Towards the Reconstruction and Evaluation of Conceptual Model Quality Discourses - Methodical Framework and Application in the Context of Model Understandability

Within the information systems (IS) discipline conceptual models have gained tremendous importance in the past years. Different approaches for systematic model quality evaluation have emerged. However, these approaches are based on different understandings, definitions as well as operationalizations of the term “model quality”. In this article we refrain from conceptualizing and operationalizing model quality a priori. In contrast, assuming that the determination of model quality and appropriate criteria are negotiated in a discourse between modelers and model users based on their different perspectives, we develop a methodical framework for the critical reconstruction and evaluation of conceptual model quality discourses in order to identify relevant model quality criteria and understandings. Our method is exemplarily applied for the reconstruction of the discourse on the quality criterion model understandability based on relevant laboratory experiments. This application shows that many research results on model understandability are hardly comparable due to their different basic assumptions and should preferably be interpreted based on a methodical reconstruction of underlying understandings.

[1]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework , 2003, Inf. Syst..

[2]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects , 2008, BPM.

[3]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Modelling Offices Through Discourse Analysis: The SAMPO Approach , 1992, Comput. J..

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

[5]  Tok Wang Ling,et al.  Conceptual Modeling – ER ’98 , 1998, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[7]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Measuring Process Modelling Success , 2002, ECIS.

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

[9]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Metrics for data warehouse conceptual models understandability , 2007, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[10]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Geert Poels,et al.  Faculteit Economie En Bedrijfskunde Hoveniersberg 24 B-9000 Gent Object Class or Association Class? Testing the User Effect on Cardinality Interpretation , 2022 .

[12]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  Ontology-driven discourse analysis for information extraction , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[13]  Peter Meso,et al.  The Effects of Decomposition Quality and Multiple Forms of Information on Novices' Understanding of a Domain from a Conceptual Model , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Zellig S. Harris,et al.  Science Sublanguages and the Prospects for a Global Language of Science , 1988 .

[15]  Werner Ulrich A Philosophical Staircase for Information Systems Definition, Design, and Development: A Discursive Approach to Reflective Practice in ISD (Part 1) , 2001 .

[16]  Christian Janiesch,et al.  Exploration of Conceptual Models: Application of the GOM Framework , 2005 .

[17]  John Krogstie,et al.  Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Terry Halpin,et al.  Fact-Oriented Modeling: Past, Present and Future , 2007 .

[19]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Validation of a method for representing large entity relationship models : An action research study , 2002, ECIS.

[20]  Bernhard Thalheim,et al.  Conceptual Modeling — ER '96 , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[21]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Evaluation of Reference Models , 2006 .

[22]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On a Quest for Good Process Models: The Cross-Connectivity Metric , 2008, CAiSE.

[23]  Terry Winograd A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work , 1987, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation , 2005 .

[25]  Ron Weber,et al.  Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams , 1999, ICIS.

[26]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Conceptual Modelling in Information Systems Engineering , 2007 .

[27]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Modelling Offices Through Discourse Analysis: A Comparison and Evaluation of SAMPO with OSSAD and ICN , 1992, Comput. J..

[28]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Metrics for Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models , 1998, ER.

[29]  Jan Mendling,et al.  What Makes Process Models Understandable? , 2007, BPM.

[30]  Andreas L. Opdahl,et al.  Capturing Dependability Threats in Conceptual Modelling , 2007 .

[31]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[32]  Sergio Luján-Mora,et al.  Empirical Validation of Metrics for Conceptual Models of Data Warehouses , 2004, CAiSE.

[33]  Prashant Palvia,et al.  The Impact of Conceptual Data Models on End-User Performance , 1992 .

[34]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Guidelines of Business Process Modeling , 2000, Business Process Management.

[35]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[36]  Genny Tortora,et al.  Data Model Comprehension: An Empirical Comparison of ER and UML Class Diagrams , 2008, 2008 16th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension.

[37]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis , 2004, ADBIS.

[38]  Jan Recker,et al.  The Effects of Content Presentation Format and User Characteristics on Novice Developers' Understanding of Process Models , 2011, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Peter Fettke,et al.  Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis , 2006 .

[40]  Peter Loos,et al.  Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective , 2005, Business Process Management.

[41]  Jan Fabian Ehmke Evaluation of Information Models , 2012 .

[42]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams , 2008, Data Knowl. Eng..

[43]  Michael Rebstock,et al.  Usability of Modelling Languages for Model Interpretation: An Empirical Research Report , 2011, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[44]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Complexity effects on end user understanding of data models : An experimental comparison of large data model representation methods , 2002, ECIS.

[45]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Comprehending Object and Process Models: An Empirical Study , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

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

[47]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Influence Factors of Understanding Business Process Models , 2008, BIS.

[48]  Peter Meso,et al.  Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[49]  Matt Germonprez,et al.  Secondary Design: A Case of Behavioral Design Science Research , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[50]  Jan Blommaert,et al.  Discourse: A Critical Introduction.  , 2008, Linguistische Berichte (LB).

[51]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research , 2006 .

[52]  Bruce Roberts,et al.  Charlotte, North Carolina , 1958 .

[53]  Peter Fettke,et al.  How Conceptual Modeling Is Used , 2009, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[55]  Erich Ortner,et al.  Normative Language Approach - A Framework for Understanding , 1996, ER.

[56]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[57]  J. Recker,et al.  Does It Matter Which Process Modelling Language We Teach or Use? An Experimental Study on Understanding Process Modelling Languages without Formal Education , 2007 .

[58]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Discourse , 2019, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.

[59]  Michela Bertolotto,et al.  Perspectives in Conceptual Modeling, ER 2005 Workshops AOIS, BP-UML, CoMoGIS, eCOMO, and QoIS, Klagenfurt, Austria, October 24-28, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, ER.

[60]  Martha E. Crosby,et al.  The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..