Investigating the usability and utility of tangible modelling of socio-technical architectures

Socio-technical models are models that represent social as well as technical elements of the modeling subject, where the technical part consists of both physical and digital elements. Examples are enterprise models and models of the target of assessment used in risk assessment. Constructing and validating these models often implies a challenging task of extracting and integrating information from a multitude of stakeholders which are rarely modelling experts and don’t usually have the time or desire to engage in modelling activities. We investigate a promising approach to overcome this challenge by using physical tokens to represent the model. We call the resulting models tangible models. In this paper we illustrate this idea by creating a tangible representations of a socio-technical modelling language used in Risk Assessment and provide an initial validation of the relative usability and utility of tangible versus abstract modelling by an experiment and a focus group, respectively. We discuss possible psychological and social mechanisms that could explain the enhanced usability and utility of tangible modelling approaches for domain experts. Finally, we discuss the generalizability of this approach to other languages and modelling purposes.

[1]  J. Underkoff Urp : A Luminous-Tangible Workbench for Urban Planning and Design , 1999, CHI 1999.

[2]  Zachary N. J. Peterson,et al.  Valuing Security by Getting [d0x3d!]: Experiences with a Network Security Board Game , 2013, CSET.

[3]  Oren Zuckerman,et al.  To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  James R. Lewis,et al.  Psychometric evaluation of an after-scenario questionnaire for computer usability studies: the ASQ , 1991, SGCH.

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

[6]  Marc Rettig,et al.  Prototyping for tiny fingers , 1994, CACM.

[7]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[8]  G. A. Miller The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. , 1956, Psychological review.

[9]  M. C. van der Voort,et al.  The Procedure Usability Game: A Participatory Game for the Development of Complex Medical Procedures & Products , 2009 .

[10]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Tangible Business Process Modeling - Methodology and Experiment Design , 2009, Business Process Management Workshops.

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

[12]  Werner Schmidt,et al.  Tangible or Not Tangible - A Comparative Study of Interaction Types for Process Modeling Support , 2014, HCI.

[13]  David P. Tegarden,et al.  Using Cognitive Fit Theory to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Information Visualizations: An Example Using Quality Assurance Data , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[14]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces , 1995, CHI '95.

[15]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Enhancement of response times to bi- and tri-modal sensory stimuli during active movements , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  Sandro Etalle,et al.  Experimental Validation of a Risk Assessment Method , 2015, REFSQ.

[17]  Maria-Eugenia Iacob,et al.  ArchiMate 2.0 Specification: The Open Group , 2012 .

[18]  Joseph Barjis Collaborative, Participative and Interactive Enterprise Modeling , 2009, ICEIS.

[19]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering , 2014, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.