IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v17y2006i1p38-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Burton-Jones

    (Management Information Systems Division, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2)

  • Peter N. Meso

    (Computer Information Systems Department, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 35 Broad Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30302)

Abstract

During the early phase of systems development, systems analysts often conceptualize the domain under study and represent it in one or more conceptual models. One of the most important, yet elusive roles of conceptual models is to increase analysts’ understanding of a domain. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of the good decomposition model (GDM) (Wand and Weber 1990) to explain the degree to which conceptual models communicate meaning about a domain to analysts. We address the question, “Do unified modeling language (UML) analysis diagrams that manifest better decompositions increase analysts’ understanding of a domain?” GDM defines five conditions (minimality, determinism, losslessness, weak coupling, and strong cohesion) deemed necessary to decompose a domain in such a way that the resulting model communicates meaning about the domain effectively. In our evaluation, we operationalized each of these conditions in a set of UML diagrams and tested participants’ understanding of those diagrams. Our results lend support to GDM across measures of actual understanding. However, the impact on participants’ perceptions of their understanding was equivocal.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Burton-Jones & Peter N. Meso, 2006. "Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 38-60, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:17:y:2006:i:1:p:38-60
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1050.0079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0079
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1050.0079?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. François Bodart & Arvind Patel & Marc Sim & Ron Weber, 2001. "Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 384-405, December.
    2. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    3. Vijay Khatri & Iris Vessey & V. Ramesh & Paul Clay & Sung-Jin Park, 2006. "Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 81-99, March.
    4. Jeffrey Parsons, 1996. "An Information Model Based on Classification Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(10), pages 1437-1453, October.
    5. Pierre Berthon & Leyland Pitt & Michael Ewing & Christopher L. Carr, 2002. "Potential Research Space in MIS: A Framework for Envisioning and Evaluating Research Replication, Extension, and Generation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 416-427, December.
    6. Yair Wand & Ron Weber, 2002. "Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 363-376, December.
    7. Jinwoo Kim & Jungpil Hahn & Hyoungmee Hahn, 2000. "How Do We Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 284-303, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Florian Johannsen & Susanne Leist, 2012. "Wand and Weber’s Decomposition Model in the Context of Business Process Modeling," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 4(5), pages 271-286, October.
    2. Gary F. Templeton & James F. Dowdy, 2012. "CASE-mediated organizational and deutero learning at NASA," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 741-764, July.
    3. Guan, Jian & Levitan, Alan S. & Kuhn, John R., 2013. "How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 21-38.
    4. Roman Lukyanenko & Jeffrey Parsons & Yolanda F. Wiersma, 2014. "The IQ of the Crowd: Understanding and Improving Information Quality in Structured User-Generated Content," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 669-689, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yair Wand & Ron Weber, 2002. "Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling—A Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 363-376, December.
    2. Jan Mendling & Jan Recker & Hajo A. Reijers & Henrik Leopold, 2019. "An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 1111-1135, October.
    3. Roman Lukyanenko & Wolfgang Maass & Veda C. Storey, 2022. "Trust in artificial intelligence: From a Foundational Trust Framework to emerging research opportunities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1993-2020, December.
    4. A. Maes & G. Poels, 2006. "Development of a user evaluations based quality model for conceptual modeling," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/406, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    5. Jan Claes & Irene Vanderfeesten & Frederik Gailly & Paul Grefen & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Structured Process Modeling Theory (SPMT) a cognitive view on why and how modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 1401-1425, December.
    6. Palash Bera, 2021. "Interactions between Analysts in Developing Collaborative Conceptual Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-573, June.
    7. Bin Zhu & Stephanie A. Watts, 2010. "Visualization of Network Concepts: The Impact of Working Memory Capacity Differences," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 327-344, June.
    8. Merete Hvalshagen & Roman Lukyanenko & Binny M. Samuel, 2023. "Empowering Users with Narratives: Examining the Efficacy of Narratives for Understanding Data-Oriented Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 890-909, September.
    9. Roman Lukyanenko & Jeffrey Parsons & Yolanda F. Wiersma, 2014. "The IQ of the Crowd: Understanding and Improving Information Quality in Structured User-Generated Content," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 669-689, December.
    10. Palash Bera & Andrew Burton-Jones & Yair Wand, 2014. "Research Note ---How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 401-419, June.
    11. Guan, Jian & Levitan, Alan S. & Kuhn, John R., 2013. "How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 21-38.
    12. Rakesh Sambharya & Martina Musteen, 2014. "Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: An empirical study across countries," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 314-330, December.
    13. Aziz Barhmi & Omar Hajaji, 2023. "Multidisciplinary Approach to Supply Chain Resilience: Conceptualization and Scale Development," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2023(5), pages 43-69.
    14. Venugopal Gopalakrishna-Remani & Robert Paul Jones & Kerri M. Camp, 2019. "Levels of EMR Adoption in U.S. Hospitals: An Empirical Examination of Absorptive Capacity, Institutional Pressures, Top Management Beliefs, and Participation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1325-1344, December.
    15. Elbanna, Amany & Newman, Mike, 2022. "The bright side and the dark side of top management support in Digital Transformaion –A hermeneutical reading," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Morosan, Cristian, 2016. "An empirical examination of U.S. travelers’ intentions to use biometric e-gates in airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 120-128.
    17. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    18. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    19. Schweizer, T.S., 2002. "Managing interactions between technological and stylistic innovation in the media industries, insights from the introduction of ebook technology in the publishing industry," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-16-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    20. Annette N. Brown & Drew B. Cameron & Benjamin D. K. Wood, 2014. "Quality evidence for policymaking: I'll believe it when I see the replication," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 215-235, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:17:y:2006:i:1:p:38-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.