Assessing the Impact of Hierarchy on Model Understandability - A Cognitive Perspective

Modularity is a widely advocated strategy for handling complexity in conceptual models. Nevertheless, a systematic literature review revealed that it is not yet entirely clear under which circumstances modularity is most beneficial. Quite the contrary, empirical findings are contradictory, some authors even show that modularity can lead to decreased model understandability. In this work, we draw on insights from cognitive psychology to develop a framework for assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability. In particular, we identify abstraction and the split-attention effect as two opposing forces that presumably mediate the influence of modularity. Based on our framework, we describe an approach to estimate the impact of modularization on understandability and discuss implications for experiments investigating the impact of modularization on conceptual models.

[1]  Rob Davis BSc.  Business Process Modelling with ARIS: A Practical Guide , 2001, Springer London.

[2]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Hierarchical entity-relationship diagrams: the model, method of creation and experimental evaluation , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[3]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—A family of empirical studies , 2009, Empirical Software Engineering.

[4]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

[5]  Nadja Damij,et al.  Business process modelling using diagrammatic and tabular techniques , 2007, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[6]  Will Tracz,et al.  Computer programming and the human thought process , 1979, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[7]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Cognitive Load Effects on End User Understanding of Conceptual Models: An Experimental Analysis , 2004, ADBIS.

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

[9]  Peter Meso,et al.  Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[10]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Using Practitioners for Assessing the Understandability of UML Statechart Diagrams with Composite States , 2007, ER Workshops.

[11]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design , 2015, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[12]  Jan Mendling,et al.  On Measuring the Understandability of Process Models , 2009, Business Process Management Workshops.

[13]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Model of an Information System , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[14]  Patrick McDermott,et al.  Workflow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Application Development , 2001 .

[15]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Using Controlled Experiments for Validating UML Statechart Diagrams Measures , 2007, IWSM/Mensura.

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

[17]  Nereu F. Kock,et al.  Product flow, breadth and complexity of business processes: An empirical study of 15 business processes in three organizations , 1996 .

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

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

[20]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[21]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension , 2011, Inf. Syst..

[22]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Evaluating the effect of composite states on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[23]  Mario Piattini,et al.  An Empirical Study of the Nesting Level of Composite States Within UML Statechart Diagrams , 2005, ER.

[24]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[25]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Modularity in Process Models: Review and Effects , 2008, BPM.

[26]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[27]  P. Chandler,et al.  Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn , 1994 .