Towards the reconstruction and evaluation of conceptual model quality discourses - Methodical framework and application in the context of model understandability

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Volumn 113 LNBIP, Issue , 2012, Pages 406-421

  Fettke, Peter ^a   Houy, Constantin ^a   Vella, Armella Lucia ^a   Loos, Peter ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

conceptual models; discourse orientation; discourse reconstruction; model quality; model understandability

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

CONCEPTUAL MODEL; CONCEPTUAL MODEL QUALITY; LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS; MODEL QUALITIES; QUALITY CRITERIA; RESEARCH RESULTS; SYSTEMATIC MODELS; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84864219880     PISSN: 18651348     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31072-0_28     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (56)

1. Fettke, P.: How Conceptual Modeling Is Used. Communications of the AIS 25, 571-592 (2009)
2. Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D., Gal, U.: Secondary Design: A Case of Behavioral Design Science Research. Journal of the AIS 12, 662-683 (2011)
3. Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Eng 55, 243-276 (2005)
4. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75-105 (2004)
5. Frank, U.: Towards a Pluralistic Conception of Research Methods in Information Systems Research. Institut für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik (ICB) der Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2006)
6. Garvin, D.A.: What Does Product Quality Really Mean. Sloan Management Review 26, 25 (1984)
7. Moody, D.L.: Metrics for Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 211-225. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
8. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process Models as Knowledge for Action: A Revised Quality Framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 91-102 (2006)
9. Frank, U.: Evaluation of Reference Models. In: Fettke, P., Loos, P. (eds.) Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis, pp. 118-140. Idea Group, Hershey (2007)
10. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30-49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
11. Janiesch, C., Brelage, C., Holten, R.: Exploration of Conceptual Models - Application of the GoM Framework. In: Information Resources Management Association International Conference (IRMA), San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 254-257 (2005)
12. Ortner, E., Schienmann, B.: Normative Language Approach - A Framework for Understanding. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 261-276. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
13. Moody, D.L.: Validation of a Method for Representing Large Entity Relationship Models: An Action Research Study. In: Wrycza, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2002), Gdansk, Poland, pp. 391-405 (2002)
14. Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: Improving the Quality of Data Models: Empirical Validation of a Quality Management Framework. Information Systems 28, 619-650 (2003)
15. Sedera, W., Rosemann, M., Gable, G.: Measuring Process Modelling Success. In: Wrycza, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2002), Gdansk, Poland, pp. 331-341 (2002)
16. Schütte, R.: Evaluation of information models (in German). In: Heinrich, L.J., Häntschel, I. (eds.) Evaluation und Evaluationsforschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik - Handbuch für Praxis, Lehre und Forschung, Oldenbourg, München, Wien, pp. 307-382 (2000)
17. Blommaert, J.: Discourse: a Critical Introduction. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambr. (2005)
18. Potter, J., Wetherell, M.: Discourse and Social Psychology. Sage, London (2011)
19. Harris, Z., Mattick Jr., P.: Science Sublanguages and the Prospects for a Global Language of Science. Annals of the American Academy of Pol. and Social Science 495, 73-83 (1988)
20. Halpin, T.: Fact-Oriented Modeling: Past, Present and Future. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 19-38. Springer, New York (2007)
21. Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Capturing Dependability Threats in Conceptual Modeling. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 247-260. Springer, New York (2007)
22. Auramäki, E., Hirschheim, R., Lyytinen, K.: Modelling Offices Through Discourse Analysis: A Comparison and Evaluation of SAMPO with OSSAD and ICN. The Computer Journal 35, 492-500 (1991)
23. Auramäki, E., Hirschheim, R., Lyytinen, K.: Modelling Offices Through Discourse Analysis: The SAMPO Approach. The Computer Journal 35, 342-352 (1991)
24. Cimiano, P., Reyle, U., Sanic, J.: Ontology-driven discourse analysis for information extraction. Data & Knowl. Eng. 55, 59-83 (2005)
25. Ulrich, W.: Critically Systemic Discourse - A Discursive Approach to Reflective Practice in ISD (Part 2). The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA) 3, 85-106 (2001)
26. Ulrich, W.: Philosophical Staircase for Information Systems Definition, Design, and Development - A Discoursive Approach to Reflective Practice in ISD (Part 1). The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA) 3, 55-84 (2001)
27. Winograd, T.: A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work. Human-Computer Interaction 3, 3-30 (1987-1988)
28. Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., van der Weide, T.: Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation. In: Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Haraldson, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2005), Kiruna, Sweden, pp. 139-155 (2005)
29. Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V.: Research Synthesis As a Scientific Enterprise. In: Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V. (eds.) The Handbook of Research Synthesis, pp. 3-14. Sage, New York (1994)
30. Agarwal, R., De, P., Sinha, A.P.: Comprehending Object and Process Models: An Empirical Study. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 541-556 (1999)
31. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., Weber, R.: Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests. Information Systems Research 12, 384-405 (2001)
32. Burton-Jones, A., Weber, R.: Understanding Relationships with Attributes in Entity-Relationship Diagrams. In: De, P., DeGross, J.I. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1999), pp. 214-228. Charlotte, North Carolina (1999)
33. Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis. Information System Research 17, 38-60 (2006)
34. Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: The Effects of Decomposition Quality and Multiple Forms of Information on Novices' Understanding of a Domain from a Conceptual Model. Journal of the AIS 9, 748-802 (2008)
35. Juhn, S., Naumann, J.: The Effectiveness of Data Representation Characteristics on User Validation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1985), pp. 212-226 (1985)
36. Palvia, T., Lio, C., To, P.: The Impact of Conceptual Data Models on End User Performance. J. Database Manage. 3, 4-14 (1992)
37. Kim, Y.-G., March, S.T.: Comparing Data Modelling Formalisms. Communications of the ACM 38, 103-115 (1995)
38. Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The Effect of Graphic Style on Data Model Interpretation. Information Systems Journal 9, 139-155 (1999)
39. Moody, D.L.: Complexity Effects on End User Understanding of Data Models: An Experimental Comparison of Large Data Model Representation Methods. In: Wrycza, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2002), Gdansk, Poland, pp. 482-496 (2002)
40. Moody, D.L.: Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 129-143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
41. Serrano, M., Calero, C., Trujillo, J., Lujan, S., Piattini, M.: Empirical Validation of Metrics for Conceptual Models of Data Warehouses. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3084, pp. 506-520. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
42. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data & Knowledge Eng. 55, 301-326 (2005)
43. Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434-439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
44. Poels, G., Gailly, F., Maes, A., Paemeleire, R.: Object Class or Association Class? Testing the User Effect on Cardinality Interpretation. In: Akoka, J., Liddle, S.W., Song, I.-Y., Bertolotto, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Kolp, M., Trujillo, J., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2005. LNCS, vol. 3770, pp. 33-42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
45. Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P., Park, S.-J.: Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Information Systems Research 17, 81-99 (2006)
46. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48-63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
47. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Inf. Systems, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 356-366 (2007)
48. Serrano, M., Trujillo, J., Calero, C., Piattini, M.: Metrics for data warehouse conceptual models understandability. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49, 851-870 (2007)
49. De Lucia, A., Gravino, C., Oliveto, R., Tortora, G.: Data model comprehension an empirical comparison of ER and UML class diagrams. In: IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, Amsterdam, pp. 93-102 (2008)
50. Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams. Data & Knowl. Eng. 64, 534-557 (2008)
51. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence Factors of Understanding Business Process Models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) Business Information Systems. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142-153. Springer, Berlin (2008)
52. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20-35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
53. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Cardoso, J.: On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 480-494. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
54. Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: The Effects of Content Presentation Format and User Characteristics on Novice Developers Understanding of Process Models. Communications of the AIS 28, 65-84 (2011)
55. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans 41, 449-462 (2011)
56. Schalles, C., Creagh, J., Rebstock, M.: Usability of Modelling Languages for Model Interpretation: An Empirical Research Report. In: Bernstein, A., Schwabe, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 787-796 (2011)