• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.97-116
• /
• 2012

Conceptual modeling is an important step for successful system development. It helps system designers and business practitioners share the same view on domain knowledge. If the work is successful, a result of conceptual modeling can be beneficial in increasing productivity and reducing failures. However, the value of conceptual modeling is unlikely to be evaluated uniformly because we are lack of agreement on how to elicit concepts and how to represent those with conceptual modeling constructs. Especially, designing relationships between components, also known as part-whole relationships, have been regarded as complicated work. The recent study, "Representing Part-Whole Relations in Conceptual Modeling : An Empirical Evaluation" (Shanks et al., 2008), published in MIS Quarterly, can be regarded as one of positive efforts. Not only the study is one of few attempts of trying to clarify how to select modeling alternatives in part-whole design, but also it shows results based on an empirical experiment. Shanks et al. argue that there are two modeling alternatives to represent part-whole relationships : an implicit representation and an explicit one. By conducting an experiment, they insist that the explicit representation increases the value of a conceptual model. Moreover, Shanks et al. justify their findings by citing the BWW ontology. Recently, the study from Shanks et al. faces criticism. Allen and March (2012) argue that Shanks et al.'s experiment is lack of validity and reliability since the experimental setting suffers from error-prone and self-defensive design. They point out that the experiment is intentionally fabricated to support the idea, as such that using concrete UML concepts results in positive results in understanding models. Additionally, Allen and March add that the experiment failed to consider boundary conditions; thus reducing credibility. Shanks and Weber (2012) contradict flatly the argument suggested by Allen and March (2012). To defend, they posit the BWW ontology is righteously applied in supporting the research. Moreover, the experiment, they insist, can be fairly acceptable. Therefore, Shanks and Weber argue that Allen and March distort the true value of Shanks et al. by pointing out minor limitations. In this study, we try to investigate the dispute around Shanks et al. in order to answer to the following question : "What is the proper value of the study conducted by Shanks et al.?" More profoundly, we question whether or not using the BWW ontology can be the only viable option of exploring better conceptual modeling methods and procedures. To understand key issues around the dispute, first we reviewed previous studies relating to the BWW ontology. We critically reviewed both of Shanks and Weber and Allen and March. With those findings, we further discuss theories on part-whole (or part-of) relationships that are rarely treated in the dispute. As a result, we found three additional evidences that are not sufficiently covered by the dispute. The main focus of the dispute is on the errors of experimental methods: Shanks et al. did not use Bunge's Ontology properly; the refutation of a paradigm shift is lack of concrete, logical rationale; the conceptualization on part-whole relations should be reformed. Conclusively, Allen and March indicate properly issues that weaken the value of Shanks et al. In general, their criticism is reasonable; however, they do not provide sufficient answers how to anchor future studies on part-whole relationships. We argue that the use of the BWW ontology should be rigorously evaluated by its original philosophical rationales surrounding part-whole existence. Moreover, conceptual modeling on the part-whole phenomena should be investigated with more plentiful lens of alternative theories. The criticism on Shanks et al. should not be regarded as a contradiction on evaluating modeling methods of alternative part-whole representations. To the contrary, it should be viewed as a call for research on usable and useful approaches to increase value of conceptual modeling.