Graphical Entity Relationship models: Towards a more user understandable representation of data

  • Daniel Moody
Session 6: Principles of Database Design
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1157)

Abstract

The Entity Relationship Model was originally proposed as a way of representing user requirements in a way that non-technical users could understand. However anecdotal evidence and empirical studies both indicate that users have major difficulties understanding Entity Relationship models in practice. This paper proposes a number of modifications to the Entity Relationship Model to make it more understandable to business users. These include the use of an enhanced graphical representation, levels of abstraction and the use of business scenarios. This method has been used successfully in a wide range of organisational contexts, and has been particularly successful at the corporate level, where understandability of models has been found to be a major barrier to their acceptance and use. In addition, an automated tool has been developed to support the technique, which allows users to interact directly with the model and understand how it works through the use of animation.

Keywords

Subject Area Database Design Soft System Methodology Rich Picture Business User 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S. and Navathe, S.B., “Conceptual Database Design: An Entity Relationship Approach”, Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City, California, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berman, S.,“A Semantic Data Model As The Basis For An Automated Database Design Tool”, Information Systems, Vol 11, No. 2, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brodie, M.L., Myopolous, J. and Schmidt, J.W. (Eds), On Conceptual Modelling, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butler Cox Foundation, Requirements Definition: The Key to Systems Development Productivity, Position Paper No. 4, Butler Cox and Partners Limited, London, November, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell, D.,“Entity Relationship Modelling: One Style Suits All”, Database, Summer, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J., Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Checkland, P.B., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, P.P., The Entity-Relationship Model: Towards a Unified View of Data, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Date, C.J., Relational Database: Selected Writings, Addison-Wesley, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Bono, Edward, De Bono's Thinking Course, BBC Books, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Marco, T., Structured Analysis and System Specification, Yourdon Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dumpala, S.R. and Arora, S.V., Schema translation using the Entity-Relationship Approach, In Chen, P.P. (ed.) The Entity-Relationship Approach to Information Modelling and Analysis, North-Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elmasri, R., and Navathe, S.B., “Fundamentals of Database Systems”, Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City, California, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feldman, P. and Miller, D., Entity Model Clustering: Structuring a Data Model by Abstraction, The Computer Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4,1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finklestein, C., “An Introduction to Information Engineering: From Strategic Planning to Information Systems”, Addison-Wesley, Singapore, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flood, R.L. and Carson, E.R., Dealing With Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, Plenum Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldstein, R.C. and Storey, V.C., “Some Findings On The Intuitiveness of Entity Relationship Constructs”, In Entity Relationship Relationship Approach to Database Design and Querying”, Lochovsky, F.H. (ed.), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hawryszkiewycz, I.T., “Database Analysis and Design”, Science Research Associates, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hitchman, S., “Practitioner Perceptions On The Use Of Some Semantic Concepts In The Entity Relationship Model”, European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 31–40, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hull, R. and King, R. Semantic Data Models, ACM Computing Surveys, September, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO, Information Processing Systems: Concepts And Terminology For The Conceptual Schema And The Information Base. ISO Technical Report 9007, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobson, I., “Object Oriented Systems Engineering”, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jacobson, I., “The Object Advantage”, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kent, W. The Realities Of Data: Basic Properties Of Data Reconsidered. In Steel, T.B. And Meersman, R. Data Semantics. North-Holland, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koestler, A., The Act of Creation, Dell, 1964.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Konsynski, B.R., Database Driven Systems, University of Arizona Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewis, P.J., “Rich Picture Building in the Soft Systems Methodology”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 5, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lipowski, Z.J., Sensory and Information Inputs Overload, Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 16, 3, May/June, 1975.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Martin, J., “Recommended Diagramming Standards For Analysts and Programmers: A Basis for Automation”, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin, J., Strategic Data Planning Methodologies, Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller, G., The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information, The Psychological Review, March, 1956.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mittermier, R.T., Hsia, P. and Yeh, R.T., “Alternatives to Overcome the Communication Problem of Formal Requirements Analysis”, in Galliers, R. (ed), Information Analysis: Selected Readings, Sydney, Addison-Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moody, D.L. and Shanks, G.G., “What Makes A Good Data Model? Evaluating the Quality of Entity Relationship Models”, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, Manchester, England, December 14–17, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moody, D.L., “A Practical Methodology for the Representation of Large Data Models”, Proceedings of the Australian Database and Information Systems Conference, University of N.S.W., Sydney, Australia, February, 1991.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moody, D.L., “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Data Modellers”, Database Programming & Design, October, 1996.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moriarty, T., “Testing from the Top”, Database Programming and Design, August, 1993b.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moriarty, T., “Where's The Business?”, Database Programming and Design, July, 1993a.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Newell A., and Simon, H.A., Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Page-Jones, M., A Practical Guide to Structured Systems Design, Yourdon Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peckham, J. and Maryanski, F. Semantic Database Modelling: Survey, Application and Research Issues, ACM Computing Surveys, September, 1987.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shanks, G.G., “Enterprise Data Architectures: An Empirical Study”, Monash University Working Paper, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, August, 1996.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Simon, H.A. Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Simsion, G.C., A Structured Approach to Data Modelling, The Australian Computer Journal, August, 1989.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Simsion, G.C., Data Modelling Essentials: Analysis, Design and Innovation, International Thomson Computer Press, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Swatman, P.A. and Swatman, P.M.C., “Formal Specification-An Analytic Tool For Management Information Systems”, Journal of Information Systems, April, 1992.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Teory, T.J., Yang, D. and Fry, J.P., A Logical Design Methodology for relational databases using the extended Entity Relationship Model, ACM Computing Surveys, 18, 2, 1986.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Uhr, L., Vossier, C., and Weman, J., Pattern Recognition over Distortions by Human Subjects and a Computer Model of Human Form Perception, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1962.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wood-Harper, A.T., Antill, L., Avison, D.E., Information Systems Definition: The Multiview Approach, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Moody
    • 1
  1. 1.Simsion Bowles and AssociatesMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations