Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Sensemaking in Dual Artefact Tasks – The Case of Business Process Models and Business Rules

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Conceptual Modeling (ER 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12400))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2576 Accesses

Abstract

Knowledge workers often have to navigate through multiple information artefacts to complete their tasks. Business process models and business rule repositories are two such artefacts, which when presented separately are known to cause a lack of shared understanding, conflicts and redundancies that can lead to inefficiencies and even compliance breaches. Although a number of integrated modeling approaches for business processes and rules have been proposed, there is a limited knowledge on how these approaches affect worker behavior and task performance. In this paper, we present the outcomes of an exploratory study undertaken to investigate the behavior of workers performing tasks that require dual artefacts namely business processes and rules. By using a sensemaking lens, our study reveals insights into worker behavior when the representation approach and task complexity is varied. Our results contribute to a better understanding of the sense making processes in various settings and inform modeling practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more specifications of eye tracker, please visit https://www.tobiipro.com/product-listing/tobii-pro-tx300/

  2. 2.

    Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric method when there are more than two groups.

  3. 3.

    Model originated from a travel booking diagram in OMG’s BPMN 2.0 examples can be viewed in http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/10-06-02

  4. 4.

    The experiment materials can be downloaded from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zfw5uq0jyja8tt6/AADx2fm8Y9SSqAkGwTDKD7ITa?dl=0

  5. 5.

    The Shapiro-Wilk test is a test of normality.

  6. 6.

    Dunn’s test is a non-parametric multiple comparison post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis test.

  7. 7.

    Levene’s test is an inferential statistic used to assess the equality of variances for a variable calculated for two or more groups.

  8. 8.

    Tukey’s HSD is a post-hoc analysis of ANOVA that can be used to find means that are significantly different from each other.

  9. 9.

    Process Mining and Automated Process Discovery Software for Professionals – Fluxicon Disco. https://fluxicon.com/disco/

  10. 10.

    The differences between the two phases for Q1, Q2 and Q3 are: text group: 27.57%, 17.86%, and 12% respectively; diagrammatic group: 29.18%, 22.67% and 7.38%; link group: 2.24%, 3.87% and 8.91%.

  11. 11.

    The differences between the two phases for Q1 and Q2 are: text group: 19.06% and 30.18% respectively; diagrammatic group: 12.60% and 7.18% respectively; link group: 23.49% and 18.74% respectively. In Q3, the reduction is not observed for text and link groups (−2% and −4.49%, respectively), while the diagrammatic group has a slight reduction (0.84%).

  12. 12.

    The difference of reduced transition between rule and other area is 22.75%, 1.32%, and 1.9% for Q1, Q2 and Q3 respectively.

  13. 13.

    The difference of reduced transition between rule and relevant area is 0.99%, 0.98%, and 4.12% for Q1, Q2 and Q3 respectively.

References

  1. Abbad Andaloussi, A., Burattin, A., Slaats, T., Petersen, A.C., Hildebrandt, T.T., Weber, B.: Exploring the understandability of a hybrid process design artifact based on DCR graphs. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Zdravkovic, J., Gulden, J., Schmidt, R. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2019. LNBIP, vol. 352, pp. 69–84. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20618-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen, F., Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Yu, K., Arshad, S.Z., Khawaji, A., Conway, D.: Robust Multimodal Cognitive Load Measurement. HIS. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31700-7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, T., Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S.: Business process and rule integration approaches - an empirical analysis. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNBIP, vol. 329, pp. 37–52. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98651-7_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Dervin, B.: Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. J. Knowl. Manage. 2(2), 36–46 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duchowski, A.T.: Eye tracking methodology. Theory Pract. 328(614), 2–3 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Duchowski, A.T.: Gaze-based interaction: a 30 year retrospective. Comput. Graph. 73, 59–69 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ganzin, M., Islam, G., Suddaby, R.: Spirituality and entrepreneurship: the role of magical thinking in future-oriented sensemaking. Organ. Stud. 41(1), 77–102 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Glöckner, A., Herbold, A.K.: An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. J. Behav. Decision Making 24(1), 71–98 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Governatori, G., Shek, S.: Rule based business process compliance. In: Proceedings of the RuleML2012@ECAI challenge, CEUR workshop proceedings, p. 874 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Haji, F.A., Rojas, D., Childs, R., de Ribaupierre, S., Dubrowski, A.: Measuring cognitive load: performance, mental effort and simulation task complexity. Med. Educ. 49(8), 815–827 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hogrebe, F., Gehrke, N., Nüttgens, M.: Eye tracking experiments in business process modeling: agenda setting and proof of concept. Enterprise modelling and in-formation systems architectures (EMISA 2011) (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ioannou, C., Nurdiani, I., Burattin, A., Weber, B.: Mining reading patterns from eye-tracking data: method and demonstration. Software Syst. Model. 19(2), 345–369 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00759-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A.: Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cogn. Psychol. 8(4), 441–480 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Klein, G., Moon, B., Hoffman, R.R.: Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(5), 88–92 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Knolmayer, Gerhard., Endl, Rainer, Pfahrer, M.: Modeling processes and workflows by business rules. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J.: The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 462–483 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marchionini, G.: Search, sense making and learning: closing gaps. Information and Learning Sciences (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Meghanathan, R.N., van Leeuwen, C., Nikolaev, A.R.: Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing. Front. Hum. Neuro-sci. 8, 1063 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Van Gerven, P.W.: Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychologist 38(1), 63–71 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Task-specific visual cues for improving process model understanding. Inf. Software Technol. 79, 63–78 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J.: Eye-tracking the factors of process model comprehension tasks. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, O. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 224–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38709-8_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Pirolli, P., Card, S.: The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, vol. 5, pp. 2–4. McLean, VA, USA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pirolli, P., Russell, D.: Introduction to this special issue on sensemaking. Hum. Comput. Interact. 26(1), 1–8 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rayner, K.: Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol. Bulletin 124(3), 372 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Russell, D.M., Stefik, M.J., Pirolli, P., Card, S.K.: The cost structure of sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT 1993 and CHI 1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 269–276 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stefik, M., et al.: The knowledge sharing challenge: the sensemaking white paper: Parc (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory. In: Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 55, pp. 37–76. Elsevier (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Talat, A., Riaz, Z.: An integrated model of team resilience: exploring the roles of team sensemaking, team bricolage and task interdependence. Personnel Review (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Turetken, O., Rompen, T., Vanderfeesten, I., Dikici, A., van Moll, J.: The effect of modularity representation and presentation medium on the understandability of business process models in BPMN. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 289–307. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Gog, T., et al.: Uncovering the problem-solving process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. J. Exper. Psychol. Appl. 11(4), 237–244 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S.W.: Cognitive efforts in using integrated models of business processes and rules. In: CAiSE Forum, pp. 33–40 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S., Weber, B.: Effect of linked rules on business process model understanding. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10445, pp. 200–215. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Weick, K.E.: Sensemaking in Organizations, vol. 3. Sage (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wood, R.E.: Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organizational Behav. Hum. Decision Processes 37(1), 60–82 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang, P., Soergel, D.: Cognitive mechanisms in sensemaking: a qualitative user study. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M., Kittel, K.: Towards integrated modeling of business processes and business rules. In: ACIS 2008 Proceedings, p. 108 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Tianwa Chen & Shazia Sadiq

  2. Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Marta Indulska

Authors
  1. Tianwa Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shazia Sadiq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Indulska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tianwa Chen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Gillian Dobbie

  2. University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Ulrich Frank

  3. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Gerti Kappel

  4. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

    Stephen W. Liddle

  5. University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria

    Heinrich C. Mayr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Chen, T., Sadiq, S., Indulska, M. (2020). Sensemaking in Dual Artefact Tasks – The Case of Business Process Models and Business Rules. In: Dobbie, G., Frank, U., Kappel, G., Liddle, S.W., Mayr, H.C. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12400. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62522-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62522-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62521-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62522-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics