Cognitive complexity in business process modeling

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 6741 LNCS, Issue , 2011, Pages 452-466

  Figl, Kathrin ^a   Laue, Ralf ^b  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Business Process Models; Cognitive Complexity; Understandability

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL; BUSINESS PROCESS MODELING; COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY; COMPLEX MODEL; EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; HUMAN UNDERSTANDING; INTERACTIVITY; MODEL ELEMENTS; MODEL SET; PROCESS MODEL; RELATIONS BETWEEN MODELS; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; UNDERSTANDABILITY; HUMAN COMPREHENSIONS;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MODELS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

EID: 79960303172     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-21640-4_34     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

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)
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)
3. Genon, N., Heymans, P., Moody, D., Amyot, D.: Improving the cognitive effectiveness of the bpmn 2.0 visual syntax (2010)
4. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th International Conference on Business Information, pp. 1-12. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
5. Mendling, J.:Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (1974)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
13. Kirschner, P.A.: Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 12, 1-10 (2002)
14. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257-285 (1988)
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)
16. Genero, M., Manso, E., Visaggio, A., Canfora, G., Piattini, M.: Building measurebased prediction models for UML class diagram maintainability. Empirical Software Engineering 12, 517-549 (2007)
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)
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)
19. Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them. Memory & Cognition 37, 615-623 (2009)
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)
21. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 295-312 (1994)
22. Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. Data & Knowledge Engineering 68, 793-818 (2009)
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)
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)
25. Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Inf. Syst. J. 9, 139-156 (1999)
26. Gilmore, D.J., Green, T.R.G.: Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 21, 31-48 (1984)
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)
28. Petre, M.: Why looking isn't always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38, 33-44 (1995)
29. Reijers, H., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decision Support Systems (2011) (to appear)