Advertisement

Cognitive Complexity in Business Process Modeling

  • Kathrin Figl
  • Ralf Laue
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)

Abstract

Although (business) process models are frequently used to promote human understanding of processes, practice shows that understanding complex models soon reach cognitive limits. The aim of this paper is to investigate the cognitive difficulty of understanding different relations between model elements. To allow for empirical assessment of this research question we systematically constructed model sets and comprehension questions. The results of an empirical study with 199 students tend to suggest that comprehension questions on order and concurrency are easier to answer than on repetition and exclusiveness. Additionally, results lend support to the hypothesis that interactivity of model elements influences cognitive difficulty. While our findings shed light on human comprehension of process models, they also contribute to the question on how to assure understandability of models in practice.

Keywords

Business Process Models Understandability Cognitive Complexity 

References

  1. 1.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Modularity in process models: Review and effects. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Business Process Management, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Schlender, B., Frielinghaus, W. (eds.) Business Information Systems. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142–153. Springer, Heidelberg (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Genon, N., Heymans, P., Moody, D., Amyot, D.: Improving the cognitive effectiveness of the bpmn 2.0 visual syntax (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th International Conference on Business Information, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendling, J.:Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (1974)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    González, L.S., Rubio, F.G., González, F.R., Velthuis, M.P.: Measurement in business processes: a systematic review. Business Process Management Journal 16, 114–134 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What makes process models understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aranda, J., Ernst, N., Horkoff, J., Easterbrook, S.: A framework for empirical evaluation of model comprehensibility. In: MISE 2007: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang, J., Hendrix, T.D., Chang, K.H., Umphress, D.: An empirical validation of complexity profile graph. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Southeast Regional Conference. ACM-SE 43, vol. 1, pp. 143–149. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biggerstaff, T.J., Mitbander, B.G., Webster, D.: The concept assignment problem in program understanding. In: ICSE 1993: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 482–498 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moody, D.L.: Metrics for evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 211–225. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirschner, P.A.: Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 12, 1–10 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Genero, M., Manso, E., Visaggio, A., Canfora, G., Piattini, M.: Building measure-based prediction models for UML class diagram maintainability. Empirical Software Engineering 12, 517–549 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cant, S.N., Jeffery, D.R.: A conceptual model of cognitive complexity of elements of the programming process. Information and Software Tech. 37, 351–362 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 43, pp. 465–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them. Memory & Cognition 37, 615–623 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mendling, J., Neumann, G., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In: Chung, S. (ed.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 295–312 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68, 793–818 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cant, S., Jeffery, D., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A conceptual model of cognitive complexity of elements of the programming process. Information and Software Tech. 37, 351–362 (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laue, R., Gaddatsch, A.: Measuring the understandability of business process models - are we asking the right questions? In: 6th International Workshop on Business Process Design (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Inf. Syst. J. 9, 139–156 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.G.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21, 31–48 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parsons, J., Cole, L.: What do the pictures mean?: guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 327–342 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38, 33–44 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reijers, H., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decision Support Systems (2011) (to appear)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathrin Figl
    • 1
  • Ralf Laue
    • 2
  1. 1.Vienna University of Economics and Business AdministrationAustria
  2. 2.Computer Science FacultyUniversity of LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations