Quality of Models

  • John Krogstie


In this chapter, we describe a framework for understanding quality in conceptual modelling (SEQUAL), including examples of means to achieve model quality of different levels (such as tool functionality and modelling techniques being appropriate for the development of models of high quality). Quality is discussed on seven levels: physical, empirical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, social, and deontic. How different quality types build upon each other is also indicated.


Assure Arena Volatility Kelly Stake 


  1. Alsam, A.: Contrast enhancing colour to grey. SCIA ‘09 Proceedings of the 16th Scandinavian Conference on Image Analysis, Oslo (2009)Google Scholar
  2. ATHENA: Deliverable DA1.5.2: report on methodology description and guidelines definition. By Ohren, O.P., Chen, D., Grangel, R., Jaekel, F.-W., Karlsen, D., Knothe, T., Rolfsen, R.K., in ATHENA A1 deliverables. 2005, SINTEF, Oslo (2005)Google Scholar
  3. Battista, G., Eades, P., Tamassia, R., Tollis, I.G.: Algorithms for drawing graphs: an annotated bibliography. Technical report, Brown University, June (1994)Google Scholar
  4. Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)Google Scholar
  5. Bråten, S.: Model monopoly and communications: systems theoretical notes on democratization. Acta Sociol. J. Scand. Social. Assoc. 16(2), 98–107 (1973)Google Scholar
  6. Brinkkemper, S.: Formalisation of information systems modelling. PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen. Thesis Publishers (1990)Google Scholar
  7. Brown, R.A.: Conceptual modelling in 3D virtual worlds for process communication. Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2010), Brisbane (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Churchland, P.M.: A Neurocomputational Perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  9. Conesa, J., Olive, A., Caballé, S.: Semantic web personalization and context awareness information science reference. In: Refactoring and Its Application to Ontologies, pp. 107–136 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. Conklin, J.: Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Wiley, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  11. Conklin, J., Begeman, M.J.: gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 6(4), 303–331 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, A.M., Overmeyer, S., Jordan, K., Caruso, J., Dandashi, F., Dinh, A., Kincaid, G., Ledeboer, G., Reynolds, P., Sitaram, P., Ta, A., Theofanos, M.: Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In: Proceedings of the First International Software Metrics Symposium, Baltimore, pp. 141–152 (1993)Google Scholar
  13. Denning, P.J.: What is software quality. Commun. ACM 35(1), 13–15 (1992). JanuaryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erickson, J., Siau, K.: Can UML be simplified? Practitioner use of UML in separate domains. In: proceedings EMMSAD 2007. Proceedings of Twelfth International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in System Analysis and Design, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 89–98 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Oei, J.L.H., Rolland, C., Stamper, R.K., Assche, F.J.M.V., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., Voss, K.: A framework of information system concepts – The FRISCO Report, IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO. http://home.dei.polimi.it/pernici/ifip81/publications.html (1996). Cited Dec 2011
  16. Flesch, R.: A new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. 32, 221–233 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fowler, M., Beck, K.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  18. Francalanci, C., Pernici, B.: View integration: a survey of current developments. Technical Report 93–053, Politecnico de Milano, Milan (1993)Google Scholar
  19. France, R.B., Ghosh, S., Dinh-Trong, T., Solberg, A.: Model-Driven Development Using UML2.0: promises and Pitfalls. IEEE Computer, February (2006)Google Scholar
  20. Gane, C., Sarson, T.: Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1979)Google Scholar
  21. Gill, A.: Applied Algebra for the Computer Sciences. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gjersvik, R.: The construction of information systems in organizations. Unpublished PhD- thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim (1993)Google Scholar
  23. Gjersvik, R., Krogstie, J., Følstad, A.: Participatory development of enterprise process models. In: Krogstie, J., Siau, K., Halpin, T. (eds.) Information Modelling Methods and Methodologies. Idea Group Publishers, Hershey (2004)Google Scholar
  24. Gulla, J.A.: A general explanation component for conceptual modeling in CASE environments. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 14(3), 297–329 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hahn, U., Jarke, M., Rose, T.: Group work in software projects: integrated conceptual models and collaboration tools. In: Gibbs, S., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Multi-User Interfaces and Applications: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.4 Conference on Multi-User Interfaces and Applications, pp. 83–102. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  26. Halpin, T.: FORML 2. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., et al. (eds.) (2010). Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 50, 247–260. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  27. Hawryszkiewycz, I.: Introduction to Systems Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2001)Google Scholar
  28. Hewett, J., Durham, T.: CASE: the next steps. Technical report, OVUM (1989)Google Scholar
  29. ISO 9000: Quality management systems – fundamentals and vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization (2005)Google Scholar
