Revisiting the Panko-Halverson Taxonomy of Spreadsheet Errors

Revisiting the Panko–HalversonTaxonomy of Spreadsheet Errors Raymond R. Panko Proceedings of EuSpRIG 2008 Conference " In Pursuit of Spreadsheet Excellence " 199 ISBN : 978-905617-69-2 Copyright © 2008 European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group (www.eusprig.org) and Author Revisiting the Panko–Halverson Taxonomy of Spreadsheet Errors Raymond R. Panko University of Hawaii Panko@hawaii.edu 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to revisit the Panko–Halverson [1996] taxonomy of spreadsheet errors and suggest revisions. There are several reasons for doing so.
First, the taxonomy has been widely used. Therefore, it should have scrutiny.
Second, the taxonomy has not widely available in its original form [Panko & Halverson, 1996]. Consequently, most users refer to secondary sources. Consequently, they often equate the taxonomy with the simplified extracts used in particular experiments or field studies.
Third, perhaps as a consequence, most users use only a fraction of the taxonomy. In particular, they tend not to use the taxonomy’s life-cycle dimension.
Fourth, the taxonomy has been tested against spreadsheets in experiments and spreadsheets in operational use. It is time to review how it has fared in these tests.
Fifth, the taxonomy was based on the types of spreadsheet errors that were known to the authors in the mid-1990s. Subsequent experience has shown that the taxonomy needs to be extended for situations beyond those original experiences.
Sixth, the omission category in the taxonomy has proven to be too narrow. Although this paper will focus on the Panko–Halverson taxonomy, this does not mean that that it is the only possible error taxonomy or even the best error taxonomy. 1.1 Taxonomies Taxonomies have long been used in science. Senders and Moray [1991], writing about human error, wrote that: … a taxonomy is a fundamental requirement for the foundation of empirical science. If we want a deep understanding of the nature, origins, and causes of human error, it is necessary to have an unambiguous classification scheme for describing the phenomenon we are studying. [Senders and Moray, 1991, p. 82.] For our purposes, we will define a taxonomy as the division of a large number of entities into a number of related categories whose differences are useful for a particular purpose. The first emphasis is the ordering of many entities into categories. Ideally, the categories will be comprehensive, encompassing all entities. In addition, the categories ideally should be mutually exclusive, without overlap. In mathematical terms, there should be a one-to-one correspondence between entities and categories. The second emphasis is usefulness for a particular purpose [Senders and Moray, 1991]. There is no such thing as “best” error taxonomy for spreadsheets [Grossman and Özlük, 2003] or any other type of human cognitive activity. Researchers and professionals with different focuses may need different things from error taxonomies. For instance, designers need error taxonomies that distinguish between Revisiting the Panko–Halverson Taxonomy of Spreadsheet Errors Raymond R. Panko

Proceedings of EuSpRIG 2008 Conference " In Pursuit of Spreadsheet Excellence " ISBN : 978-905617-69-2 Copyright © 2008 European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group (www.eusprig.org ) and Author 200 types of errors that need different amelioration strategies. The legal system, in contrast, needs distinctions that help assign responsibility for damages [Senders & Moray, 1991]. Researchers with different purposes need different things from taxonomies and so may need different taxonomies. In addition, several taxonomies are needed because each taxonomy will illuminate some aspects of the phenomenon while blinding the researcher or practitioner to other aspects. This occurs because theories in general illuminate tend to some things while ignoring others. For example, Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow [1999] analyzed the Cuban missile crisis from the viewpoint of several different theories about decision making. They showed how each theory was shockingly oblivious to certain types of evidence. 1.2 Phenomenological versus Theory-Based Taxonomies Senders and Moray [1991] distinguished between different levels of taxonomy. The most superficial level consists of phenomenological taxonomies that are based on simple descriptions of error manifestations. For instance, typing errors at this level would be described by such things as key transpositions and other visible manifestation of errors. At the level of phenomenological errors, there is no explanation for why different errors occur, but taxonomies at this level may spur research into why specific types of errors occur. Although one would prefer deeper taxonomies, phenomenological taxonomies can be very useful. Most obviously, they can focus subsequent research. In the human error field, if

…(Full text truncated)…

This content is AI-processed based on ArXiv data.