Susanne Patig
ABSTRACT
Model-driven development is the process of creating models of a software system and transforming them into source code. Since the stepwise transformations can be done automatically or by hand, the notations of the models should be both precise and understandable. This is especially important if the software system is developed by a large, international team where the persons who model differ from the ones who implement the source code based on the models' content. Understandability and precision can be experimentally tested. This paper presents a guideline for planning and conducting such experiments. The guideline is derived from a theoretical framework and designed to yield valid and statistically significant results by a simple experimental procedure. Additionally, an open-source tool is provided that supports the suggestions. Guideline and tool have been successfully applied in an industrial context: Experiments revealed that a graphical notation used for model-driven development within SAP AG is as precise as a textual notation, but more difficult to understand.
- Anderson, J. R. (2000): Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. 5th ed., New York, Worth.Google Scholar
- Bajaj, A. (2004): The effect of the number of concepts on the readability of schemas: an empirical study with data models. Requirements Engineering 9: 261--270.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bourne, L. E. and Battig, W. F. (1966): Complex Processes. In Experimental methods and instrumentation in psychology. 541--576. Sidowski, J. E. (ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M. and Weber, R. (2001): Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual Modelling? A Theory and Three Empirical Tests. Information Systems Research 12(4): 384--405. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chan, H. C. (1995): Naturalness of Graphical Queries Based on the Entity Relationship Model. Journal of Database Management 6(3): 3--13.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clark-Carter, D. (2004): Quantitative psychological research. 2nd ed., Hove, Psychology Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cohen, J. (1988): Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed., Hillsdale, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Elamasri, R. and Navathe, S. B. (2000): Fundamentals of Database Engineering. Reading, Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gemino, A. and Wand, Y. (2004): A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9: 248--260.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hayes, P. J. (1974): Some Problems and Non-Problems in Representation Theory. Proc. of the AISB Summer Conference. 63--79, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
- Jamison, W. and Teng, J. T. C. (1993): Effects of Graphical Versus Textual Representation of Database Structure on Query Performance. Journal of Database Management 4 (1): 16--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P. and Park, S.-J. (2006): Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS domain Knowledge. Information Systems Research 17(1): 81--99. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., and Bast, W. (2003): MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture -- Practice and Promise. Boston, Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, H. and Choi, B. G. (1998): A Comparative Study of Conceptual Data Modeling Techniques. Journal of Database Management 9(2): 26--35. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mellor, S. J. et al (2004): MDA Distilled: Principles of Model-driven Architecture. Boston, Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moody, D. L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T. and Sølvberg, A. (2003): Evaluating the Quality of Information Models: Empirical Testing of a Conceptual Model Quality Framework. Proc. of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE. 295--305. IEEE, Los Alamitos. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mook, D. (2004): Classic experiments in psychology. Westport, Greenwood.Google Scholar
- Moore, R. C. (1982): The Role of Logic in Knowledge Representation and Commonsense Reasoning. Proc. AAAI '82. 428--433, Menlo Parc, AAAI.Google Scholar
- Larkin, J. H. and Simon, H. A. (1987): Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11: 65--99.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Object Management Group (OMG): MDA#8482; Guide Version 1.0.1, Document number omg/2003-06-01. http://www.omg.org/. Accessed June 12, 2007.Google Scholar
- Palvia, P. C., Liao, C. and To, P.-L. (1992): The Impact of Conceptual Data Models on End-User Performance. Journal of Database Management 3(4): 4--15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Parsons, J. and Cole, L. (2005): What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modelling techniques. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55: 327--342. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robinson, P. W. (1981): Fundamentals of Experimental Psychology, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Sarafino, E. P. (2005): Research Methods: Using Processes and Procedures of Science to Understand Behavior. Upper Saddle River, Pearson.Google Scholar
- Shanks, G., Nuredini, J., Tobin, D., Moody, D. and Weber, R. (2003): Representing things and properties in conceptual modeling: An empirical investigation. Proc. 11th Eur. Conf. Inform. Systems, Italy (June 16--21).Google Scholar
- Shimojima, A. (2001): The Graphic-Linguistic Distinction: Exploring Alternatives. Artificial Intelligence Review 15: 5--27. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Siau, K. (2004): Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods. Journal of Database Management 15(1): 73--86.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Siau, K. and Wang, Y. (2007): Cognitive Evaluation of information modeling methods. Information and Software Technology 49(5): 455--474. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sloman, A. (1971): Interactions Between Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 2: 209--225.Google ScholarCross Ref
- ter Hofstede, A. H. M. and van der Weide, T. P. (1992): Formalization of techniques: chopping down the methodology jungle. Information and Software Technology 34 (1): 57 65. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wessells, G. (1982): Cognitive Psychology. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.Google Scholar
- Woods, D. and Mattern, T. (2006): Enterprise SOA -- Designing IT for Business Innovation. Beijing, O'Reilly. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- A practical guide to testing the understandability of notations
Recommendations
An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams
ContextBusiness process modeling is an activity that includes several different roles, e.g. business analysts, technical analysts and software developers. The resulting process diagrams can be either simple or complex. Nonetheless, they must be ...
The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams
The effectiveness of current software development strategies, such as Model-Driven Development (MDD), depends largely on the quality of their primary artefacts, i.e. software models. As the standard modelling language for software systems is the Unified ...
Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states--A family of empirical studies
The main goal of this work is to present a family of empirical studies that we have carried out to investigate whether the use of composite states may improve the understandability of UML statechart diagrams derived from class diagrams. Our hypotheses ...
Comments