Abstract
Process models support a variety of tasks, which can be organized differently. Notably one can discern local tasks focusing on a single part of a model and global tasks requiring an overview of several parts. These two task types are assumed to affect users’ understanding of processes differently especially if the processes are decomposed into many interlinked and self-contained models through modularization. Local tasks can benefit from abstraction as they enable information hiding, while global tasks can be impeded by fragmentation caused by the split attention effect. Following a task-centric approach, we substantiate this hypothesis by investigating the cognitive effects of abstraction and fragmentation in modularization. Therein, we focus particularly on horizontal modularization and study users’ cognitive load, comprehension and behavior when solving local and global tasks. Our findings confirm that, compared to abstraction, fragmentation hinders users’ comprehension of the model and raises their cognitive load. Additionally, users exhibit different search and integration behaviors when performing local and global tasks. The outcome of this work motivates the shift from artifact-centric to task-centric empirical studies, raises the need for approaches to mitigate the effect of fragmentation and explores different alternatives to achieve this goal.
First author supported by the Karlsruhe House of Young Scientists Research Travel Grant. Second author supported by the International Postdoctoral Fellowship (IPF) Grant (Number: 1031574) from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
A fixation refers to the time interval when the eye remains relatively stationary at a specific position within a visual field [18].
References
Data repository. https://github.com/aminobest/BPM2023TaskType
Emperical standard guidelines for experiments. https://github.com/acmsigsoft/EmpiricalStandards/blob/master/docs/Experiments.md
Van der Aalst, W.M., Weske, M., Grünbauer, D.: Case handling: a new paradigm for business process support. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 129–162 (2005)
Abbad-Andaloussi, A., Burattin, A., Slaats, T., Kindler, E., Weber, B.: On the declarative paradigm in hybrid business process representations: a conceptual framework and a systematic literature study. Inf. Syst. 91, 101505 (2020)
Abbad-Andaloussi, A., Sorg, T., Weber, B.: Estimating developers’ cognitive load at a fine-grained level using eye-tracking measures. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension, pp. 111–121 (2022)
Abbad-Andaloussi, A., Zerbato, F., Burattin, A., Slaats, T., Hildebrandt, T.T., Weber, B.: Exploring how users engage with hybrid process artifacts based on declarative process models: a behavioral analysis based on eye-tracking and think-aloud. Softw. Syst. Model. 20, 1437–1464 (2021)
Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3
Bera, P., Soffer, P., Parsons, J.: Using eye tracking to expose cognitive processes in understanding conceptual models. MIS Q. 43(4), 1105–1126 (2019)
Biggers, L.R., Bocovich, C., Capshaw, R., Eddy, B.P., Etzkorn, L.H., Kraft, N.A.: Configuring latent dirichlet allocation based feature location. Empirical Softw. Eng. 19, 465–500 (2014)
Chen, F., Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Yu, K., Arshad, S.Z., Khawaji, A., Conway, D.: Robust Multimodal Cognitive Load Measurement. HIS, Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31700-7
Duchowski, A.T., Krejtz, K., Gehrer, N.A., Bafna, T., Bækgaard, P.: The low/high index of pupillary activity. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2020)
Dunn, C., Grabski, S.: An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations. Decis. Sci. 32(1), 55–94 (2001)
Fettke, P., Reisig, W.: Modelling service-oriented systems and cloud services with Heraklit. In: Zirpins, C., et al. (eds.) ESOCC 2020. CCIS, vol. 1360, pp. 77–89. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71906-7_7
Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models: a literature review. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59, 41–67 (2017)
Glöckner, A., Herbold, A.K.: Information processing in decisions under risk: evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. MPI collective goods preprint (2008/42) (2008)
Gonzalez-Lopez, F., Pufahl, L., Munoz-Gama, J., Herskovic, V., Sepúlveda, M.: Case model landscapes: toward an improved representation of knowledge-intensive processes using the fCM-language. Softw. Syst. Model. 20(5), 1353–1377 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00885-y
Hewelt, M., Weske, M.: A hybrid approach for flexible case modeling and execution. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNBIP, vol. 260, pp. 38–54. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45468-9_3
Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., van de Weijer, J.: Eye Tracking: a Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. OUP Oxford (2011)
Jamshidi, P., Pahl, C., Mendonça, N.C., Lewis, J., Tilkov, S.: Microservices: the journey so far and challenges ahead. IEEE Softw. 35(3), 24–35 (2018)
Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A.: A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychol. Rev. 87(4), 329 (1980)
Keselman, A., Slaughter, L., Patel, V.L.: Toward a framework for understanding lay public’s comprehension of disaster and bioterrorism information. J. Biomed. Inf. 38(4), 331–344 (2005)
Krumeich, J., Weis, B., Werth, D., Loos, P.: Event-driven business process management: where are we now?: A comprehensive synthesis and analysis of literature. Bus. Process Manage. J. 20(4), 615–633 (2014)
La Rosa, M., Wohed, P., Mendling, J., Ter Hofstede, A.H., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 7(4), 614–629 (2011)
Lübke, D., Ahrens, M.: Towards an experiment for analyzing subprocess navigation in bpmn tooling (2022)
Mandelburger, M.M., Mendling, J.: Cognitive diagram understanding and task performance in systems analysis and design. MIS Q. 45(4), 2101–2157 (2021)
Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., Slaats, T.: Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 209–225. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_15
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Van Gerven, P.W.: Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist (2003)
Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)
Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How visual cognition influences process model comprehension. Decis. Support Syst. 96, 1–16 (2017)
Recker, J.C., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari Sabegh, M., Samuel, B., Castellanos, A.: From representation to mediation: a new agenda for conceptual modeling research in a digital world. MIS Q. Manage. Inf. Syst. 45(1), 269–300 (2021)
Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Modularity in process models: review and effects. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85758-7_5
Ritchi, H., Jans, M.J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.: The influence of business process representation on performance of different task types. J. Inf. Syst. 34(1), 167–194 (2019)
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Slava, K.: Cognitive load theory. Springer, New York (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why some material is difficult to learn. Cogn. Instruction 12(3), 185–233 (1994)
Turetken, O., Rompen, T., Vanderfeesten, I., Dikici, A., van Moll, J.: The effect of modularity representation and presentation medium on the understandability of business process models in BPMN. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 289–307. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_17
Vessey, I.: Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis. Sci. 22(2), 219–240 (1991)
Wang, W., Chen, T., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S., Weber, B.: Business process and rule integration approaches-an empirical analysis of model understanding. Inf. Syst. 104, 101901 (2022)
Weber, B., Fischer, T., Riedl, R.: Brain and autonomic nervous system activity measurement in software engineering: a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 178, 110946 (2021)
Winter, M., Pryss, R., Probst, T., Baß, J., Reichert, M.: Measuring the cognitive complexity in the comprehension of modular process models. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 14(1), 164–180 (2022)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2
Wolfe, J.M.: Guided search 2.0 a revised model of visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1, 202–238 (1994)
Zugal, S.: Applying cognitive psychology for improving the creation, understanding and maintenance of business process models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Innsbruck (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Schreiber, C., Abbad-Andaloussi, A., Weber, B. (2023). On the Cognitive Effects of Abstraction and Fragmentation in Modularized Process Models. In: Di Francescomarino, C., Burattin, A., Janiesch, C., Sadiq, S. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14159. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41619-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41620-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)