A theory of process modeling impact

Process modeling – the design and use of graphical documentations of an organization’s business processes – is a key method to document and use information about the operations of businesses. Still, despite current interest in process modeling, this research area faces essential challenges. Key unanswered questions concern the impact of process modeling in organizational practice, and the mechanisms through which impacts are developed. To answer these questions and to provide a better understanding of process modeling impact, I turn to the concept of affordances. Affordances describe the possibilities for goal-oriented action that a technical object offers to a user. This notion has received growing attention from IS researchers. The purpose of my research is to further develop the IS discipline’s understanding of affordances and impacts from information objects, such as process models used by analysts for information systems analysis and design. Specifically, I seek to extend existing theory on the emergence, perception and actualization of affordances. I develop a research model that describes the process by which affordances emerge between an individual and an object, how affordances are perceived, and how they are actualized by the individual. The proposed model also explains the role of available information for the individual, and the influence of perceived actualization effort. I operationalize and test this research model empirically, using a full-cycle, mixed methods study consisting of case study and experiment.

The influence of injury cause, contact-sport participation, and personal knowledge on expectation of outcome from mild traumatic brain injury

Objective: This study investigated the influence of injury cause, contact-sport participation, and prior knowledge of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) on injury beliefs and chronic symptom expectations of mTBI. Method: A total of 185 non-contact-sport players (non-CSPs) and 59 contact-sport players (CSPs) with no history of mTBI were randomly allocated to one of two conditions in which they read either a vignette depicting a sport-related mTBI (mTBIsport) or a motor-vehicle-accident-related mTBI (mTBIMVA). The vignettes were otherwise standardized to convey the same injury parameters (e.g., duration of loss of consciousness). After reading a vignette, participants reported their injury beliefs (i.e., perceptions of injury undesirability, chronicity, and consequences) and their expectations of chronic postconcussion syndrome (PCS) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Results: Non-CSPs held significantly more negative beliefs and expected greater PTSD symptomatology and greater PCS affective symptomatology from an mTBIMVA vignette thann mTBIsport vignette, but this difference was not found for CSPs. Unlike CSPs, non-CSPs who personally knew someone who had sustained an mTBI expected significantly less PCS symptomatology than those who did not. Despite these different results for non-CSPs and CSPs, overall, contact-sport participation did not significantly affect injury beliefs and symptom expectations from an mTBIsport. Conclusions: Expectations of persistent problems after an mTBI are influenced by factors such as injury cause even when injury parameters are held constant. Personal knowledge of mTBI, but not contact sport participation, may account for some variability in mTBI beliefs and expectations. These factors require consideration when assessing mTBI outcome.