[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content

On the Cognitive Effects of Abstraction and Fragmentation in Modularized Process Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management (BPM 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14159))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 47.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 59.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability Statement

As pointed out in the relevant sections of the paper, the experiment and analysis material are available on GitHub [1].

Notes

  1. 1.

    See https://www.signavio.com/products/process-transformation-suite/.

  2. 2.

    A fixation refers to the time interval when the eye remains relatively stationary at a specific position within a visual field [18].

References

  1. Data repository. https://github.com/aminobest/BPM2023TaskType

  2. Emperical standard guidelines for experiments. https://github.com/acmsigsoft/EmpiricalStandards/blob/master/docs/Experiments.md

  3. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bera, P., Soffer, P., Parsons, J.: Using eye tracking to expose cognitive processes in understanding conceptual models. MIS Q. 43(4), 1105–1126 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models: a literature review. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59, 41–67 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A.: A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychol. Rev. 87(4), 329 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lübke, D., Ahrens, M.: Towards an experiment for analyzing subprocess navigation in bpmn tooling (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mandelburger, M.M., Mendling, J.: Cognitive diagram understanding and task performance in systems analysis and design. MIS Q. 45(4), 2101–2157 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How visual cognition influences process model comprehension. Decis. Support Syst. 96, 1–16 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Slava, K.: Cognitive load theory. Springer, New York (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4

  35. Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why some material is difficult to learn. Cogn. Instruction 12(3), 185–233 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Vessey, I.: Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis. Sci. 22(2), 219–240 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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

  42. Wolfe, J.M.: Guided search 2.0 a revised model of visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1, 202–238 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Zugal, S.: Applying cognitive psychology for improving the creation, understanding and maintenance of business process models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Innsbruck (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clemens Schreiber .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics