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

References

• Agarwal R., Sinha A. P., Tanniru M. Cognitive fit in requirements modeling: A study of object and process methodologies. J. Management Inform. Systems (1996) 13(2):137–164Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aho A. V., Beeri C., Ullman J. D. The theory of joins in relational databases. ACM Trans. Data Base Systems (1979) 4(3):297–314Crossref, Google Scholar
• Antony S. R., Batra D. CODASYS: A consulting tool for novice database designers. Data Base Advances Inform. Systems (2002) 33(3):54–68Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashcraft M. H.Cognition (2002) (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Bandi R. K., Vaishnavi V. K., Turk D. E. Using object-oriented design complexity metrics to predict maintenance performance. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. (2003) 29(1):77–87Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansiya J., Davis C. G. A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. (2002) 28(1):4–17Crossref, Google Scholar
• Batra D., Hoffer J. A., Bostrom R. P. Comparing representations with relational and EER models. Comm. ACM (1990) 33(2):126–140Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berthon P., Pitt L., Ewing M., Carr C. L. Potential research space in MIS: A framework for envisioning and evaluating research replication, extension, and generation. Inform. Systems Res. (2002) 13(4):416–427Link, Google Scholar
• Bodart F., Sim M., Patel A., Weber R. Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inform. Systems Res. (2001) 12(4):385–405Link, Google Scholar
• Briand L. C., Daly J. W., Wüst J. K. A unified framework for coupling measurement in object-oriented systems. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. (1999) 25(1):91–121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunge M.Treatise on Basic Philosophy: (1977) 3(Reidel, Boston, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunge M.Treatise on Basic Philosophy: (1979) 4(Reidel, Boston, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burton-Jones A., Meso P. Online supplement to “Conceptualizing Sytems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis. Inform. Systems Res. (2006) 17(1). http://www.informs.org/Pubs/Supplements/ISR/1526-5536-2006-17-01-0038-app.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Burton-Jones A., Weber R. Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams. Proc. 20th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (1999) Charlotte, NC:214–228Google Scholar
• Chen P. P. S. The entity-relationship model: Toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Systems (1976) 1(1):9–36Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chidamber S. R., Kemerer C. F. A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. (1994) 20(6):476–493Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coad P., Yourdon E.Object Oriented Analysis (1991) (Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Cohen J.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (1988) 2nd ed(Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
• Collins A. M., Quillan M. R. Retrieval time from semantic memory. J. Verbal Learn. Behavior (1969) 8:240–247Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conger S.The New Software Engineering (1994) (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA) Google Scholar
• Davies I., Green P., Rosemann M., Indulska M., Gallo S. How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engrg. (2006) . In pressCrossref, Google Scholar
• Davis G. B., Cotterman W. W., Senn J. A. Systems analysis and design: A research strategy and macro-analysis. Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development (1992) (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England) 9–21Google Scholar
• Dawson L., Swatman P. The use of object-oriented models in requirements engineering: A field study. Proc. 20th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (1999) Charlotte, NC:260–273Google Scholar
• Dobing B., Parsons J. UML in practice: A survey of UML use. Comm. ACM (2005) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Dromney R. G. Cornering the chimera. IEEE Software (1996) 13(1):33–43Crossref, Google Scholar
• El-Emam K. Object-oriented metrics: A review of theory and practice. Advances in Software Engineering (2002) (Springer-Verlag, New York) 23–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ericsson K. A., Simon H. A.Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (1993) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Gemino A. To be or may to be: An empirical comparison of mandatory and optional properties in conceptual modeling. Proc. Annual Conf. Admin. Sci. Assoc. of Canada (1998) Saskatoon, Canada:33–44Google Scholar
• Gemino A. Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Requirements Engrg. (2004) 9(3):153–168Google Scholar
• Gemino A., Wand Y. Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Comm. ACM (2003) 46(10):79–84Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gemino A., Wand Y. A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engrg. (2004) 9(4):248–260Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goguen J., Varela F. J. Systems and distinctions: Duality and complementarity. Internat. J. General Systems (1979) 5(1):31–43Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodhue D., Loiacono E. Randomizing question order versus grouping questions by construct in survey research: An empirical test of the impact on apparent reliabilities and LISREL determined path coefficients. Proc. Hawaii Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (HICSS) (2002) HawaiiGoogle Scholar
• Harel D. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Programming (1987) 8:231–274Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hevner A., March S., Park J., Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quart. (2004) 28(1):75–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson R. A. Object-oriented systems development: A review of empirical research. Comm. AIS (2002) 8:65–81Google Scholar
• Khatri V., Ramesh V., Vessey I., Clay P., Park S.-J. Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Inform. Systems Res. (2006) 17(1):81–99Link, Google Scholar
• Kim J., Hahn J., Hahn H. How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Inform. Systems Res. (2000) 11(3):284–303Link, Google Scholar
• Kim Y. G., March S. T. Comparing data modeling formalisms. Comm. ACM (1995) 38(6):103–115Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirk R. E.Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (1995) 3rd ed.(Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA) Google Scholar
• Kobryn C. UML 2001: A standardization odyssey. Comm. ACM (1999) 42(10):29–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kung C. H., Solvberg A., Olle T. W., Sol H. G., Verrijn-Stuart A. A. Activity modelling and behavior modelling. Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice (1986) (IFIP, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 145–171Google Scholar
• Lackoff G.Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (1987) (Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larman C.Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and the Unified Process (2001) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Lieberman B. The art of modeling: Part 1: Constructing an analytical framework. Rational Edge (2003) AugustGoogle Scholar
• Mayer R. Models for understanding. Rev. Educational Res. (1989) 59:43–64Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moody D. L. Complexity effects on end user understanding of data models: An experimental comparison of large data model representation methods. Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. Inform. Systems (ECIS) (2002) Gdansk, Poland:482–496Google Scholar
• Moore G. C., Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting and information technology innovation. Inform. Systems Res. (1991) 2:192–222Link, Google Scholar
• Murata T. Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE (1989) 77(4):541–579Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newell A., Simon H. A.Human Problem Solving (1972) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Nunnally J. C.Psychometric Theory (1967) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Olle T. W., Hagelstein J., Macdonald I. G., Rolland C., Sol H. G., Van Assche F. J. M., Verrijn-Stuart A. A.Information Systems Methodologies: A Framework for Understanding (1988) (Addison-Wesley, IFIP, Wokingham, England) Google Scholar
• Parnas D. L. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Comm. ACM (1972) 15(12):1053–1058Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parsons J. An information model based on classification theory. Management Sci. (1996) 42(10):1437–1453Link, Google Scholar
• Parsons J. Effects of local versus global schema diagrams on verification and communication in conceptual data modeling. J. Management Inform. Systems (2002) 19:155–184Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parsons J., Wand Y. Using objects for systems analysis. Comm. ACM (1997) 40:104–110Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paulson D., Wand Y. An automated approach to information systems decomposition. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. (1992) 18(3):174–189Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pretz J. E., Naples A. J., Sternberg R. J., Davidson J. E., Sternberg R. J. Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. The Psychology of Problem Solving (2003) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.) 3–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Purao S., Vaishnavi V. K. Product metrics for object-oriented systems. ACM Comput. Surveys (2003) 35(2):191–221Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rumbaugh J., Jacobson I., Booch G.The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual (1999) (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
• Shanks G. Representation in information systems. (1999) . Presented to the IS Foundations Workshop, Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
• Shanks G., Tansley E., Weber R. Representing composites in conceptual modeling. Comm. ACM (2004) 47(7):77–80Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon H. A.The Sciences of the Artificial (1996) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Sircar S., Nerur S. P., Mahapatra R. Revolution or evolution? A comparison of object-oriented and structured systems development methods. MIS Quart. (2001) 25(4):457–471Crossref, Google Scholar
• Storey V. C., Chiang R. H. L., Dey D., Goldstein R. C., Sundaresan S. Database design with common sense business reasoning and learning. ACM Trans. Database Systems (1997) 22(4):471–512Crossref, Google Scholar
• Todd P. A., Benbasat I. Process tracing methods in decision support systems research: Exploring the black box. MIS Quart. (1987) 11(4):493–512Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vessey I., Conger S. A. Requirements specification: Learning object, process, and data methodologies. Comm. ACM (1994) 37(5):102–113Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wand Y., Weber R. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. (1990) 16:1282–1292Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wand Y., Weber R. Information systems and conceptual modeling—A research agenda. Inform. Systems Res. (2002) 13(4):363–376Link, Google Scholar
• Weber R.Ontological Foundations of Information Systems (1997) (Coopers & Lybrand and Accounting Assoc. of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia) Google Scholar
• Weber R. Comprehending decompositions: A theory and two empirical tests. (2001) . Working paper, Monash University, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
• Wieringa R. A survey of structured and object-oriented software specification methods and techniques. ACM Comput. Surveys (1998) 30(4):459–527Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yourdon E.Modern Structured Analysis (1989) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Yourdon E., Constantine L. L.Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and System Design (1979) (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar