Advertisement

The Repercussions of Business Process Modeling Notations on Mental Load and Mental Effort

  • Michael ZimochEmail author
  • Rüdiger Pryss
  • Thomas Probst
  • Winfried Schlee
  • Manfred Reichert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)

Abstract

Over the last decade, plenty business process modeling notations emerged for the documentation of business processes in enterprises. During the learning of a modeling notation, an individual is confronted with a cognitive load that has an impact on the comprehension of a notation with its underlying formalisms and concepts. To address the cognitive load, this paper presents the results from an exploratory study, in which a sample of 94 participants, divided into novices, intermediates, and experts, needed to assess process models expressed in terms of eight different process modeling notations, i.e., BPMN 2.0, Declarative Process Modeling, eGantt Charts, EPCs, Flow Charts, IDEF3, Petri Nets, and UML Activity Diagrams. The study focus was set on the subjective comprehensibility and accessibility of process models reflecting participant’s cognitive load (i.e., mental load and mental effort). Based on the cognitive load, a factor reflecting the mental difficulty for comprehending process models in different modeling notations was derived. The results indicate that established modeling notations from industry (e.g., BPMN) should be the first choice for enterprises when striving for process management. Moreover, study insights may be used to determine which modeling notations should be taught for an introduction in process modeling or which notation is useful to teach and train process modelers or analysts.

Keywords

Business process modeling notations Cognitive load Mental load Mental effort Human-centered design 

References

  1. 1.
    Nowak, A., et al.: Flexible information design for business process visualizations. In: 5th International Conference on Service-Oriented Comp and App (SOCA 2012), pp. 1–8 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chong, S., Sadiq, S.: Major issues in business process management: An Expert Perspective, pp. 1240–1251 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gulla, J.A., Brasethvik, T.: On the challenges of business modeling in large-scale reengineering projects. In: International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 17–26 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG: Business Process Management & Notation 2.0 (2018). www.bpmn.org. Accessed 27 Feb 2018
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Soft, Tech., 41(10), 639–650 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schultheiss, L.A., Heiliger, E.: Techniques of flow-charting. In: Proceedings of the 1963 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processeing, pp. 62–78 (1963)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimoch, M., et al.: Cognitive insights into business process model comprehension: preliminary results for experienced and inexperienced individuals. In: Proceedings of the BPMDS 2017, pp. 137–152 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zimoch, M., et al.: Using insights from cognitive neuroscience to investigate the effects of event-driven process chains on process model comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Cognitive Business Process Management, pp. 446–459 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zimoch, M., et al.: Eye tracking experiments on process model comprehension: lessons learned. In: Proceedings of the BPMDS 2017, pp. 153–168 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. EMISA 190, 177–182 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paas, F., et al.: Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychol. 38, 63–71 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wickens, C.D.: Multiple resources and mental workload. Hum. Factors 50, 449–455 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paas, F.G., Van Merriënboer, J.J.: The efficiency of instructional conditions: an approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Hum. Factors 35, 737–743 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krell, M.: Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence. Cogent Educ. 4, 1280256 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ayres, P.: Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 20, 287–298 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baddeley, A.: Working memory. Science 255, 556–559 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Der Aalst, W.M., et al.: Declarative workflows: balancing between flexibility and support. Comp. Sci-Res. Dev. 23, 99–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lanz, A., Kolb, J., Reichert, M.: Enabling personalized process schedules with time-aware process views. In: Franch, X., Soffer, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNBIP, vol. 148, pp. 205–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38490-5_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, C.H., Yim, D.S., Weston, R.: An integrated use of IDEFO, IDEF3 and petri net methods in support of business process modelling. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part E: J. Process. Mech. Eng. 215(4), 317–329 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murata, T.: Petri Nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77, 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: UML activity diagrams as a workflow specification language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45441-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aguilar-Saven, R.S.: Business process modelling: review and framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 90, 129–149 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    White, S.A.: Process modeling notations and workflow patterns. In: Workflow Handbook, pp. 265–294 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering - An Introduction. Kluwer, New York (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kline, P.: Handbook of Psychological Testing, vol. 2. Routledge, Abingdon (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4, 295–312 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    List, B., Korherr, B.: An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2006), pp. 1532–1539 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang, W., Ding, H., Dong, J., Ren, C.: A comparison of business process modeling methods. In: International Conference on SOLI 2006, pp. 1136–1141 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A., Leopold, H.: An empirical review of the connection between model viewer characteristics and the comprehension of conceptual process models. In: Information Systems Frontiers, pp. 1–25 (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Bussler, C.J.: On structured workflow modelling. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 431–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45140-4_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension-findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 195–206 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Adopting the cognitive complexity measure for business process models. In: 5th International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI 2006), pp. 236–241 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Reducing the cognitive complexity of business process models. In: 8th International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI 2009), pp. 339–345 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Making the case for measuring mental effort. In: EESSMod 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martini, M., et al.: the impact of working memory and the process of process modelling on model quality: investigating experienced versus inexperienced modellers. In: Scientific Reports, vol. 6 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Zimoch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rüdiger Pryss
    • 1
  • Thomas Probst
    • 2
  • Winfried Schlee
    • 3
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Databases and Information SystemsUlm UniversityUlmGermany
  2. 2.Department for Psychotherapy and Biopsycho HealthDanube University KremsKrems an der DonauAustria
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyRegensburg UniversityRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations