Combined Use of Conceptual Models in Practice: An Exploratory Study

Conceptual models are fundamental to system analysis and design. However, the actual usage of conceptual models remains poorly understood, in particular, how and why practitioners would use multiple models in combination when doing their work. In this paper, the authors explore the reported use of multiple conceptual models for system analysis and design to determine the circumstances that lead professionals to use multiple models. They uncover both semantic and pragmatic reasons that influence the choice and selection of different models for system analysis and design tasks. Contrasting these findings to existing ontological theories, the authors find that the extent and type of multiple model use is determined by not only ontological factors but also contextual factors that can override ontological qualities and in so doing bring forth desired qualities for users. The authors offer several novel propositions about the implications of ontological theory that will be worth exploring in future research.

[1]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[2]  Jan C. Recker,et al.  A Socio-Pragmatic Constructionist Framework for Understanding Quality in Process Modelling , 2007 .

[3]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the deep structure of information systems , 1995, Inf. Syst. J..

[4]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

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

[6]  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..

[7]  Marta Indulska,et al.  How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

[8]  Jan Recker,et al.  Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations , 2016, Requirements Engineering.

[9]  Ron Weber,et al.  On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars , 1993, Inf. Syst. J..

[10]  C. Urquhart Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide , 2012 .

[11]  Ron Weber,et al.  Guidelines for Empirical Evaluations of Conceptual Modeling Grammars , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[13]  Keng Siau,et al.  Theoretical vs. Practical Complexity: The Case of UML , 2005, J. Database Manag..

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

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

[16]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Developing a meta model for the Bunge-Wand-Weber ontological constructs , 2002, Inf. Syst..

[17]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: an empirical evaluation , 2008 .

[18]  Rajiv Kishore,et al.  Semantics of the MibML Conceptual Modeling Grammar: An Ontological Analysis Using the Bunge-Wang-Weber Framework , 2007, J. Database Manag..

[19]  Peter Loos,et al.  Ontological Analysis of Reference Models , 2005 .

[20]  Jeffrey Parsons An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representing Property Precedence on the Comprehension of Conceptual Schemas , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Ontological Evaluation of the UML Using the Bunge–Wand–Weber Model , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[22]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Guidelines for Conducting Positivist Case Study Research in Information Systems , 2002, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Evaluation of Systems Analysis and Design Methods , 1989, ISCO.

[24]  Jan Recker,et al.  "Modeling with tools is easier, believe me" - The effects of tool functionality on modeling grammar usage beliefs , 2012, Inf. Syst..

[25]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[26]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A , 2006, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[27]  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..

[28]  Yanchun Zhang,et al.  An analytical evaluation of NIAM'S grammar for conceptual schema diagrams , 1996, Inf. Syst. J..

[29]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  Multiview - An Exploration in Information Systems Development , 1986, Aust. Comput. J..

[30]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft , 2007, Inf. Organ..

[31]  Jan Recker,et al.  How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation , 2008, CAiSE.

[32]  Laura Johnson,et al.  How Many Interviews Are Enough? , 2006 .

[33]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Complementary Use of Modeling Grammars , 2011, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[35]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[36]  IV RobertG.Pettit,et al.  Lessons Learned Applying UML in the Design of Mission Critical Software , 2004, UML Satellite Activities.

[37]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Modeling Language User Guide , 1998, J. Database Manag..

[38]  Jan Recker,et al.  Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Irit Hadar,et al.  Variations in Conceptual Modeling: Classification and Ontological Analysis , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[40]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies , 2010, Psychology & health.

[41]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? , 2011, MIS Q..

[42]  Ron Weber,et al.  Mario Bunge's ontology as a formal foundation for information systems concepts , 1990 .

[43]  Richard V. McCarthy,et al.  Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community , 2005, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[44]  Peter Green,et al.  An ontological analysis of information systems analysis and design (ISAD) grammars in upper case tools , 1996 .

[45]  Fay Cobb Payton,et al.  A Re-Examination of Racioethnic Imbalance of IS Doctorates: Changing the Face of the IS Classroom , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[46]  Iv Robert G. Pettit Increasing Confidence in Concurrent Software through Architectural Analysis , 2008, Ada-Europe 2008.

[47]  Keng Siau,et al.  Are use case and class diagrams complementary in requirements analysis? An experimental study on use case and class diagrams in UML , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[48]  Marta Indulska,et al.  The ontological deficiencies of process modeling in practice , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

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

[51]  Patrick Delfmann,et al.  Supporting Distributed Conceptual Modelling through Naming Conventions - A Tool-based Linguistic Approach , 2009, Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. Int. J. Concept. Model..

[52]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Business Process Modeling- A Comparative Analysis , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[53]  Arash Saghafi,et al.  Do Ontological Guidelines Improve Understandability of Conceptual Models? A Meta-analysis of Empirical Work , 2014, 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[54]  Jan Recker,et al.  Explaining usage of process modeling grammars: Comparing three theoretical models in the study of two grammars , 2010, Inf. Manag..

[55]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  Conceptual Data Modelling: an empirical study of expert and novice data modellers , 1997, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[56]  Vijay Khatri,et al.  Customizing the Representation Capabilities of Process Models: Understanding the Effects of Perceived Modeling Impediments , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[57]  Christoph Merschbrock,et al.  A Research Review on Building Information Modeling in Construction - An Area Ripe for IS Research , 2012, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[58]  Ron Weber,et al.  Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[59]  Gretchen Irwin,et al.  An Ontological Analysis of Use Case Modeling Grammar , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[60]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Using ontology for the representational analysis of process modelling techniques , 2009, Int. J. Bus. Process. Integr. Manag..

[61]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  User viewpoint modelling: understanding and representing user viewpoints during requirements definition , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[62]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  An Ontological Analysis of Integrated Process Modelling , 1999, CAiSE.

[63]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  Use Case Diagrams in Support of Use Case Modeling: Deriving Understanding from the Picture , 2009, J. Database Manag..

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

[65]  Ron Weber,et al.  Building Conceptual Modeling on the Foundation of Ontology , 2014 .

[66]  Marta Indulska,et al.  A Reference Methodology for Conducting Ontological Analyses , 2004, ER.

[67]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010 , 2010, J. Spatial Inf. Sci..

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

[69]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  Dimensions of UML Diagram Use: A Survey of Practitioners , 2008, J. Database Manag..

[70]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Candidate interoperability standards: An ontological overlap analysis , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[71]  Jan Recker Understanding Quality in Process Modelling: Towards a Holistic Perspective , 2007, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[72]  Yair Wand,et al.  Research Note - How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[73]  Ron Weber,et al.  Are Attributes Entities? A Study of Database Designers' Memory Structures , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..