Advertisement

Improving the Quality of Entity Relationship Models—Experience in Research and Practice

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

Abstract

This paper is an extension of previous research which developed a framework for evaluating and improving the quality of Entity Relationship models. The framework has now been used extensively in research and practice, including application in two of the largest commercial organisations in Australia. The experiences gained have been used to further develop and refine the framework. This paper describes how the framework has been used to: (a) quality assure data models as part of application development projects (product quality); (b) reengineer application development procedures to build quality into the data modelling process (process quality); (c) provide automated support for the evaluation process (Data Model Quality Advisor); (d) investigate the differences between data models produced by expert and novice data modellers. The results show that use of the framework has the potential to significantly improve research, practice and teaching of data modelling.

Keywords

Quality Factor Process Quality Total Quality Management Change Request Business User 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel-Hamid, T.K.: The Economics of Software Quality Assurance: A Simulation Based Study. MIS Quarterly 12(3) (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Software Metrics Association (ASMA), ASMA Project Database, Release 7, November, P.O. Box 1287, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia, 3128 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avison, D.: Action Programmes for Teaching and Researching in Information Systems. Australian Computer Journal 23(2), 66–72 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity Relationship Approach. Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batra, D., Davis, J.: Conceptual Data Modelling in Database Design: Similarities and Differences between Expert and Novice Designers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 37, 83–101 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batra, D., Hoffer, J.A., Bostrom, R.P.: Comparing Representations with Relational and EER Models. Communications of the ACM 33(2), 126–139 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., Mead, M.: The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 369–386 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bubenko, J.A.: Information Systems Methodologies: A Research View. In: Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, pp. 289–318. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Checkland, P.B., Scholes, J.: Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davenport, T.H.: Saving IT’s Soul: Human Centred Information Management, Harvard Business Review (March-April 1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deming, W.E.: Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gable, G.: Consultant Engagement Success: Client versus Consultant Views. In: Proc. 7th Australian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 253–263 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gartner Research Group: Sometimes You Gotta Break the Rules, Gartner Group Strategic Management Series Key Issues, 23 (November 1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, B., Moss, J.: Practical Data Administration. BCS Practitioner Series. Prentice Hall International, London (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Ivari, J.: Dimensions Of Information Systems Design: A Framework For A Long Range Research Program. Information Systems, 39–42 (June 1986)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kesh, S.: Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. Information and Software Technology 37(12) (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim, Y.-G., March, S.T.: Comparing Data Modelling Formalisms. Communications of the ACM 38(6), 103–113 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krogstie, J., Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G.: Towards a Deeper Understanding of Quality in Requirements Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 7th nternational Conference on Advanced Information Systems Egineering (CAISE), Jyvaskyla, Finland, (June 1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levitin, A., Redman, T.: Quality Dimensions of a Conceptual View. Information Processing and Management 31(1), 81–88 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solveberg, A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modelling. IEEE Software, 42–49 (March 1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maiden, N., Sutcliffe, A.: Analysing the Novice Analyst: Cognitive Models in Software Engineering. Intl. Journal Man Machine Studies 36(7), 719–740 (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martin, J.: Strategic Data Planning Methodologies. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moody, D.L.: Critical Success Factors for Information Resource Management. In: Proc. 7th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Hobart, Australia (December 1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moody, D.L.: Metrics for evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 211–225. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moody, D.L., Shanks, G.G.: What Makes A Good Data Model? Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, Manchester, December 14-17, pp. 94–111 (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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, forthcoming (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moody, D.L., Simsion, G.C.: Justifying Investment in Information Resource Management. Australian Journal of Information Systems 3(1), 25–37 (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rescher, N.: Methodological Pragmatism: Systems-Theoretic Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. New York University Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ross, R.G.: The Business Rule Book, Database Research Group, 2nd edn., Boston, MA (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shanks, 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
  33. 33.
    Shanks, G., Darke, P.: Quality in Conceptual Modelling: Linking Theory and Practice. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology, pp. 805–814 (May 1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shoval, P., Even-Chaime, M.: Database Schema Design: An Experimental Comparison Between Normalisation and Information Analysis. Database 18(3), 30–39 (1987)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simsion, G.C.: Data Modelling Essentials, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Vliet, J.C.: Software Engineering: Principles and Practice. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    von Halle, B.: Data: Asset or Liability? Database Programming and Design 4(7), 13–15 (1991)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    von Halle, B., Conkey, J.: Rewiring the Business. Database Programming and Design 10(1), 11–15 (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Walrad, C., Moss, E.: Measurement: The Key to Application Development Quality. IBM Systems Journal 32(3), 445–460 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zultner, R.E.: The Deming Way: Total Quality Management for Software. In: Proceedings of Total Quality Management (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel L. Moody
    • 1
  • Graeme G. Shanks
    • 2
  • Peta Darke
    • 2
  1. 1.Simsion Bowles and AssociatesMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information Management and SystemsMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations