research-article

On the cognitive and behavioral effects of abstraction and fragmentation in modularized process models

Authors: Clemens Schreiber, Amine Abbad-Andaloussi, Barbara WeberAuthors Info & Claims

Volume 125, Issue C

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2024.102424

Published: 18 October 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Process model comprehension is essential for a variety of technical and managerial tasks. To facilitate comprehension, process models are often divided into subprocesses when they reach a certain size. However, depending on the task type this can either support or impede comprehension. To investigate this hypothesis, we conduct a comprehensive eye-tracking study, where we test two different types of comprehension tasks. These are local tasks focusing on a single subprocess, thereby benefiting from abstraction (i.e., irrelevant information is hidden), and global tasks comprising multiple subprocesses, thereby also benefiting from abstraction but impeded by fragmentation (i.e., relevant information is distributed across multiple fragments). Our subsequent analysis at task (coarse-grained) and phase (fine-grained) levels confirms the opposing effects of abstraction and fragmentation. For global tasks, we observe lower task comprehension, higher cognitive load, as well as more complex search and inference behaviors, when compared to local ones. An additional qualitative analysis of search and inference phases, based on process maps and time series, provides additional insights into the evolution of information processing and confirms the differences between the two task types. The fine-grained analysis at the phase level is based on a novel research method, allowing to clearly separate information search from information inference. We provide an extensive validation of this research method. The outcome of this work provides a more thorough understanding of the effects of fragmentation, in the context of modularized process models, at a coarse-grained level as well as at a fine-grained level, allowing for the development of task- and user-centric support, and opening up future research opportunities to further investigate information processing during process comprehension.

References

[1]

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

[2]

Zugal S., Applying Cognitive Psychology for Improving the Creation, Understanding and Maintenance of Business Process Models, (Ph.D. thesis) University of Innsbruck, 2013.

[3]

Indulska M., Green P., Recker J., Rosemann M., Business process modeling: Perceived benefits, in: Conceptual Modeling-ER 2009: 28th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Gramado, Brazil, November 9-12, 2009. Proceedings 28, Springer, 2009, pp. 458–471.

[4]

Van Der Aalst W., Process Mining: Data Science in Action, Springer, 2016.

[5]

van Dun C., Moder L., Kratsch W., Röglinger M., ProcessGAN: Supporting the creation of business process improvement ideas through generative machine learning, Decis. Support Syst. 165 (2023).

Digital Library

[6]

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

[7]

Manglaras O., Farkas A., Fule P., Treude C., Wagner M., Problems in microservice development: Supporting visualisation, in: 2023 IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, VISSOFT, IEEE, 2023, pp. 62–72.

[8]

Bucchiarone A., Marconi A., Pistore M., Raik H., Dynamic adaptation of fragment-based and context-aware business processes, in: 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services, IEEE, 2012, pp. 33–41.

[9]

Reijers H.A., Mendling J., Modularity in process models: Review and effects, BPM, vol. 8, Springer, 2008, pp. 20–35.

[10]

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) (2022) 164–180.

[11]

Figl K., Laue R., Influence factors for local comprehensibility of process models, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 82 (2015) 96–110.

[12]

Petrusel R., Mendling J., Reijers H.A., Task-specific visual cues for improving process model understanding, Inf. Softw. Technol. 79 (2016) 63–78.

Digital Library

[13]

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

[14]

Recker J., Reijers H.A., van de Wouw S.G., Process model comprehension: the effects of cognitive abilities, learning style, and strategy, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34 (1) (2014) 9.

[15]

Vakkari P., Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval, Inf. Process. Manag. 35 (6) (1999) 819–837.

[16]

Haji-Abolhassani A., Clark J.J., A computational model for task inference in visual search, J. Vis. 13 (3) (2013) 29–29.

[17]

Choi B., Ward A., Li Y., Arguello J., Capra R., The effects of task complexity on the use of different types of information in a search assistance tool, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (TOIS) 38 (1) (2019) 1–28.

[18]

Larkin J.H., Simon H.A., Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cogn. Sci. 11 (1) (1987) 65–100.

[19]

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

[20]

Schreiber C., Abbad-Andaloussi A., Weber B., On the cognitive effects of abstraction and fragmentation in modularized process models, in: International Conference on Business Process Management, Springer, 2023, pp. 359–376.

[21]

Hewelt M., Weske M., A hybrid approach for flexible case modeling and execution, in: Business Process Management Forum: BPM Forum 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 18-22, 2016, Proceedings 14, Springer, 2016, pp. 38–54.

[22]

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 (2022).

[23]

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

[24]

Dunn C., Grabski S., An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations, Decis. Sci. 32 (1) (2001) 55–94.

[25]

Vessey I., Galletta D., Cognitive fit: An empirical study of information acquisition, Inf. Syst. Res. 2 (1) (1991) 63–84.

Digital Library

[26]

Ritchi H., Jans M.J., Mendling J., Reijers H., The influence of business process representation on performance of different task types, J. Inf. Syst. (2019).

[27]

Abbad Andaloussi A., Soffer P., Slaats T., Burattin A., Weber B., The impact of modularization on the understandability of declarative process models: A research model, in: Information Systems and Neuroscience: NeuroIS Retreat 2020, Springer, 2020, pp. 133–144.

[28]

Soffer P., Kaner M., Wand Y., Towards understanding the process of process modeling: theoretical and empirical considerations, in: Business Process Management Workshops: BPM 2011 International Workshops, Clermont-Ferrand, France, August 29, 2011, Revised Selected Papers, Part I 9, Springer, 2012, pp. 357–369.

[29]

Pinggera J., Soffer P., Fahland D., Weidlich M., Zugal S., Weber B., Reijers H.A., Mendling J., Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model, Softw. Syst. Model. 14 (2015) 1055–1080.

[30]

Claes J., Vanderfeesten I., Gailly F., Grefen P., Poels G., The structured process modeling theory (SPMT) a cognitive view on why and how modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling, Inf. Syst. Front. 17 (2015) 1401–1425.

[31]

Weber B., Pinggera J., Neurauter M., Zugal S., Martini M., Furtner M., Sachse P., Schnitzer D., Fixation patterns during process model creation: Initial steps toward neuro-adaptive process modeling environments, in: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, IEEE, 2016, pp. 600–609.

[32]

Burattin A., Kaiser M., Neurauter M., Weber B., Learning process modeling phases from modeling interactions and eye tracking data, Data Knowl. Eng. 121 (2019) 1–17.

[33]

Rosenthal K., Wagner J., Strecker S., Modeling styles in conceptual data modeling: Reflecting observations in a series of multimodal studies, in: ECIS 2022 Research Papers, 2022.

[34]

Rosenthal K., Strecker S., Snoeck M., Modeling difficulties in creating conceptual data models: Multimodal studies on individual modeling processes, Softw. Syst. Model. 22 (3) (2023) 1005–1030.

[35]

Philip W., Kristina R., Stefan S., Exploring conceptual data modeling processes: Insights from clustering and visualizing modeling sequences, in: Modellierung 2024, Gesellschaft für Informatik eV, 2024, pp. 25–42.

[36]

Petrusel R., Mendling J., Eye-tracking the factors of process model comprehension tasks, in: Salinesi C., Norrie M.C., Pastor O. (Eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 224–239.

[37]

Kim J., Hahn J., Hahn H., How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning, Inf. Syst. Res. 11 (3) (2000) 284–303.

[38]

Winter M., Neumann H., Pryss R., Probst T., Reichert M., Defining gaze patterns for process model literacy–exploring visual routines in process models with diverse mappings, Expert Syst. Appl. 213 (2023).

[39]

Shanks G., Moody D., Nuredini J., Tobin D., Weber R., Representing classes of things and properties in general in conceptual modelling: An empirical evaluation, J. Database Manag. (JDM) 21 (2) (2010) 1–25.

[40]

Haisjackl C., Barba I., Zugal S., Soffer P., Hadar I., Reichert M., Pinggera J., Weber B., Understanding declare models: strategies, pitfalls, empirical results, Softw. Syst. Model. 15 (2) (2016) 325–352.

[41]

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 (2021) 1437–1464.

[42]

Pesic M., Schonenberg H., Van Der Aalst W.M., Declare: Full support for loosely-structured processes, in: 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, (EDOC 2007), IEEE, 2007, 287–287.

[43]

Hildebrandt T.T., Mukkamala R.R., Declarative Event-Based Workflow as Distributed Dynamic Condition Response Graphs, Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 69 (2011) 59–73.

[44]

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: Business Process Management: 14th International Conference, BPM 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 18-22, 2016. Proceedings 14, Springer, 2016, pp. 289–307.

[45]

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

Digital Library

[46]

Mendling J., Reijers H.A., Van Der Aalst W.M., Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG), Inf. Softw. Technol. 52 (2) (2010) 127–136.

Digital Library

[47]

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

[48]

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

Digital Library

[49]

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. Inform. 7 (4) (2011) 614–629.

[50]

Van Der Aalst W.M., Weske M., Grünbauer D., Case handling: A new paradigm for business process support, Data Knowl. Eng. 53 (2) (2005) 129–162.

[51]

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 Manag. J. 20 (4) (2014) 615–633.

[52]

Fettke P., Reisig W., Modelling service-oriented systems and cloud services with heraklit, in: Advances in Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing: International Workshops of ESOCC 2020, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 28–30, 2020, Revised Selected Papers 8, Springer, 2021, pp. 77–89.

[53]

Keselman A., Slaughter L., Patel V.L., Toward a framework for understanding lay public’s comprehension of disaster and bioterrorism information, J. Biomed. Inform. 38 (4) (2005) 331–344.

[54]

Chen F., Zhou J., Wang Y., Yu K., Arshad S.Z., Khawaji A., Conway D., Robust Multimodal Cognitive Load Measurement, Springer, 2016.

[55]

Paas F., Tuovinen J.E., Tabbers H., Van Gerven P.W., Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory, Educ. Psychol. (2003).

[56]

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.

[57]

Weber B., Fischer T., Riedl R., Brain and autonomic nervous system activity measurement in software engineering: A systematic literature review, J. Syst. Softw. 178 (2021).

[58]

Sweller J., Ayres P., Slava K., Cognitive Load Theory, Springer, 2011.

[59]

Riedl R., Léger P., Fundamentals of neurois: Information systems and the brain, Studies in Neuroscience, Psychology and Behavioral Economics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015.

[60]

A.T. Duchowski, K. Krejtz, N.A. Gehrer, T. Bafna, P. Bækgaard, The Low/High Index of Pupillary Activity, in: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020, pp. 1–12.

[61]

Browne G.J., Pitts M.G., Stopping rule use during information search in design problems, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 95 (2) (2004) 208–224.

[62]

Browne G.J., Pitts M.G., Wetherbe J.C., Cognitive stopping rules for terminating information search in online tasks, MIS Q. (2007) 89–104.

[63]

Glöckner A., Herbold A.-K., An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes, J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 24 (1) (2011) 71–98.

[64]

Mayer R.E., Human nonadversary problem solving, Hum. Mach. Probl. Solving (1989) 39–56.

[65]

Glöckner A., Herbold A.-K., Information processing in decisions under risk: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes, MPI Collect. Goods Preprint 2008 (42) (2008).

[66]

Abbad Andaloussi A., Burattin A., Slaats T., Petersen A.C.M., Hildebrandt T.T., Weber B., Exploring the understandability of a hybrid process design artifact based on DCR graphs, in: Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling: 20th International Conference, BPMDS 2019, 24th International Conference, EMMSAD 2019, Held At CAiSE 2019, Rome, Italy, June 3–4, 2019, Proceedings 20, Springer, 2019, pp. 69–84.

[67]

Gulden J., Burattin A., Andaloussi A.A., Weber B., From analytical purposes to data visualizations: A decision process guided by a conceptual framework and eye tracking, Softw. Syst. Model. 19 (2020) 531–554.

[68]

Becker J., Rosemann M., Von Uthmann C., Guidelines of business process modeling, in: Business Process Management: Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, Springer, 2002, pp. 30–49.

[69]

Muehlen M.z., Recker J., How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation, in: Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering: 25 Years of CAiSE, Springer, 2013, pp. 429–443.

[70]

Reijers H.A., Mendling J., Dijkman R.M., Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension, Inf. Syst. 36 (5) (2011) 881–897.

[71]

Abbad-Andaloussi A., Lübke D., Weber B., Conducting eye-tracking studies on large and interactive process models using EyeMind, SoftwareX 24 (2023).

[72]

Fritz C.O., Morris P.E., Richler J.J., Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation., Journal of experimental psychology: General 141 (1) (2012) 2.

[73]

Berti A., van Zelst S., Schuster D., PM4py: A process mining library for python, Softw. Impacts 17 (2023).

[74]

Bose R.J.C., Van Der Aalst W.M., Žliobaitė I., Pechenizkiy M., Handling concept drift in process mining, in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 23rd International Conference, CAiSE 2011, London, UK, June 20-24, 2011. Proceedings 23, Springer, 2011, pp. 391–405.

[75]

Olson G.M., Duffy S.A., Mack R.L., Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes, in: New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research, Routledge, 2018, pp. 253–286.

[76]

Porta M., Ricotti S., Perez C.J., Emotional e-learning through eye tracking, in: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–6.

[77]

Lübke D., Ahrens M., Towards an experiment for analyzing subprocess navigation in bpmn tooling (short paper), in: ZEUS, 2022, pp. 1–5.

[78]

López A., Sànchez-Ferreres J., Carmona J., Padró L., From process models to chatbots, in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 31st International Conference, CAiSE 2019, Rome, Italy, June 3–7, 2019, Proceedings 31, Springer, 2019, pp. 383–398.

[79]

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. (2021).

[80]

Marquard M., Shahzad M., Slaats T., Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes, in: Business Process Management: 13th International Conference, BPM 2015, Innsbruck, Austria, August 31–September 3, 2015, Proceedings, Springer, 2015, pp. 209–225.

[81]

Mendling J., Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.

Index Terms

On the cognitive and behavioral effects of abstraction and fragmentation in modularized process models

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

On the Cognitive Effects of Abstraction and Fragmentation in Modularized Process Models
Business Process Management
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 ...
Process Model Abstraction: A Slider Approach
EDOC '08: Proceedings of the 2008 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference

Process models provide companies efficient means for managing their business processes. Tasks where process models are employed are different by nature and require models of various abstraction levels. However, maintaining several models of one business ...
The effects of modular process models on gaze patterns - A follow-up investigation about modularization in process model literacy
Abstract
Advanced organizational processes today require many process-relevant artifacts to be formally represented in process models. As these processes become more complex, process designers face the challenge of maintaining high comprehensibility while ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information Systems

Information Systems Volume 125, Issue C

Nov 2024

260 pages

Issue’s Table of Contents

The Author(s).

Publisher

Elsevier Science Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 18 October 2024

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

0
Total Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents