DEALING WITH COMPLEXITY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS MODELING: DEVELOPMENT AND EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF A METHOD FOR REPRESENTING LARGE DATA MODELS

Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 207-221

  Moody, Daniel L ^a  

^a CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

action research; complexity; conceptual model; Entity relationship (E R) model; experimental research; requirements analysis

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

ACTION RESEARCH; COMPLEXITY; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; EMPIRICAL VALIDATION; ENTITY/RELATIONSHIP MODEL; EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH; INFORMATION SYSTEM MODEL; IS DESIGN; MODEL DEVELOPMENT; REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS;

INFORMATION USE;

EID: 85039806996     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (63)

1. Akoka, J., and Comyn-Wattiau, I. “Entity Relationship and Object Oriented Model Automatic Clustering,” Data and Knowledge Engineering (20:1), 1996, pp. 87-117.
2. Allworth, S. “Classification Structures Encourage the Growth of Generic Industry Models,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (Industrial Track), D. L. Moody (ed.), Paris, France, Springer, November 15-18, 1999, pp. 35-46.
3. Allworth, S. “Using Classification Structures to Develop and Structure Generic Industry Models,” in Proceedings of the First Australian Data Management Conference, D. L. Moody (ed.), Australian Data Management Association, Melbourne, Australia, December 2-3, 1996, pp. 76-88.
4. Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., and Nielsen, P. A. “Action Research,” Communications of the ACM (42:1), January 1999, pp. 94-97.
5. Babbie, E. R. The Practice of Social Research, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA, 1998.
6. Baddeley, A. D. “The Magical Number Seven: Still Magic after All These Years?,” Psychological Review (101:2), 1994, pp. 353-356.
7. Baskerville, R. L., and Wood-Harper, T. “A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information Technology (3:11), 1996, pp. 235-246.
8. Bubenko, J. A. “Information Systems Methodologies—A Research View,” Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, T. W. Olle, H. G. Sol, and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart (eds.), North-Holland. Amsterdam, 1986, pp. 289-312.
9. Checkland, P. B. “From Framework Through Experience to Learning: The Essential Nature of Action Research,” Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 397-403.
10. Chen, P. P. “The Entity Relationship Model: Towards an Integrated View of Data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems (1:1), March 1976, pp. 9-36.
11. Cochrane, A. L. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services, Royal Society of Medicine Press, London, 1972.
12. th ed.), McGraw-Hill International, Singapore, 1998.
13. Curtis, B. “By the Way, Did Anyone Study Any Real Programmers?,” Empirical Studies of Programmers, E. Soloway and S. Iyengar (eds.), Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1986.
14. Davies, I., Green, P., and Rosemann, M. “Modeling in Australian Practice—Preliminary Insights,” Information Age, February 2003, pp. 34-42.
15. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science (35:8), 1989, pp. 982-1003.
16. Dick, B. “Sources of Rigor in Action Research: Addressing the Issues of Trustworthiness and Credibility,” Paper presented at the Association for Qualitative Research Conference on Issues of Rigor in Qualitative Research, Melbourne, Victoria, July 6-10, 1999.
17. Feldman, P., and Miller, D. “Entity Model Clustering: Structuring a Data Model by Abstraction,” The Computer Journal (29:4), 1986, 348-360.
18. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
19. Fitzgerald, G. “Validating New Information Systems Techniques: a Retrospective Analysis,” Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991, 657-672.
20. Galliers, R. D. “Choosing Information Systems Research Approaches,” Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 327-345.
21. Galliers, R. D. Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, 1992.
22. Gandhi, M., Robertson, E. L., and Van Gucht, D. “Leveled Entity Relationship Models,” in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, P. Loucopolous (ed.), Manchester, December 14-17, 1994, pp. 420-436.
23. Gentner, D. “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy,” Cognitive Science (7), 1983, pp. 155-170.
24. Gilberg, R. F. “A Schema Methodology for Large Entity-Relationship Diagrams,” in Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, P. P. Chen (ed.), 1986, pp. 320-325.
25. Green, P., and Rosemann, M. “Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontological Evaluation,” Information Systems Journal (25:2), 2000, pp. 73-87.
26. Hatten, R., Knapp, D., and Salonga, R. “Action Research: Comparison with the Concepts of the Reflective Practitioner and Quality Assurance, ” Action Research Electroni c Reader, Mar ch 1997 (available online at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/rdr/html).
27. Holyoak, K. J. “The Pragmatics of Analogical Transfer,” The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (19), 1985, pp. 59-87.
28. Ivari, J. “Dimensions of Information Systems Design: a Framework for a Long Range Research Program,” Information Systems Journal (11:4), June 1986, pp. 343-355.
29. Jick, T. D. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action,” Administrative Science Quarterly (24), 1979, 602-611.
30. Kaplan, B., and Duchon, D. “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study,” MIS Quarterly (12:4), December 1988, pp. 571-586.
31. Keane, M. Analogical Problem Solving, Wiley, New York, 1988.
32. Keane, M. “On Drawing Analogies When Solving Problems: a Theory and Test of Solution Generation in an Analogical Problem Solving Task,” British Journal of Psychology (76), 1985, 449-458.
33. Lee, A. “Integrating Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Organizational Research,” Organizational Science (2:4), November 1991, pp. 342-365.
34. Lipowski, Z. J. “Sensory and Information Inputs Overload: Behavioral Effects,” Comprehensive Psychiatry (16:3), May/June 1975, pp. 105-124.
35. Maier, R. “Benefits and Quality of Data Modeling-Results of an Empirical Analysis,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, B. Thalheim (ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 227-244.
36. Martin, J. Information Engineering, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
37. McCutcheon, G., and Jurg, B. “Alternative Perspectives on Action Research,” Theory into Practice (24:3), Summer 1990, pp. 153-172.
38. Miller, G. A. “The Magical Number Seven, plus or minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” The Psychological Review (63), March 1956, pp. 81-97.
39. Moody, D. L., and Flitman, A. “A Methodology for Clustering Entity Relationship Models: A Human Information Processing Approach,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, J. Akoka, M. Bouzeghoub, I. Comyn-Wattiau, and E. Metais (eds.), Springer, Berlin, 1999, pp. 114-130.
40. Moody, D. L., and Shanks, G. G. “Improving the Quality of Data Models: Empirical Validation of a Quality Management Framework,” International Journal of Information Systems (28:6), August 2003, pp. 619-650.
41. Moody, D. L., and Sindre, G. “Managing Complexity in Object Oriented Analysis: Adapting UML for Modelling Large Scale Information Systems,” in Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2003), Perth, Australia, November 26-28, 2003.
42. th ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, 2000.
43. Newell, A. A., and Simon, H. A. Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.
44. Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., and Purdin, T. D. M. “Systems Development in Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (7:3), Winter 1972, pp. 89-106.
45. Olle, T. W., Sol, H. G., and Verrijn-Stuart, A. A. (eds.) Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Comparative Review, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.
46. Olle, T. W., Sol, H. G., and Tully, C. J. (eds.) Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.
47. Olle, T. W., Sol, H. G., and Verrijn-Stuart, A. A. (eds.). Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.
48. Opdahl, A. L., and Henderson-Sellers, B. “Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model,” Software and Systems Modeling (1:1), 2002, pp. 43-67.
49. Pedhazur, E. J., and Schmelkin, L. P. Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991.
50. Rescher, N. Methodological Pragmatism: Systems-Theoretic Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England, 1977.
51. Sackett, D. L., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., and Haynes, R. B. Evidence Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1997.
52. Shanks, G., Rouse, A., and Arnott, D. “A Review of Approaches to Research and Scholarship in Information Systems,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, 1993, pp. 29-44.
53. Simsion, G. C. “A Structured Approach to Data Modeling,” The Australian Computer Journal (21:3), August 1989, 108-117.
54. Standish Group. “The Chaos Report into Project Failure,” The Standish Group International Inc., 1995 (available online at http://www.Standishgroup.com/visitor/chaos.htm).
55. Standish Group. “Unfinished Voyages: A Follow-up to the CHAOS Report,” The Standish Group International Inc., 1996 (available online at http://www.Standishgroup.com/visitor/voyages.htm).
56. Teory, T. J., Wei, G., Bolton, D. L., and Koenig, J. A. “ER Model Clustering as an Aid for User Communication and Documentation in Database Design,” Communications of the ACM (32:8), August 1989, pp. 975-987.
57. Thalheim, B. “The Strength of ER Modeling,” Current Issues in Conceptual Modeling, P. P. Chen, J. Akoka, H. Kangassalo, and B. Thalheim (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1999, pp. 227-242.
58. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. A. “On the Deep Structure of Information Systems,” Information Systems Journal (5), 1995, pp. 203-223.
59. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. A. “On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars,” Journal of Information Systems (3:4), October 1993, pp. 217-237.
60. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. A. “An Ontological Model of an Information System,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, November 1990, pp. 1282-1292.
61. Weber, R. A. Ontological Foundations of Information Systems, Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph No. 4, Coopers and Lybrand, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.
62. Westrup, C. “Information Systems Methodologies in Use,” Journal of Information Technology (8), 1993, pp. 267-275.
63. Wynekoop, J. L., and Russo, N. L. “Studying Systems Development Methodologies: An Examination of Research Methods,” Information Systems Journal (7:1), January 1997, pp. 47-65.