Understanding understandability of conceptual models - What are we actually talking about?

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 7532 LNCS, Issue , 2012, Pages 64-77

  Houy, Constantin ^a   Fettke, Peter ^a   Loos, Peter ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

conceptual modeling; experimental research; model comprehensibility; model quality; model understandability

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY IS; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; CONCEPTUAL MODELING; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH; FUTURE MODELS; MODEL QUALITIES; RESEARCH RESULTS; UNDERSTANDABILITY;

DATA MINING;

EXPERIMENTS;

EID: 84868321032     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-34002-4_5     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (59)

1. Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D., Gal, U.: Secondary Design: A Case of Behavioral Design Science Research. Journal of the AIS 12, 662-683 (2011)
2. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42-49 (1994)
3. Krogstie, J.: Modelling of the People, by the People, for the People. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Brinkkemper, S. (eds.) Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering, pp. 305-318. Springer, Berlin (2007)
4. 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. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1994)
5. Fettke, P., Houy, C., Vella, A.-L., Loos, P.: Towards the Reconstruction and Evaluation of Conceptual Model Quality Discourses - Methodical Framework and Application in the Context of Model Understandability. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) EMMSAD 2012 and BPMDS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 406-421. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
6. Wand, Y., Storey, V.C., Weber, R.: Analyzing the Meaning of a Relationship. ACM Trans. Database Systems 24, 494-528 (1999)
7. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda. Information Systems Research 13, 363-377 (2002)
8. 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)
9. Moody, D.L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., Sølvberg, A.: Evaluating the Quality of Process Models: Empirical Testing of a Quality Framework. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, pp. 380-396. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
10. Patig, S.: A practical guide to testing the understandability of notations. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2008), Wollongong, Australia (2008)
11. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Pasanella, A.K., Rosenberg, M. (eds.): Continuities in the Language of Social Research. The Free Press, New York (1972)
12. Babbie, E.R., Mouton, J.: The Practice of Social Research. Oxford University Press, Cape Town (2001)
13. Edwards, J.R., Bagozzi, R.P.: On the Nature and Direction of Relationships Between Constructs and Measures. Psychological Methods 5, 155-174 (2000)
14. Petter, S., Straub, D., Rai, A.: Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 31, 623-656 (2007)
15. Costner, H.L.: Theory, deduction, and the rules of correspondence. American Journal of Sociology 75, 245-263 (1969)
16. 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)
17. 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)
18. 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)
19. Shanks, G.: Conceptual Data Modelling. An Empirical Study of Expert and Novice Data Modellers. Australian Journal of Information Systems 4, 63-73 (1997)
20. Hardgrave, B.C., Dalal, N.P.: Comparing Object-Oriented and Extended-Entity Relationship Data Models. Journal of Database Management 6, 15-21 (1995)
21. Agarwal, R., De, P., Sinha, A.: Comprehending object and process models: An empirical study. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 541-556 (1999)
22. Bavota, G., Gravino, C., Oliveto, R., De Lucia, A., Tortora, G., Genero, M., Cruz-Lemus, J.A.: Identifying the Weaknesses of UML Class Diagrams during Data Model Comprehension. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 168-182. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
23. 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)
24. Burton-Jones, A., Weber, R.: Understanding relationships with attributes in entityrelationship diagrams. In: 20th Annual International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1999), Charlotte, NC, USA, pp. 214-228 (1999)
25. Juhn, S., Naumann, J.: The Effectiveness of Data Representation Characteristics on User Validation. In: 6th International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 212-226 (1985)
26. Palvia, T., Lio, C., To, P.: The Impact of Conceptual Data Models on End User Performance. Journal of Database Management 3, 4-14 (1992)
27. Shoval, P., Fruerman, I.: OO and EER Schemas: A Comparison of User Comprehension. Journal of Database Management 5, 28-38 (1994)
28. Hardgrave, B.C., Dalal, N.P.: Comparing Object Oriented and Extended Entity Relationship Models. Journal of Database Management 6, 15-22 (1995)
29. Kim, Y.-G., March, S.T.: Comparing Data Modelling Formalisms. Communications of the ACM 38, 103-115 (1995)
30. Shanks, G.: Conceptual Data Modelling: An Empirical Study of Expert and Novice Data Modellers. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 4, 63-73 (1997)
31. Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The Effect of Graphic Style on Data Model Interpretation. Information Systems Journal 9, 139-155 (1999)
32. 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.) 10th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2002), Gdansk, Poland, pp. 482-496 (2002)
33. Purchase, H.C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D.: UML collaboration diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. In: First International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis (2002)
34. Parsons, J.: Effects of local versus global schema diagrams on verification and communication in conceptual data modeling. Journal of MIS 19, 155-184 (2003)
35. 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)
36. 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)
37. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Complexity and Clarity in Conceptual Modeling: Comparison of Mandatory and Optional Properties. Data and Knowledge Engineering 55, 301-326 (2005)
38. 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)
39. 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)
40. Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Using Practitioners for Assessing the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams with Composite States. In: Hainaut, J.-L., Rundensteiner, E.A., Kirchberg, M., Bertolotto, M., Brochhausen, M., Chen, Y.-P.P., Cherfi, S.S.-S., Doerr, M., Han, H., Hartmann, S., Parsons, J., Poels, G., Rolland, C., Trujillo, J., Yu, E., Zimányie, E. (eds.) ER Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4802, pp. 213-222. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
41. 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)
42. 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 ACIS 2007, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 356-366 (2007)
43. Serrano, M., Trujillo, J., Calero, C., Piattini, M.: Metrics for data warehouse conceptual models understandability. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49, 851-870 (2007)
44. 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)
45. 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)
46. Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for assessing the under- standability of entity-relationship diagrams. Data and Knowledge Engineering 64, 534-557 (2008)
47. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142-153. Springer, Berlin (2008)
48. 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)
49. 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)
50. Fuller, R.M., Murthy, U., Schafer, B.A.: The effects of data model representation method on task performance. Information & Management 47, 208-218 (2010)
51. Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Mendling, J., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Prediction of Business Process Model Quality Based on Structural Metrics. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 458-463. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
52. Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive Complexity in Business Process Modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452-466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
53. Ottensooser, A., Fekete, A., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Menictas, C.: Making sense of business process descriptions: An experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 596-606 (2012)
54. Parsons, J.: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representing Property Precedence on the Comprehension of Conceptual Schemas. Journal of the AIS 12, 441-462 (2011)
55. 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)
56. 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)
57. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Information Systems 36, 881-897 (2011)
58. Sánchez-González, L., Ruiz, F., García, F., Cardoso, J.: Towards thresholds of control flow complexity measures for BPMN models. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2011, TaiChung, pp. 1445-1450 (2011)
59. Schalles, C., Creagh, J., Rebstock, M.: Usability of Modelling Languages for Model Interpretation: An Empirical Research Report. In: Bernstein, A., Schwabe, G. (eds.) 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 787-796 (2011)