Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On the Cognitive Effectiveness of Routing Symbols in Process Modeling Languages

  • Conference paper
Business Information Systems (BIS 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 47))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1203 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: Yet Another Workflow Language. Information Systems 30(4) (June 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aranda, J., Ernst, N., Horkoff, J., Easterbrook, S.M.: A framework for empirical evaluation of model comprehensibility. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2007), Minneapolis, USA (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G.: Working memory. In: The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 8, pp. 47–89. Academic Press, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bajaj, A., Rockwell, S.: COGEVAL: A Propositional Framework Based on Cognitive Theories To Evaluate Conceptual Models. In: Siau, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Database Research, pp. 255–282. Idea Group Publishing, USA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chandler, P., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(2), 151–170 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 9(4), 248–260 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.-W.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK) (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Disjunctive illusory inferences and how to eliminate them. Memory & Cognition 37(5), 615–623 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Informatica 39(3), 143–209 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirschner, P.A.: Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 12(1), 1–10 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–100 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Maes, A., Poels, G.: Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 63(3), 701–724 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mayer, R.E.: Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mendling, J., Recker, J., Reijers, H.A.: On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 1(2) (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information and Software Technology (2) (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mendling, J., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Getting rid of or-joins and multiple start events in business process models. Enterprise Information Systems 2(4), 403–419 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63, 81–97 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moody, D., Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the Visual Syntax of UML: An Analysis of the Cognitive Effectiveness of the UML Family of Diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Nielsen, J.: Usability 101: Introduction to usability (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nordbotten, J.C., Crosby, M.E.: The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Information Systems Journal 9(2), 139–155 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. OMG. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), Version 1.2, formal 2009-01-03, The Object Management Group (January 2009), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2/

  22. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML): Superstructure, Version 2.2, formal 2009-02-02, The Object Management Group (February 2009), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm

  23. Paivio, A.: Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology 45(3), 255–287 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: How good is bpmn really? insights from theory and practice. In: Ljungberg, J., Andersson, M. (eds.) 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden, pp. 1582–1593. Association for Information Systems (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling- a comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(4), 333–363 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Santa, J.L.: Spatial transformations of words and pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory 3, 418–427 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 45(2), 185–213 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 12(2), 257–285 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Verbeek, H.M.V., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Verifying workflows with cancellation regions and or-joins: An approach based on relaxed soundness and invariants. The Computer Journal 50(3), 294–314 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vessey, I.: Cognitive Fit: A Theory-Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature*. Decision Sciences 22(2), 219–240 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Kathrin Figl & Mark Strembeck

  2. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099, Berlin, Germany

    Jan Mendling

  3. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Jan Recker

Authors
  1. Kathrin Figl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Mendling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Strembeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Recker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland

    Witold Abramowicz

  2. Institut für Informatik, Freie Universität Berlin, Takustr. 9, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Robert Tolksdorf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Figl, K., Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J. (2010). On the Cognitive Effectiveness of Routing Symbols in Process Modeling Languages. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds) Business Information Systems. BIS 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 47. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12814-1_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12814-1_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12813-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12814-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics