Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ensuring the quality of conceptual representations

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High quality data and process representations are critical to the success of system development efforts. Despite this importance, quantitative methods for evaluating the quality of a representation are virtually nonexistent. This is a major shortcoming. However, there is another approach. Instead of evaluating the quality of the final representation, the representation process itself can be evaluated. This paper views the modeling process as a communication channel. In a good communication channel, sufficient error prevention, error detection, and error correction mechanisms exist to ensure that the output message matches the input message. A good modeling process will also have mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and correcting errors at each step from observation to elicitation to analysis to final representation. This paper describes a theoretically-based set of best practices for ensuring that each step of the process is performed correctly, followed by a proof of concept experiment demonstrating the utility of the method for producing a representation that closely reflects the real world.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P.A., Adler, O. 1994. Observational techniques. In: Denzin, L.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P.A., Adler, P. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research (vol. 6). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B. 1991. Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach. Redwood City: Benjamin/Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, M. 1997. Techniques of validation in qualitative research: A critical commentary. In: Miller, G., Dingwall, R. (eds.), Context and Method in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boman, M., Bubenko, J., Johannesson, P., Wangler, B. 1997. Conceptual Modelling. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgida, A., Greenspan, S., Mylopoulos, J. 1985. Knowledge representation as the basis for requirements specifications. IEEE Computer 15(4):82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M.A. 1977. Ontology I: The Furniture of the World (vol. 3). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M.A. 1979. Ontology II: A World of Systems (vol. 4). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, D., Chi, C.-F., You, M. 2001. The legibility threshold of Chinese characters in three-type styles. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 27:9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. 1986. Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. In: Trochim, W.M.K. (ed.), Advances in Quasi-Experimental Design and Analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W.E. 1982. Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position. Cambridge: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W.E. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J.D. 1976. Investigative Social Research: Individual and Team Field Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H.L. 1990. Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A. 1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemino, A., Wand, Y. 2003. Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Communications of the ACM 46(10):79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, A.M., Davis, A.M. 2004. A unified model of requirements elicitation. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(4):65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, W. 1995. A Discipline of Software Engineering. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, D.L. 1989. Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies (vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95(2):163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., van Dijk, T.A. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85(5):363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F. 1990. Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 29:133–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J., Jørgensen, H. 2004. Interactive Models for Supporting Networked Organizations. Paper presented at the CAiSE, Berlin.

  • Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G. 1995. Towards a Deeper Understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering. Paper presented at the International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Jyvaskyla, Finland.

  • Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H. 2006. Process models representing knowledge for action: A revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15:91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A. 2003. Information Systems Engineering: Conceptual Modeling in a Quality Perspective. Trondheim, Norway: Kompendiumforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research 2nd. ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A. 1994. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2):42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling, J., van Schaik, P. 2002. The effect of text and background colour on visual search of web pages. Displays 23(5):223–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook for New Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. 1988. Drawing Valid Meaning from Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., Weldon, L. 1987. Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys 19(4):329–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D.L. 1998. Metrics for evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Singapore.

  • Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G., Darke, P. 1998. Improving the quality of entity relationship models—experience in research and practice. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Singapore.

  • Newell, A., Simon, H. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods 2nd. ed. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. 1995. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poels, G., Maes, A., Gailly, F., Paemeleire, R. 2005. Measuring user beliefs and attitudes toward conceptual schemas. Paper presented at the AIS SIGHCI, Las Vegas, Nevada.

  • Reingruber, M., Gregory, W. 1994. The Data Modelling Handbook. A best-practice approach to building quality data models. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. 1998. Research Methods for Business Students. London: Pittman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriver, K.A. 1989. Evaluating the quality of text: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication 32(4):238–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A., Kaplan, C.A. 1989. Foundations of cognitive science. In: Posner, M.I. (ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T.A., Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies for Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand, Y., Wang, R. 1996. Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM 39(11):86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand, Y., Weber, R. 1988. An ontological analysis of some fundamental information system concepts. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Minneapolis, MN.

  • Wand, Y., Weber, R. 1990. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(11):1282–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand, Y., Weber, R. 1995. On the deep structure of information-systems. Information Systems Journal 5(3):203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand, Y., Weber, R.A. 2002. Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Information Systems Research 13(4):363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods 2nd. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Administration, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Rehn Hall 206A, Mail Code 4627, Carbondale, IL, 62901-4627, USA

    H. James Nelson

  2. Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, Systems Division, Campus Box 419, Boulder, CO, 80309-0419, USA

    David E. Monarchi

Authors
  1. H. James Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David E. Monarchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. James Nelson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelson, H.J., Monarchi, D.E. Ensuring the quality of conceptual representations. Software Qual J 15, 213–233 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-006-9011-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-006-9011-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation