Metrics for Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models

  • Daniel L. Moody
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1507)


This paper defines a comprehensive set of metrics for evaluating the quality of Entity Relationship models. This is an extension of previous research which developed a conceptual framework and identified stakeholders and quality factors for evaluating data models. However quality factors are not enough to ensure quality in practice, because different people will have different interpretations of the same concept. The objective of this paper is to refine these quality factors into quantitative measures to reduce subjectivity and bias in the evaluation process. A total of twenty five candidate metrics are proposed in this paper, each of which measures one of the quality factors previously defined. The metrics may be used to evaluate the quality of data models, choose between alternatives and identify areas for improvement.


Quality Factor User Requirement Integrity Constraint International Standard Organisation Total Quality Management 
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.
    Australian Software Metrics Association (ASMA): ASMA Project Database, Release 7, November, P.O. Box 1287, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia, 3128 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity Relationship Approach. Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City, California (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., And Navathe, S.: A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18(4), 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Checkland, P.B., Scholes, J.: Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Date, C.J.: Introduction to Database Systems, 4th edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubin, R.: Theory Building. The Free Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gartner Research Group: Sometimes You Gotta Break the Rules, Gartner Group Strategic Management Series Key Issues, November 23 (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodhue, D.L., Kirsch, L.J., Wybo, M.D.: The Impact of Data Integration on the Costs and Benefits of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 16(3), 293–311 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hitchman, S.: Practitioner Perceptions On The Use Of Some Semantic Concepts In The Entity Relationship Model. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 31–40 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Standards Organisation (ISO), Information Processing Systems - Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base, ISO Technical Report 9007 (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kesh, S.: Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. Information and Software Technology 37(12) (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klir, G.J.: Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. Plenum Press, New York (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Towards a Deeper Understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering. In: Iivari, J., Rossi, M., Lyytinen, K. (eds.) CAiSE 1995. LNCS, vol. 932. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levitin, A., Redman, T.: Quality Dimensions of a Conceptual View. Information Processing and Management 31 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., And Solveberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modelling. IEEE Software (March 1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loffman, R.S., Rush, R.M.: Improving Data Quality. Database Programming and Design 4(4), 17–19 (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin, J.: Strategic Data Planning Methodologies. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayer, R.E.: Models for Understanding, Review of Educational Research (Spring 1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer, B.: Object Oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: What Makes A Good Data Model? Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. In: Loucopolis, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, Manchester, December 14-17, pp. 94–111 (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody, D.L., Simsion, G.C.: Justifying Investment in Information Resource Management. Australian Journal of Information Systems 3(1), 25–37 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moody, D.L.: Graphical Entity Relationship Models: Towards A More User Understandable Representation of Data. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, Cottbus, Germany, October 7-9, pp. 227–244 (1996a)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moody, D.L.: Critical Success Factors for Information Resource Management. In: Proc. 7th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Hobart, Australia (December 1996b)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moody, D.L.: A Multi-Level Architecture for Representing Enterprise Data Models. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, Los Angeles, November 1-3 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: What Makes A Good Data Model? A Framework for Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. Australian Computer Journal (1998) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G., And Darke, P.: Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models-Experience in Research and Practice. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Brien, C., O’Brien, S.: Mining Your Legacy Systems: A Data-Based Approach. In: Asia Pacific DB2 User Group Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November 21-23 (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pippenger, N.: Complexity Theory. Scientific American 238(6), 1–15 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roman, G.: A Taxonomy of Current Issues in Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer (April 1985)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shanks, G.G.: Conceptual Data Modelling: An Empirical Study of Expert and Novice Data Modellers. Australian Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 63–73 (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simsion, G.C.: Data Planning in a Volatile Business Environment. In: Australian Computer Society Conference on Strategic Planning for Information Technology, Ballarat, pp. 88–92 (March 1988)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simsion, G.C.: Creative Data Modelling. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Entity Relationship Conference, pp. 112–123. San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simsion, G.C.: Data Modelling Essentials. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Symons, C.R.: Function Point Analysis: Difficulties and Improvements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(1) (January 1988)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Symons, C.R.: Software Sizing and Estimating: MkII Function Point Analysis. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1991)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thompson, C.: Living with an Enterprise Model. Database Programming and Design 6(12), 32–38 (1993)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Vliet, J.C.: Software Engineering: Principles and Practice. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Von Halle, B.: Data: Asset or Liability? Database Programming and Design 4(7), 13–15 (1991)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zultner, R.E.: The Deming Way: Total Quality Management for Software. In: Proceedings of Total Quality Management for Software Conference, Washington, DC, pp. 134–145 (April 1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel L. Moody
    • 1
  1. 1.Simsion Bowles and AssociatesMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations