Abstract
Modularity is a widely advocated strategy for handling complexity in conceptual models. Nevertheless, a systematic literature review revealed that it is not yet entirely clear under which circumstances modularity is most beneficial. Quite the contrary, empirical findings are contradictory, some authors even show that modularity can lead to decreased model understandability. In this work, we draw on insights from cognitive psychology to develop a framework for assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability. In particular, we identify abstraction and the split-attention effect as two opposing forces that presumably mediate the influence of modularity. Based on our framework, we describe an approach to estimate the impact of modularization on understandability and discuss implications for experiments investigating the impact of modularization on conceptual models.
This research is supported by Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P23699-N23.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Parnas, D.L.: On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM 15, 1053–1058 (1972)
van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30, 245–275 (2005)
Davies, R.: Business Process Modelling With Aris: A Practical Guide. Springer (2001)
Damij, N.: Business process modelling using diagrammatic and tabular techniques. Business Process Management Journal 13, 70–90 (2007)
Sharp, A., McDermott, P.: Workfllow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Application Development. Artech House (2011)
Kock, N.F.: Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: An empirical study of 15 business processes in three organizations. Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal 2, 8–22 (1996)
Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information & Software Technology 52, 127–136 (2010)
Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Piattini, M.: Evaluating the Effect of Composite States on the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 113–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—A family of empirical studies. Empir. Software Eng. 25, 685–719 (2009)
Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: Conceptualizing systems for understanding: An empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. ISR 17, 38–60 (2006)
Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Khalil, M.: Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. JSS 80, 571–583 (2007)
Cruz-Lemus, J., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: Using Controlled Experiments for Validating UML Statechart Diagrams Measures. In: Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J., Braungarten, R., Dumke, R.R., Abran, A. (eds.) IWSM-Mensura 2007. LNCS, vol. 4895, pp. 129–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Cruz-Lemus, J., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Toval, A.: Investigating the nesting level of composite states in uml statechart diagrams. In: Proc. QAOOSE 2005, pp. 97–108 (2005)
Shoval, P., Danoch, R., Balabam, M.: Hierarchical entity-relationship diagrams: the model, method of creation and experimental evaluation. Requirements Engineering 9, 217–228 (2004)
Moody, D.L.: Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 129–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Systems 36, 881–897 (2011)
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)
Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Morasca, S., Piattini, M.: Using Practitioners for Assessing the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams with Composite States. In: Hainaut, J.-L., Rundensteiner, E.A., Kirchberg, M., Bertolotto, M., Brochhausen, M., Chen, Y.-P.P., Cherfi, S.S.-S., Doerr, M., Han, H., Hartmann, S., Parsons, J., Poels, G., Rolland, C., Trujillo, J., Yu, E., Zimányie, E. (eds.) ER Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4802, pp. 213–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Toval, A.: An Empirical Study of the Nesting Level of Composite States Within UML Statechart Diagrams. In: Akoka, J., Liddle, S.W., Song, I.-Y., Bertolotto, M., Comyn-Wattiau, I., van den Heuvel, W.-J., Kolp, M., Trujillo, J., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2005. LNCS, vol. 3770, pp. 12–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–100 (1987)
Tracz, W.J.: Computer programming and the human thought process. Software: Practice and Experience 9, 127–137 (1979)
Miller, G.: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review 63, 81–97 (1956)
Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–285 (1988)
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Gerven, P.W.M.V.: Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist 38, 63–71 (2003)
Wand, Y., Weber, R.: An ontological model of an information system. IEEE TSE 16, 1282–1292 (1990)
Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction 12, 185–233 (1994)
Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20, 476–493 (1994)
Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study into the Factors that Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. SMCA 41, 449–462 (2011)
Melcher, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Seese, D.: On Measuring the Understandability of Process Models. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 465–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A. (2012). Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability – A Cognitive Perspective. In: Kienzle, J. (eds) Models in Software Engineering. MODELS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7167. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29645-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29645-1_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29644-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29645-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)