Conceptual Data Modelling: an empirical study of expert and novice data modellers

This study explores the differences between conceptual data models designed by expert and novice data modelling practitioners. The data models are evaluated using a number of quality factors synthesised from previous empirical studies and frameworks for quality in conceptual modelling. This study extends previous studies by using practitioners as participants and using a number of different quality factors in the evaluation. The study found that data models produced by expert data modellers are more correct, complete, innovative and flexible than those produced by novices. The results suggest that further research into the aspects of expertise that lead to such differences and how training courses can narrow the gap between expert and novice performance is required.

[1]  Barbara A. Kitchenham,et al.  The architecture of system quality , 1987, Softw. Eng. J..

[2]  Dzenan Ridjanovic,et al.  Comparing quality of data representations produced by nonexperts using logical data structure and relational data models , 1986 .

[3]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Database schema design: an experimental comparison between normalization and information analysis , 1987, DATB.

[4]  Kenji Takahashi,et al.  Inquiry-based requirements analysis , 1994, IEEE Software.

[5]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Jefry J. Machesky,et al.  Data Analysis and Learning: An Experimental Study of Data Modeling Tools , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[7]  Michael L. Brodie,et al.  On Conceptual Modelling , 1984, Topics in Information Systems.

[8]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Analysing the Novice Analyst: Cognitive Models in Software Engineering , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[9]  Richard Barker,et al.  CASE method - entity relationship modelling , 1990, Computer aided systems engineering.

[10]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  The challenges of strategic data planning in practice: an interpretive case study , 1997, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Kanapaty Pelly. Periasamy.  Development and usage of information architecture , 1994 .

[12]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Conceptual Data Modelling in Database Design: Similarities and Differences between Expert and Novice Designers , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[13]  James Martin,et al.  Recommended Diagramming Standards for Analysts and Programmers: A Basis for Automation , 1986 .

[14]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  What Makes a Good Data Model? Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models , 1994, ER.

[15]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Conceptual Data Modeling Process: A Study of Novice and Expert Data Modellers , 1994, ORM.

[16]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Some Findings on the Intuitivness of Entity-Relationship Constructs , 1989, International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.

[17]  Christopher Alexander,et al.  The Timeless Way of Building , 1979 .

[18]  Robert W. Mantha.  Data Flow and Data Structure Modeling for Database Requirements Determination: A Comparative Study , 1987, MIS Q..

[19]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Comparing data modeling formalisms , 1995, CACM.

[20]  A. Graziano,et al.  Research Methods: A Process of Inquiry , 1989 .

[21]  D. O. Hebb,et al.  The role of experience , 1961 .

[22]  Justus D. Naumann,et al.  The Effectiveness of Data Representation Characteristics on User Validation , 1985, ICIS.

[23]  Anany Levitin,et al.  Quality dimensions of a conceptual view , 1995 .

[24]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Comparing representations with relational and EER models , 1990, Commun. ACM.

[25]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[26]  S. Hitchman.  Practitioner perceptions on the use of some semantic concepts in the entity–relationship model , 1995 .