Systems Development, Prague, Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Schumm, D., Leymann, F., Ma, Z., Scheibler, T., & Strauch, S. (2010b). Integrating compliance into business processes: process fragments as reusable compliance controls. Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 10), Göttingen,Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Seeliger, A., Guinea, A.S., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2019). Process Explorer: Intelligent process mining guidance. 17th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM), 2019, (pp. 216–231), Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26619-6_15
   Google Scholar
• Seyffarth, T., Kühnel, S., & Sackmann, S. (2016). ConFlex: An ontology-based approach for the flexible integration of controls into business processes. Proceedings of theMultikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2016 (MKWI'16), 2016, (pp. 1341–1352), Ilmenau, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Seyffarth, T., Kühnel, S., & Sackmann, S. (2017a). A taxonomy of compliance processes for business process compliance. In 15th international conference on business process management, business process management forum. In: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP) (pp. 71–87), Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Seyffarth, T., Kühnel, S., & Sackmann, S. (2017b). Welche Compliance-Anforderungen sind für Geschäftsprozessänderungen relevant?: Ein Ansatz zur Modellierung der Beziehungen. In Proceedings of the Informatik 2017, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI) (pp. 1641–1646), Chemnitz, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Seyffarth, T., Kühnel, S., & Sackmann, S. (2018). Business process compliance and business process change: An approach to analyze the interactions. In Business Information Systems. BIS 2018. Lecture notes in business information processing (pp. 176–189), Berlin, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Seyffarth, T., Kühnel, S., & Sackmann, S. (2019). Business process compliance despite change: Towards proposals for a business process adaption. Information Systems Engineering in Responsible Information Systems. CAiSE 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 350, 227–239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21297-1_20
   Google Scholar
• Seyffarth, T., & Raschke, K. (2018). BCIT: A tool for analyzing the interactions between business process compliance and business process change. Proceedings of the Dissertation Award and Demonstration, Industrial Track at BPM, 2018, 81–85. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2196/BPM_2018_paper_17.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Seyffarth, T., & Raschke, K. (2020). BCIT: A tool to recommend compliant business processes based on process adaption. In Proceedings of the best dissertation award, doctoral consortium, and demonstration & resources track at BPM 2020 co-located with the 18th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2020) (pp. 107–111), Vienna, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Sillaber, C., & Breu, R. (2012). Managing legal compliance through security requirements across service provider chains: A case study on the German Federal Data Protection Act. GI-Jahrestagung, Informatik 2012, (pp. 1306–1318), Braunschweig, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Sonnenberg, C., & Vom Brocke, J. (2012). Evaluation patterns for design science research artefacts. In M. Helfert & B. Donnellan (Eds.), Practical aspects of design science (Vol. 286, pp. 71–83). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Sturm, B., & Sunyaev, A. (2019). Design principles for systematic search systems: A holistic synthesis of a rigorous multi-cycle design science research journey. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0569-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Institut der Wirtschaftsprüfer in Deutschland e.V. [Institute of Public Auditors in Germany, Incorporated Association]. (2002a). Principles of proper accounting when using information technology (IDW AcP FAIT 1).
   Google Scholar
• The Institut der Wirtschaftsprüfer in Deutschland e.V. [Institute of Public Auditors in Germany, Incorporated Association]. (2002b). The audit of financial statements in an information technology environment (IDW AuS 330).
   Google Scholar
• Turetken, O., Elgammal, A., van den Heuvel, W.-J., & Papazoglou, M. (2011). Enforcing compliance on business processes through the use of patterns. ECIS 2011 Proceedings, 2011, Helsinki, Finland. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/5/
   Google Scholar
• Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: A Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In 17th European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 2206–2217), Verona, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, B., Reichert, M., & Rinderle-Ma, S. (2008). Change patterns and change support features: Enhancing flexibility in process-aware information systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 66(3), 438–466. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2008.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster, J., & Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weske, M. (2019). Business process management: Concepts, languages, architectures (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Winter, R., & Fischer, R. (2006). Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. In 2006 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW’06) (pp. 30–37), Hong Kong, China. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2006.33
   Google Scholar
• Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2012). Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R., & Pallister, J.G. (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251–280. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660710834453
   Google Scholar