  30. Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J.W., Vassiliou, Y.: DAIDA: an environment for evolving information systems. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 10(1), 1–50 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kano, N: Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Japanese Soc. Qual. Control, April, 14(2), 39–48 (1984)Google Scholar
  32. Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M.: MetaEdit+: a fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment. In: Constantopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., Vassiliou, Y. (eds.) Proceedings CAiSE’96 Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1080. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York (1996)Google Scholar
  33. Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P. Jr., Rogers, R.L., Chissom, B.S.: Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel, Research Branch Report 8–75, Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN (1975)Google Scholar
  34. Krogstie, J.: Using quality function deployment in software requirements specification. Paper presented at the Fifth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations for Software Quality (REFSQ’99), Heidelberg, Germany, June 14–15 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. Krogstie, J., Dalberg, V., Jensen, S.M.: Harmonising Business Processes of Collaborative Networked Organization Using Process Modelling in PROVE’04 Toulouse, France (2004)Google Scholar
  36. Krogstie, J., Dalberg, V., Jensen, S.M.: Increasing the value of process modelling. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems ICEIS 2006, Cyprus (2006)Google Scholar
  37. Langefors, B.: Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, 1st edn. Studentliteratur, Auerbach, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  38. Leite, J.C.S.P., Freeman, P.A.: Requirements validation through viewpoint resolution. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17(12), 1253–1269 (1991). DecemberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindland, O.I., Krogstie, J.: Validating conceptual models by transformational prototyping. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’93), Paris, France, June 8–11 (1993)Google Scholar
  40. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mendling, J., Recker, J.: Towards systematic usage of labels and icons in business process models. In: Halpin, T., Proper, H.A., Krogstie, J. (eds.) 13th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, CEUR Workshop Proceedings Series, Montpellier. See http://ceur-ws.org/ France (2008)
  42. Moody, D.L.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 243–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach (ER’94), pp. 94–111, Manchester, England (1994)Google Scholar
  44. Moody, D.L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., Sølvberg, A.: Evaluating the quality of process models: empirical analysis of a quality framework. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER’2002), Tampere, Finland, 7–11 Oct (2002)Google Scholar
  45. Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., Koubarakis, M.: TELOS: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 8(4), 325–362 (1990). OctoberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nöth, W.: Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1990)Google Scholar
  47. OMG: Unified Modeling Language v 2.0 OMG Web site. http://www.omg.org (2006)
  48. Orlikowski, J.W., Gash, D.C.: Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 12(2), 174–207 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing. Readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38(6), 33–44 (1995). JuneCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pohl, K.: The three dimensions of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications. Inform. Syst. 19(3), 243–258 (1994). AprilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rittel, H.: On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the first and second generations. Bedriftsøkonomen 34(8) (1972)Google Scholar
  52. Rittgen, P.: Business process model similarity as a Proxy for Group Consensus. Paper presented at PoEM 2011, Oslo, Norway, 2–3 November (2011)Google Scholar
  53. Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., Lorensen, W.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  54. Seltveit, A.H.: An abstraction-based rule approach to large-scale information systems development. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’93), Paris, France, 8–11 June 1993, pp. 328–351. Springer, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  55. Shneiderman, B.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human – Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (1992)Google Scholar
  56. Tamassia, R., Di Battista, G., Batini, C.: Automatic graph drawing and readability of diagrams. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 18(1), 61–79 (1988). JanuaryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  58. Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inform. Syst. 3(4), 217–237 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wangler, B., Wohed, R., Ohlund, S.-E.: Business modelling and rule capture in a CASE environment. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on the Next Generation of CASE Tools, Twente, (1993)Google Scholar
  60. Ware, C.: Information Visualization. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  61. Wesenberg, H.: Enterprise Modeling in an Agile World. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on Practice of Enterprise Modeling, Oslo, November 2–3 (2011)Google Scholar
  62. zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.C.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Proceedings CAiSE’08 Montpellier France, Springer (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science & TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations