Methodological constraints, critics and technology acceptance. An experiment
This report describes an experiment that was performed to investigate the effect of methodological rules and critiquing on acceptance of CASE tools. Students used the process modelling tool SPEARMINT 5.1 to solve an exercise twice: first without active critiquing, then with active critiquing. Active critiquing was provided in two different flavours "correct silent" and "report interrupting" for a specific hierarchical consistency rule. The experiment found that acceptance of SPEARMINT 5.1 was significantly higher for "correct silent" than for "report interrupting". Beliefs on constraints came out to be very important but weakly understood. More effort is necessary to provide valid construct definitions and reliable measurement instruments. Beliefs on constraints are expected to mediate the effect of flavour of critiquing on acceptance of CASE tools depending on user, task, model, and rule characteristics. Therefore, CASE tool vendors are recommended to provide variable that is, adaptable or self-adapting critiquing as methodology support.