Quality of Interactive Models

  • John Krogstie
  • Håvard D. Jørgensen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2784)


Interactive models have been proposed as a general technique for increasing the flexibility of computerised information systems. Interactive models are first made during development, but are also available for manipulation by the users at run-time, and the model contents influence the behaviour of the system. Such models are more immersed in day-to-day work activities than the models conventionally developed during software development. Consequently, they face stronger requirements, particularly regarding comprehensibility, simplicity and flexibility. A comprehensive overview and classification of these requirements is currently lacking in the literature on interactive models. We have earlier developed a framework for understanding and assessing the quality of models in general, with emphasis on conceptual models. The framework has earlier been specialised in several directions, but primarily for passive models such as enterprise and requirements models. In this paper we extend our quality framework towards assessing interactive models. These extensions are based on our experiences from implementing interactive modelling languages and support systems. Whereas parts of the framework can be used as originally defined, other areas give quite different results due to the much tighter interplay between model changes and domain changes than what is found when using traditional modelling and system development approaches. This results in a useful deepening of our framework, and improvement of its practical applicability for understanding the quality of interactive models.


Interactive Model Modelling Language Semantic Quality Social Quality Virtual Enterprise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Argyris, C., Schön, D.: Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison Wesley, Reading (1978)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, P., Luckmann, T.: The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin (1966)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boland, R.J., Tenkasi, R.V.: Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science 6(4), 350–372 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brasethvik, T., Gulla, J.A.: Semantically accessing documents using conceptual model descriptions. In: Workshop on Web and Conceptual Modelling, ER 1999, Paris, France (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brasethvik, T., Moody, D., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Evaluating the quality of process models: empirical analysis of a quality framework. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, p. 380. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlsen, S.: Conceptual Modeling and Composition of Flexible Workflow Models, PhD-thesis, NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carlsen, S., Johnsen, S.G., Jørgensen, H.D., Coll, G.J., Mæhle, Å., Carlsen, A., Hatling, M.: Knowledge re-activation mediated through knowledge carriers. In: MICT 1999, Copenhagen, Denmark (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carlsen, S.: Action Port Model: A Mixed Paradigm Conceptual Workflow Modeling Language. In: 3rd IFCIS Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlsen, S., Gjersvik, R.: Organizational Metaphors as Lenses for Analyzing Workflow Technology. In: GROUP 1997, Phoenix, Arizona USA (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carlsen, S., Jørgensen, H.D., Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A.: Process Models as a Knowledge Creation Arena. In: EURAM 2002, Stockholm, Sweden, May 9-11 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, P.P., Thalheim, B., Wong, L.Y.: Future directions of Conceptual Modelling. In: Chen, P.P., Akoka, J., Kangassalu, H., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 1565, p. 287. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dahlbom, B.: The idea that reality is socially constructed. In: Floyd, C., Zullighoven, H., Budde, R., Keil-Slawik, R. (eds.) Software Development and Reality Construction Springer, pp. 101–126 (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engestrom, Y., et al. (eds.): Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EXTERNAL EXTERNAL - Extended Enterprise Resources, Networks And Learning, EU Project, IST-1999-10091, New Methods of Work and Electronic Commerce, Dynamic Networked Organisations. Partners: DNV, GMD-IPSI, Zeus E.E.I.G., Computas, SINTEF Telecom and Informatics (2000-2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fabbrini, F., Fusani, M., Gervasi, V., Gnesi, S., Ruggieri, S.: Achieving Quality in Natural Language Requirements. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Software Quality Week (QW 1998), San Francisco, California, USA, May 26-29 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falkenberg, E.D., et al. (eds.): A framework of information systems concepts. The FRISCO Report (December 1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farshchian, B.A.: Gossip: An Awareness Engine for Increasing Product Awareness in Distributed Development Projects. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, p. 264. