On the Cognitive Effectiveness of Routing Symbols in Process Modeling Languages

Process models provide visual support for analyzing and improving complex organizational processes. In this paper, we discuss differences of process modeling languages using cognitive effectiveness considerations, to make statements about the ease of use and quality of user experience. Aspects of cognitive effectiveness are of importance for learning a modeling language, creating models, and understanding models. We identify the criteria representational clarity, perceptual discriminability, perceptual immediacy, visual expressiveness, and graphic parsimony to compare and assess the cognitive effectiveness of different modeling languages. We apply these criteria in an analysis of the routing elements of UML Activity Diagrams, YAWL, BPMN, and EPCs, to uncover their relative strengths and weaknesses from a quality of user experience perspective. We draw conclusions that are relevant to the usability of these languages in business process modeling projects.

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Wil M.P. van der Aalst,et al.  Getting rid of OR-joins and multiple start events in business process models , 2008, Enterp. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On the Usage of Labels and Icons in Business Process Modeling , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[4]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Verifying Workflows with Cancellation Regions and OR-joins: An Approach Based on Relaxed Soundness and Invariants , 2007, Comput. J..

[5]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Akhilesh Bajaj,et al.  COGEVAL: A Propositional Framework Based on Cognitive Theories To Evaluate Conceptual Models , 2004, CAiSE Workshops.

[7]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[8]  Marta Indulska,et al.  How good is BPMN really? Insights from theory and practice , 2006, ECIS.

[9]  A. Paivio.  Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[10]  John L. Santa,et al.  Spatial Transformations of Words and Pictures. , 1977 .

[11]  Martha E. Crosby,et al.  The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[12]  Stephen A. White,et al.  Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.0 , 2004 .

[13]  Keng Siau,et al.  Advanced Topics In Database Research , 2005 .

[14]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UMLFamily of Diagrams , 2009, SLE.

[15]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load While Learning to Use a Computer Program , 1996 .

[16]  Neil A. Ernst,et al.  A Framework for Empirical Evaluation of Model Comprehensibility , 2007, International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MISE'07: ICSE Workshop 2007).

[17]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG) , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[18]  Sangeet Khemlani,et al.  Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them , 2009, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning , 2002 .

[20]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Fundamentals of control flow in workflows , 2003, Acta Informatica.

[21]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[22]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[23]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[24]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[25]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions , 2007, Data Knowl. Eng..

[26]  G. Bower,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LEARNING AND M·OTIVATION , 2001 .

[27]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Business Process Modeling- A Comparative Analysis , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..