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.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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)
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)
Genon, N., Heymans, P., Moody, D., Amyot, D.: Improving the cognitive effectiveness of the bpmn 2.0 visual syntax (2010)
Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th International Conference on Business Information, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Mendling, J.:Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (1974)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Kirschner, P.A.: Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 12, 1–10 (2002)
Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–285 (1988)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them. Memory & Cognition 37, 615–623 (2009)
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)
Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 295–312 (1994)
Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68, 793–818 (2009)
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)
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)
Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Inf. Syst. J. 9, 139–156 (1999)
Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.G.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21, 31–48 (1984)
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)
Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38, 33–44 (1995)
Reijers, H., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decision Support Systems (2011) (to appear)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Figl, K., Laue, R. (2011). Cognitive Complexity in Business Process Modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6741. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21640-4_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21640-4_34
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21639-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21640-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)