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenwood, R.M., Robertson, I., Snowdon, R.A., Warboys, B.C.: Active Models in Business. In: 5th Conference on Business Information Technology, CBIT 1995 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haake, J.M., Wang, W.: Flexible Support for Business Processes: Extending Cooperative Hypermedia with Process Support. In: GROUP 1997, Phoenix, Arizona USA (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hommes, B.-J., van Reijswoud, V.: The Quality of Business Process Modeling Methods. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Lyytinen, K., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 working conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO4); An Integrated Discipline Emerging, Netherlands, September 20-22 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jørgensen, H.D., Carlsen, S.: Emergent Workflow: Integrated Planning and Performance of Process Instances. In: Workflow Management 1999, Münster, Germany (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jørgensen, H.D.: Software Process Model Reuse and Learning, Process Support for Distributed Team-based Software Development (PDTSD 2000), IIIS and IEEE, Orlando, Florida (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jørgensen, H.D.: Interaction as a Framework for Flexible Workflow Modelling. GROUP 2001, Boulder Colorado (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krogstie, J.: Conceptual Modeling for Computerized Information Systems Support in Organizations, PhD-thesis, University of Trondheim, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krogstie, J.: Using a Semiotic Framework for the Development of Models of High Quality. In: Siau, K., Halpin, T. (eds.) Unified Modelling Language: Systems Analysis, design, and Development Issues, IDEA group (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Defining Quality Aspects for Conceptual Models. In: Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 working conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO3): Towards a Consolidation of Views, Marburg, Germany (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krogstie, J., Sølvberg, A.: Information Systems Engineering - Conceptual Modeling in a Quality Perspective, Tapir academic publisher, Trondheim, Norway (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krogstie, J.A.: Semiotic Approach to Quality in Requirements Specifications: IFIP 8.1. In: Conference on Organizational Semiotics, Montreal (July 2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuntz, J.C., Christiansen, T.R., Cohen, G.P., Jin, Y., Levitt, R.E.: The Virtual Design Team: A Computational Simulation Model of Project Organizations. Communications of the ACM 41(11) (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lillehagen, F.: Visual Extended Enterprise Engineering Embedding Knowledge Management, Systems Engineering and Work Execution. In: IEMC 1999, IFIP International Enterprise Modelling Conference, Verdal, Norway (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lillehagen, F., Dehli, E., Fjeld, L., Krogstie, J., Jørgensen, H.D.: Active Knowledge Models as a Basis for an Infrastructure for Virtual Enterprise. In: PROVE 2002 - 3rd IFIP Working Conference on infrastructures for virtual enterprises, Sesimbra, Portugal, May 1-3 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lillehagen, F., Krogstie, J., Jørgensen, H.D., Hildrum, J.: Active Knowledge Models for supporting eWork and eBusiness. Accepted at ICE 2002 June, Rome, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: Improving the quality of data models: Empirical validation of a quality management framework, to be published in Information Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nonaka, I.: A Dynamic Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation. Organisation Science 5(1), 14–37 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nöth, W.: Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schuette, R.: Architectures for Evaluating the Quality of Information Models - A Meta and an Object Level Comparison. In: Akoka, J., Bouzeghoub, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Métais, E. (eds.) ER 1999. LNCS, vol. 1728, pp. 490–505. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sindre, G., Krogstie, J.: Process Heuristics to Achieve Requirements Specification of Feasible Quality. In: Pohl, K., Peters, P. (eds.) Second International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations for Software Quality (REFSQ 1995), Jyvälskylä, Finland, pp. 92–103 (1995)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Truex, D.P., Baskerville, R., Klein, H.: Growing Systems in Emergent Organisations. Communications of the ACM 42(8) (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Voss, A., Procter, R., Williams, R.: Innovation in Use: Interleaving day-to-day operation and systems development. In: Participatory Design Conference, New York, NY, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wegner, P.: Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Communications of the ACM 40(5) (1997)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wegner, P., Goldin, D.: Interaction as a Framework for Modeling. In: Chen, P.P., Akoka, J., Kangassalu, H., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 1565, p. 243. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Krogstie
    • 1
  • Håvard D. Jørgensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer and Information Sciences, and SINTEF Telecom and InformaticsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyNorway

Personalised recommendations