Abstract
Conceptual models are frequently developed as part of IS analysis and design. Development of such models involves expertise in conceptual modeling techniques, served by modeling analysts, and in the domain applications, served by domain analysts. This paper focuses on understanding how these two types of analysts interact and develop conceptual models collaboratively. The subjects as analysts were placed in pairs (one modeling and one domain) and asked to develop conceptual models collaboratively on a complex domain. The interactions during conceptual model development were analyzed using a sensemaking framework. It was found that all groups performed the reciprocal acts of modifying each other’s understanding of the concepts that were required to develop the model collaboratively. The study also indicates that the groups which had high incidence of sensebreaking acts (i.e. attempts to question the existing understanding of other) and high incidence of shared conceptualization, created higher quality conceptual models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S., & Price, K. (2009). Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 91–118.
Bera, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Wand, Y. (2011). Guidelines for designing visual ontologies to support knowledge identification. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 883–908.
Bera, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Wand, Y. (2014). How semantics and pragmatics interact in understanding conceptual models. Information Systems Research, 25(2), 401–419.
Daneva, M., van der Veen, E., Amrit, C., Ghaisas, S., Sikkel, K., Kumar, R., . . . Wieringa, R. (2013). Agile requirements prioritization in large-scale outsourced system projects: An empirical study. The Journal of Systems & Software, 86, 1333–1353. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.046.
Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Gallo, S. (2006). How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data and Knowledge Engineering, 58(3), 358–380.
Defranco-Tommarello, J., & Deek, F. (2004). Collaborative problem solving and groupware for software development. IS Management, 21(1), 67–80.
Fettke, P. (2009). How conceptual modeling is used. Communication of the AIS, 25(1), 571–592.
Fruhling, A., & deVreed, G. (2006). Field experiences with eXtreme programming: Developing an emergency response system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(4), 39–68.
Fuentes-Fernandez, R., Gomez-Sanz, J., & Pavon, J. (2009). Understanding the human context in requirements elicitation. Requirements Engineering.
Fuller, R., Murthy, U., & Schafer, B. (2010). The effects of data model representation method on task performance. Information and Management, 47, 208–218.
Gemino, A., & Wand, Y. (2005). Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55, 301–326.
Gioia, D. A., James, B. T., Shawn, M. C., & Kumar, C. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383.
Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., & Valacich, J. S. (2011). Modern Systems analysis and design (6 ed.): Pearson.
Jabbari, S., Mohammad, A., & Recker, J. (2017). Combined use of conceptual models in practice: An exploratory study. Journal of Database Management, 28(2), 56–88.
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in socio-cognitive network and social influence: An illustration in a group decision making context. Journal of Personal Social Psychology (73), 296–309.
Kerr, N., & Tindale, R. (2004). Group performance in decision making. Annual Review of Psychology (55), 623–655.
Khatri, V., & Vessey, I. (2016). Understanding the role of IS and application domain knowledge on conceptual Schema problem solving: A verbal protocol study. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(12), 759–803.
Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P., & Park, S. (2006). Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 81–99.
Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. (2007). The Disruption of Accounts: Sensebreaking in Organizations. Paper presented at the academy of management annual meeting, Honolulu, HI.
Levesque, L., Wilson, J., & Wholey, D. (2001). Cognitive Divergence & Shared Mental Models in Software Development Project Teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior (22), 135–144.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21–49.
Paradies, Y., & Stevens, M. (2005). Conceptual diagrams in public Health Research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(12).
Polya, G. (1968). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning and teaching problem solving (Vol. II). New York: Wiley.
Ramesh, B., Lan, C., & Baskerville, R. (2010). Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: An empirical study. Information Systems Journal, 20(5), 449–480.
Ramirez, A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 213–228.
Sengupta, K., & Te’eni, D. (1993). Cognitive feedback in GDSS: Improving control and convergence. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 87–113.
Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Nuredini, J., Tobin, D., & Weber, R. (2008). Representing part-whole relations in conceptual modeling: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 553–573.
Siau, K., & Rossi, M. (2011). Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design Modelling methods - a review and comparative analysis. Information Systems Journal, 21, 249–268.
Teory, T. J., Yang, D., & Fry, J. P. (1986). A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(2), 197–222.
Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22(2), 219–240.
Vidgen, R., & Xiaofeng, W. (2009). Coevolving systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 355–376.
Vlaar, P. W. L., van Fenema, P. C., & Tiwari, V. (2008). Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: How members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 227–255.
Walz, D., Elam, J., & Curtis, B. (1993). Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration. Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 63–77.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Information systems and conceptual modeling: A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363–376.
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2017). Thirty years later: Some reflections on ontological analysis in conceptual modeling. Journal of Database Management, 28(1), 1–17.
Wand, Y., Storey, V. C., & Weber, R. (1999). An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24(4), 494–528.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.
Zhang, J. (1998). A distributed representation approach to group problem solving. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(9), 801–809.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
1.1 Questions to assess analysts’ domain familiarity (self-reported type, on a 7-point Likert scale)
-
1.
To what extent do you have knowledge of data modeling concepts (such as entities, classes and properties)
-
2.
To what extent do you have experience in using data modeling concepts (such as entities, classes and properties)
-
3.
To what extent are you familiar with the pharmaceutical drug hydrocortisone?
-
4.
To what extent do you have the knowledge of the pharmaceutical drug hydrocortisone?
1.2 Questions to assess analysts domain familiarity (Subjective type)
-
1.
What is the effect of hydrocortisone on immune system?
-
2.
What is the effect of hydrocortisone on glucose synthesis system?
-
3.
How do you define glucose synthesis system?
-
4.
Identify the entities and attributes from the following list: Conference, Participant, Name, Integer, Number, and Percentage_of_Solid_Particles
-
5.
Describe the following two ER diagrams in the following space. Identify the differences between them (not shown here)
-
6.
Suggest how to improve the following ER diagrams (not shown here)
Appendix 2
Using the following description, jointly prepare an entity relationship diagram. If necessary, you can come up with entities or attributes of entities not mentioned in the description.
Cortisol is a type of steroid hormone that binds to the glucocorticoid receptor. Cortisol has a pharmaceutical name hydrocortisone. Hydrocortisone is an immunosuppressive and antiinflammatory drug. Hydrocortisone is available in different forms (such as creams and ointments) and in strengths ranging from 0.5% to 2.5%. Cortisol has both therapeutic use and side effects and thus it affects different body systems in different ways as mentioned next. As Cortisol turns immune activity down, therefore it is used to treat diseases that are caused by an overactive immune system. In such cases Cortisol is used to suppress the inflammation. Use of Cortisol on underactive immune system may be fatal. This is because Cortisol -prevents proliferation of T-cells by affecting the interleukin level. Use of Cortisol may cause loss of calcium and potassium. Thus, Cortisol has an effect on bone system. Its prolonged use might lead to osteoporosis. Cortisol also affects the glucose synthesis system. It counteracts insulin by increasing gluconeogenesis. Thus, administration of Cortisol leads to increased circulation of insulin and glucose concentrations in the blood.
Appendix 3
Conceptual model developed by Group 5
Conceptual model developed by Group 8
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bera, P. Interactions between Analysts in Developing Collaborative Conceptual Models. Inf Syst Front 23, 561–573 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09976-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09976-0