Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Entity-Relationship Approach — ER '94 Business Modelling and Re-Engineering (ER 1994)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 881))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper develops a framework for evaluating the quality of data models and choosing between alternative representations of requirements. For any particular set of user requirements there are many possible models, each of which has drastically different implications for database and systems design. In the absence of formally defined and agreed criteria, the choice of an appropriate representation is usually made in an ad hoc way, based on personal opinion. The evaluation framework proposed consists of four major constructs: qualities (desirable properties of a data model), metrics (ways of measuring each quality), weightings (relative importance of each quality) and strategies (ways of improving data models). Using this framework, any two data models may be compared in an objective and comprehensive manner. The evaluation framework also builds commitment to the model by involving all stakeholders in the process: end users, management, the data administrator and application developers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdel-Hamid, T.K., “The Economics of Software Quality Assurance: A Simulation Based Study”, MIS Quarterly, September, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander, C., Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard University Press, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arthur, L.J., Measuring Programmer Productivity and Software Quality, John Wiley and Sons, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Banker, R.D., and Kauffman, R.J., “Reuse and Productivity in Integrated Computer Aided Software Engineering: An Empirical Study”, MIS Quarterly, September, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M. and Navathe, S., “A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration”, ACM Computing Surveys, December, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Batra, D. and Davis, J., “Conceptual Data Modelling in Database Design: Similarities and Differences between Expert and Novice Designers”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 37, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boehm, B.W., Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brooks, F.P., The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bubenko, J.A., “Information Systems Methodologies: A Research View”, in Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (ed.s), Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, North-Holland, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Butler Cox Foundation, Requirements Definition: The Key to Systems Development Productivity, Position Paper No. 4, Butler Cox and Partners Limited, London, November, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Date, C.J., Introduction to Database Systems (4th Edition), Addison Wesley, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Davis, G.B., “Strategies for Information Requirements Determination”, IBM Systems Journal, 21, 1, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Davis, G.B. and Olsen, M.H., Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development, McGraw-Hill, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dekleva, S.M., “The Influence of the Information Systems Development Approach on Maintenance”, MIS Quarterly, September, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge, MA, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dubin, R., Theory Building, The Free Press, Macmillan, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Due, R., “Enterprise Modelling: Still in Pursuit”, Database Programming and Design, November, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Feldman, P. and Miller, D., “Entity Model Clustering: Structuring a Data Model by Abstraction”, The Computer Journal, 29, 4, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Flood, R.L. and Carson, E.R., Dealing With Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, Plenum Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Freeman, P., “Fundamentals of Design”, in Freeman, P. and Wasserman, A.I. (ed.s) Tutorial: Software Design Techniques, IEEE no EZ514, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Freund, R.A., “Definitions and Basic Quality Concepts”, in Sepehri, M. (ed.), Quest for Quality: Managing the Total System, Atlanta, Georgia, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gartner Research Group, “Sometimes You Gotta Break the Rules”, Gartner Group Strategic Management Series Key Issues, November 23, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gilb, T., Principles of Software Engineering Management, Addison-Wesley, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goodhue, D.L., Kirsch, L.J., and Wybo, M.D., “The Impact of Data Integration on the Costs and Benefits of Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, September, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Helmer, O., Social Technology, Basic Books, New York, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Henderson, M.M., “The Importance of Data Administration in Information Management”, Information Management Review, Spring, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hufford, D., “Data Administration Support for Business Process Improvement”, Database Newsletter, September/October, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  28. IEEE, IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, IEEE Standard 729, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Inmon, W.H., “Don't Forget to Stretch”, Database Programming and Design, March, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  30. ISO, Information Processing Systems — Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base, ISO Technical Report 9007, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ivari, J., “Dimensions Of Information Systems Design: A Framework For A Long Range Research Program”, Information Systems, June 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kaposi, A. and Kitchenham, B., “The Architecture of System Quality”, Software Engineering Journal, 2, 8, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kent, W., Data and Reality, North-Holland, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Klir, G.J., Architecture of Systems Problem Solving, Plenum Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Land, F.F., “Adapting to Changing User Requirements”, Information and Management, 5, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Martin, J., Strategic Data Planning Methodologies, Prentice Hall, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  37. McCall, J.A., Richards, P.K. and Walters, G.F., Factors in Software Quality, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Meyer, B., Object Oriented Software Construction, Prentice Hall, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Miller, G., The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information, The Psychological Review, March, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Moody, D.L., “A Practical Methodology for the Representation of Large Data Models”, Proceedings of the Australian Database and Information Systems Conference, University of N.S.W., Sydney, Australia, February, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Moody, D.L. and Simsion, G.C., Justifying Investment in Information Resource Management, Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Conference on Information Systems, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, September 22–24, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Moriarty, T., “Testing from the Top”, Database Programming and Design, August, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mumford, E., Designing Human Systems, Manchester Business School, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Neiderman, F., Brancheau, J.C. and Wetherbe, J.C., “Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990's”, MIS Quarterly, December, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pippenger, N., “Complexity Theory”, Scientific American, 238, No. 6, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sager, M.J., “Data Centred Enterprise Modelling Methodologies: A Study of Practice and Potential”, Australian Computer Journal, August, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Saunders, C.S., and Jones, J.W., “Measuring Performance of the Information Systems Function”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shanks, G., Simsion, G. and Rembach, M., “The Role of Experience in Conceptual Data Modelling”, Fourth Australian Information Systems Conference, Brisbane, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Simon, H.A. Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Simsion, G.C., “Data Planning in a Volatile Business Environment”, Australian Computer Society Conference on Strategic Planning for Information Technology, Ballarat, March, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Simsion, G.C., “Creative Data Modelling”, Proceedings of the Tenth International Entity Relationship Conference, San Francisco, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Simsion, G.C., “The Implementation of Very Generalised Data Structures”, Proceedings of Australian Database Conference, Brisbane, Australia, December, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Simsion, G.C., Data Modelling Essentials, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Thompson, C., “Living with an Enterprise Model”, Database Programming and Design, March, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Van Genuchten, M., Brethouwer, G., Van Den Boomen, T. and Heemstra, F, “Empirical Study of Software Maintenance”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 34, No. 8, August, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Van Vliet, J.C., Software Engineering: Principles and Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Von Halle, B., “Data: Asset or Liability?”, Database Programming and Design, July, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wand, Y. and Weber, R., “A Model for Systems Decomposition”, Proceedings of the AAANZ Conference, 1989, Canberra, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Weber, R.A., Towards A Theory of Artifacts; A Paradigmatic Base for Information Systems Research, Working Paper, Commerce Department, University of Queensland, August, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Winston, P.H., Artificial Intelligence, Addison-Wesley, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Zachman, J.A., “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, 26, 3, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zultner, R.E., “QFD for Software: Satisfying Customers”, American Programmer, February, 1992a.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Zultner, R.E., “The Deming Way: Total Quality Management for Software”, Proceedings of Total Quality Management for Software Conference, April, Washington, DC, April, 1992b.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Technology Department, Ansett Airlines, 489 Swanston St., 3000, Melbourne, Australia

    Daniel L. Moody

  2. Department of Information Systems, Monash University, Caulfield East, P.O. Box 197, 3145, Melbourne, Australia

    Graeme G. Shanks

Authors
  1. Daniel L. Moody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graeme G. Shanks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Pericles Loucopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G. (1994). What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: Loucopoulos, P. (eds) Entity-Relationship Approach — ER '94 Business Modelling and Re-Engineering. ER 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 881. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58786-1_75

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58786-1_75

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58786-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49100-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation