IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v17y2006i1p81-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Vijay Khatri

    (Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Iris Vessey

    (University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia)

  • V. Ramesh

    (Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Paul Clay

    (Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Sung-Jin Park

    (School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

Abstract

Although information systems (IS) problem solving involves knowledge of both the IS and application domains, little attention has been paid to the role of application domain knowledge. In this study, which is set in the context of conceptual modeling, we examine the effects of both IS and application domain knowledge on different types of schema understanding tasks: syntactic and semantic comprehension tasks and schema-based problem-solving tasks . Our thesis was that while IS domain knowledge is important in solving all such tasks, the role of application domain knowledge is contingent upon the type of understanding task under investigation. We use the theory of cognitive fit to establish theoretical differences in the role of application domain knowledge among the different types of schema understanding tasks. We hypothesize that application domain knowledge does not influence the solution of syntactic and semantic comprehension tasks for which cognitive fit exists, but does influence the solution of schema-based problem-solving tasks for which cognitive fit does not exist.To assess performance on different types of conceptual schema understanding tasks, we conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants with high- and low-IS domain knowledge responded to two equivalent conceptual schemas that represented high and low levels of application knowledge (familiar and unfamiliar application domains). As expected, we found that IS domain knowledge is important in the solution of all types of conceptual schema understanding tasks in both familiar and unfamiliar applications domains, and that the effect of application domain knowledge is contingent on task type. Our findings for the EER model were similar to those for the ER model. Given the differential effects of application domain knowledge on different types of tasks, this study highlights the importance of considering more than one application domain in designing future studies on conceptual modeling.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:17:y:2006:i:1:p:81-99
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1060.0081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0081
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1060.0081?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. Ron Weber, 1996. "Are Attributes Entities? A Study of Database Designers' Memory Structures," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 137-162, June.
    3. Teresa M. Shaft & Iris Vessey, 1995. "Research Report—The Relevance of Application Domain Knowledge: The Case of Computer Program Comprehension," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 286-299, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Keumseok Kang & Jungpil Hahn & Prabuddha De, 2017. "Learning Effects of Domain, Technology, and Customer Knowledge in Information Systems Development: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 797-811, December.
    4. Dunn, Cheryl L. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2017. "The combined effects of user schemas and degree of cognitive fit on data retrieval performance," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 46-67.
    5. Gove Allen & Jeffrey Parsons, 2010. "Is Query Reuse Potentially Harmful? Anchoring and Adjustment in Adapting Existing Database Queries," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 56-77, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Qiudan Li & Daniel Dajun Zeng & David Jingjun Xu & Ruoran Liu & Riheng Yao, 2020. "Understanding and Predicting Users’ Rating Behavior: A Cognitive Perspective," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 996-1011, October.
    8. Ernestine Dickhaut & Mahei Manhai Li & Andreas Janson & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2022. "The role of design patterns in the development and legal assessment of lawful technologies," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 2311-2331, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Palash Bera, 2021. "Interactions between Analysts in Developing Collaborative Conceptual Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-573, June.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    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. Karen Ruckman & Nilesh Saraf & Vallabh Sambamurthy, 2015. "Market Positioning by IT Service Vendors Through Imitation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 100-126, March.
    3. Ben Roelens & Geert Poels, 2015. "The Development and Experimental Evaluation of a Focused Business Model Representation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(1), pages 61-71, February.
    4. Dunn, Cheryl L. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2017. "The combined effects of user schemas and degree of cognitive fit on data retrieval performance," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 46-67.
    5. 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.
    6. Santanu Roy & Jay Mitra, 2015. "Strategic Capabilities for Public Sector-led Innovation: Managing Knowledge Worker Deployment at and Quality Performance of Public R&D Laboratories in India," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 1(2), pages 181-200, July.
    7. Paul L. Bowen & Robert A. O'Farrell & Fiona H. Rohde, 2009. "An Empirical Investigation of End-User Query Development: The Effects of Improved Model Expressiveness vs. Complexity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 565-584, December.
    8. Boot, Walter R. & Dunn, Cheryl L. & Fulmer, Bachman P. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2022. "An eye tracking experiment investigating synonymy in conceptual model validation," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    9. Roger Clarke & Andrew Burton-Jones & Ron Weber, 2016. "On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 365-382, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "User Comprehension of Accounting Information Structures: An Empirical Test of the REA Model," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/254, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    15. 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.
    16. Oktay Turetken & Ahmet Dikici & Irene Vanderfeesten & Tessa Rompen & Onur Demirors, 2020. "The Influence of Using Collapsed Sub-processes and Groups on the Understandability of Business Process Models," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(2), pages 121-141, April.
    17. Andreas L. Opdahl & Brian Henderson-Sellers, 2004. "A Template for Defining Enterprise Modelling Constructs," Journal of Database Management (JDM), IGI Global, vol. 15(2), pages 39-73, April.
    18. 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.
    19. G. Poels & A. Maes & F. Gailly & R. Paemeleire, 2004. "The Pragmatic Quality of Resources-Events-Agents Diagrams: An Experimental Evaluation," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/219, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    20. Sebastian Schlauderer & Sven Overhage, 2018. "BoSDL: An Approach to Describe the Business Logic of Software Services in Domain-Specific Terms," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 60(5), pages 393-413, October.

    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:81-99. 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.