Improving Mutual Understanding of Development Artifacts: A Semiotics-Based Approach

The success of information system development projects is critically dependent on arriving at a shared understanding of the desired outcome by all project stakeholders. To communicate such understanding among stakeholders, development artifacts such as design specifications, prototypes, and user stories are created. This paper presents a new project management tool to measure and ensure common understanding of such development artifacts. The method is based on Peirce’s theory of semiotics and Mayer’s theory of learning. The application of the method is demonstrated using a brief example.

[1]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontological Modeling Rules for UML: An Empirical Assessment , 2006, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Jinwoo Kim,et al.  How Do We Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[4]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  The Influence of a Convergence in Understanding Between Technology Providers and Users on Information Technology Innovativeness , 1991 .

[5]  Neil Iscoe,et al.  Domain modeling for software engineering , 1991, [1991 Proceedings] 13th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[6]  John Hunt.  The unified process for practitioners: Object orientation, design, UML and java , 2000 .

[8]  J. Bergeron,et al.  Models of Understanding. , 1983 .

[9]  Peter Meso,et al.  How Good Are These UML Diagrams? An Empirical Test of the Wand and Weber Good Decomposition Model , 2002, ICIS.

[10]  Akhilesh Bajaj,et al.  The effect of the number of concepts on the readability of schemas: an empirical study with data models , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[11]  C. Peirce,et al.  Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce , 1936, Nature.

[12]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Reviewing software diagrams: a cognitive study , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[13]  Michael Jackson,et al.  The World and the Machine , 1995, 1995 17th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[14]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[15]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Human Factors Research on Data Modeling: A Review of Prior Research, An Extended Framework and Future Research Directions , 2002, J. Database Manag..

[16]  C. Hartshorne,et al.  Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce , 1935, Nature.

[17]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[18]  Andrew C. Gemino.  Empirical comparisons of system analysis modeling techniques , 1999 .

[19]  Ron Weber,et al.  Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  Effects of Local Versus Global Schema Diagrams on Verification and Communication in Conceptual Data Modeling , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Understanding and Controlling Software Costs , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[22]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning , 2003, CACM.

[23]  Ray Offen.  Domain Understanding is the Key to Successful System Development , 2002, Requirements Engineering.