Focused Conceptualisation: Framing Questioning and Answering in Model-Oriented Dialogue Games

  • Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
  • Ilona Wilmont
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 68)


This paper reports on a next step in a line of research taking the perspective that modelling as an activity is a ‘constrained conversation’. We focus on concrete communication situations in context of (enterprise) modelling sessions, with special attention to the involvement of ‘novice modellers’. We present some theoretical notions that are helpful in understanding why modelling performed by/with novice modellers can usually be best broken down in sub-tasks, and how such decomposed tasks can be analysed and structured to match the limited skills of (novice) modellers. The generic aspects presented are then linked to generic types of questions and answers that are both drivers and constraints for the ‘dialogue games’ played in conversations-for-modelling. We also present and illustrate an instrument for analysis, the ‘Focused Conceptualisation’ (FoCon), which can help identify, evaluate and create dialogue games for model-oriented communication situations; we discuss three working examples of the use of FoCons.


Conceptualisation enterprise modelling dialogue games collaborative modelling 


  1. 1.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., Weide, T.v.d.: Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation. In M. Goldkuhl, G Lind and S. Haraldson (eds.): Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP05), Kiruna, Sweden. Linkopings Universitet and Hogskolan I Boras, Linkoping, Sweden, EU, pp. 139-155 (2005) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Weigand, H., Rouwette, E.A.J.A.: Setting Rules of Play for Collaborative Modelling. In: Kock, N., Rittgen, P. (eds.) International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), vol. 5(4), pp. 7–52. IGI Publishing, USA (2009); Special Issue on Collaborative Business Information System Development Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ssebuggwawo, D., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A.: Interactions, Goals and Rules in a Collaborative Modelling Session. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A., Roelefs, J.: Concepts and Strategies for Quality of Modeling. In: Halpin, T.A., Krogstie, J., Proper, H.A. (eds.) Innovations in Information Systems Modeling, ch. 9, IGI Publishing, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., van Bommel, P., Jarvinen, A.: Method Engineering as Game Design-An Emerging HCO Perspective on Methods and CASE Tools. In: Halpin, T., et al. (eds.) Workshop Proceedings of EMMSAD 2008: Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design affiliated to CAiSE 2008, Montpellier, France, pp. 97–111 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leahy, W.M.: Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: An Outline of the Theory and Reflections on a Need for New Directions to Cater for Individual Differences and Motivation. In: Larson, J.E. (ed.) Educational Psychology: Cognition and Learning, Individual Differences and Motivation, ch. 8, Nova Science Publishers, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. (eds.): How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School; expanded edn. National Academy Press, Washington (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor, J.R.: Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: how to read an organisation. Ablex Publishing, New Jersey (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, F., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., Plantin, C., Walton, D.N., Willard, C.A., Woods, J., Zarefsky, D.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S.: Designing interaction as a dialogue game: Linking social and conceptual dimensions of the learning process. In: Juwah, C. (ed.) Interactions in Online Education: implications for theory and practice, ch. 4, pp. 73–90. Routledge, New York (2006), Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cañas, A.J., Novak, J.D., González, F.M. (eds.): Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, Pamplona, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Novak, J.D., Cañas, A.J.: The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. Technical Report, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, IHMC (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilmont, I., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A.: Exploring Intuitive Modelling Behaviour. In: EMMSAD 2010. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 301–313. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Colburn, T., Shute, G.: Abstraction in computer science. Minds and Machines 17(2), 169–184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolfschoten, G.L.: Theoretical Foundations for Collaboration Engineering. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lentz, L., Pander Maat, H.: Functional Analysis for Document Design. Technical Communication 51(3), 387–398 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frederiks, P.J.M., van der Weide, T.P.: Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58(1), 4–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Vennix, J.A.M.: System dynamics and organizational interventions. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23(4), 451–466 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andersen, D.F., Richardson, G.P.: Scripts for Group Model Building. System Dynamics Review 13(2), 107–129 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
    • 1
  • Ilona Wilmont
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations