Colloquium@TUe
Description
Slides of my presentation at Eindhoven University of Technology, 3 October 2013, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Transcript
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
TU/e Colloquium 2013
2 October, 2013
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
The process of process modeling
and process model quality
Jan Claes
Teaching assistant : PhD 2009 – 2015 : Joint PhD
Supervisors : Geert Poels (UGent) and Paul Grefen (TU/e)
Co-supervisors : Frederik Gailly (UGent) and Irene Vanderfeesten (TU/e)
TU/e Colloquium 2013
2/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Outline
Process of process modeling (PPM)
PPMChart visualization
Structured process modeling (SPM)
Future work: preliminary ideas
Process model quality
Experiments to link SPM with quality
TU/e Colloquium 2013
3/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Properties of
textual description
Properties of
modeler
Properties of
modeling process
Properties of
resulting model
PRIMARY RESEARCH FOCUS
Properties of
real process
Properties of
observation process
Properties of software
and modeling language
Properties of
model reader
Properties of
reading process
Properties of
process engine
TU/e Colloquium 2013
4/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Observational modeling sessions
People construct models
Every action on modeling canvas is logged
Different datasets
• 120 students in Eindhoven 2010
• 14 experts in Berlin 2010
• 14 experts in Eindhoven 2011
• 118 students in Eindhoven 2012
• 146 students in Gent 2013
TU/e Colloquium 2013
5/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Properties of the modeling process
Activity Timestamp Attributes
Create start event 10:00 Id = 1; x = 10; y = 10
Create activity 10:04 Id = 2; x = 40; y = 10; name = “Receive order”
Create edge 10:05 Id = 3; from = 1, to = 2
Move activity 10:07 Id = 2; x = 15; y = 10
Create gateway 10:08 Id = 4; x = 65; y = 10; type = “XOR”
Create edge 10:09 Id = 5; from = 2, to = 4
Create activity 10:24 Id = 6; x = 80; y = 0; name = “Reject order”
Create activity 10:25 Id = 7; x = 80; y = 20; name = “Prepare order”
Create gateway 10:27 Id = 8; x = 105; y = 10; type = “XOR”
TU/e Colloquium 2013
6/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
CREATE_ACTIVITY
CREATE_START_EVENT
CREATE_END_EVENT
CREATE_AND
CREATE_XOR
CREATE_EDGE
MOVE_ACTIVITY
MOVE_START_EVENT
MOVE_END_EVENT
MOVE_AND
MOVE_XOR
DELETE_ACTIVITY
DELETE_START_EVENT
DELETE-END_EVENT
DELETE_AND
DELETE_XOR
DELETE_EDGE
NAME_ACTIVITY
RENAME_ACTIVITY
NAME_EDGE
RENAME_EDGE
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Visualization in PPMChart
time
modelelements
TU/e Colloquium 2013
7/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
9 design principles of visual notations(Moody 2009)
Visual expressiveness
Perceptual discriminability
Graphic economy
Semantic transparency
Semiotic clarity
Dual coding
Cognitive fit
Complexity management
Cognitive integration
TU/e Colloquium 2013
8/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Visual expressiveness
Optimal use of graphical variables
8 graphical variables: shape, size, color, brightness,
orientation, texture, horizontal position and
vertical position(Bertin, 2010)
Color is most effective(Lohse, 1993; Treisman, 1982; Winn, 1993)
But can also cause problems (e.g., color blindness,
black-and-white printers)
TU/e Colloquium 2013
9/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
8 graphical variables
Shape: model element type ( )
Size: not used
Color: operation type ( )
Brightness: model element type ( )
Orientation: not used
Texture: not used
Horizontal position: time
Vertical position: model element
TU/e Colloquium 2013
10/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Perceptual discriminability
Symbols are clearly distinguishable
The more two concepts differ, the more the
corresponding symbols should differ(Winn, 1990)
Visual distance is determined by
• Number of different values for the graphical variables
• Size of these differences
CREATE_ACTIVITY
CREATE_START_EVENT
CREATE_END_EVENT
CREATE_AND
CREATE_XOR
CREATE_EDGE
MOVE_ACTIVITY
MOVE_START_EVENT
MOVE_END_EVENT
MOVE_AND
MOVE_XOR
DELETE_ACTIVITY
DELETE_START_EVENT
DELETE-END_EVENT
DELETE_AND
DELETE_XOR
DELETE_EDGE
NAME_ACTIVITY
RENAME_ACTIVITY
NAME_EDGE
RENAME_EDGE
TU/e Colloquium 2013
11/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Graphic economy
Limited amount of values for each variable
Assures cognitive effectiveness(Nordbotten & Crosby, 1999)
Span of absolute judgment
• Is the amount of distinct observable perceptual values
• Estimated at seven (Miller, 1956)
Span of attention
• Is the amount of different objects that can be
distinguished at a glance
• Estimated at six objects(Miller, 1956)
TU/e Colloquium 2013
12/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Semantic transparency
If a novice would be able to guess the meaning of
each symbol
Achieved through natural mappings (Norman, 2002)
Shapes similar to bpmn ( )
Logical colors (creation, deletion, movement)
Horizontal timing
TU/e Colloquium 2013
13/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Semiotic clarity
Every concept is represented by exactly one symbol
and every symbol represents exactly one concept
(Goodman, 1968)
Same default symbol for XOR and AND gateway ()
Same default symbol for start and end event ()
TU/e Colloquium 2013
14/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Dual coding
For information processing
Graphical representation is better than textual
Combination has highest cognitive effectiveness
(Paivio, 1990)
Textual line identifiers and time intervals
No textual code on the dots
Textual information in pop-up on selected items
TU/e Colloquium 2013
15/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Cognitive fit
Optimal representation depends on the task
Cognitive load is lower for experts(Vessey & Galletta, 1991)
(Optimal representation depends on the modeler)
View is customizable through various options
View can be filtered (e.g. hide deleted elements)
TU/e Colloquium 2013
16/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Complexity management
Reduce complexity(R. Weber, 1997)
• by modularization (divide the diagram in smaller
subsystems)
• hierarchical structuring (make separate diagrams of the
same information at different levels of abstraction)
Only one PPM instance at a time
TU/e Colloquium 2013
17/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Cognitive integration
Mechanisms to integrate different diagrams
(Hahn & Kim, 1999; Kim, Hahn, & Hahn, 2000)
Fixed default values for easy comparison
Line identifiers correspond to model element id’s
Lines are sorted according to model (start to end)
TU/e Colloquium 2013
18/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
CREATE_ACTIVITY
CREATE_START_EVENT
CREATE_END_EVENT
CREATE_AND
CREATE_XOR
CREATE_EDGE
MOVE_ACTIVITY
MOVE_START_EVENT
MOVE_END_EVENT
MOVE_AND
MOVE_XOR
DELETE_ACTIVITY
DELETE_START_EVENT
DELETE-END_EVENT
DELETE_AND
DELETE_XOR
DELETE_EDGE
NAME_ACTIVITY
RENAME_ACTIVITY
NAME_EDGE
RENAME_EDGE
Process of Process Modeling (PPM)
Visualization in PPMChart
Start event
Edge
Activity
Gateway
Edge
Activity
Edge
Edge
Activity
Edge
Gateway
Edge
7
29
8
9
32
14
30
31
10
33
56
34
time
modelelements
TU/e Colloquium 2013
19/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
UNSTRUCTURED
(rather) chaotic process
TU/e Colloquium 2013
20/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
FLOW-ORIENTED
From start event to end event
TU/e Colloquium 2013
21/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
ASPECT-ORIENTED
Content – structure – lay-out
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
TU/e Colloquium 2013
22/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
CHUNKING
Work on model part by part
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
TU/e Colloquium 2013
23/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
Structured process modeling
Applying a modeling strategy consistently
Flow-oriented modeling versus aspect-oriented
First content, then
structure, then lay-out
Finish aspect before continuing
Separate vertical zones
From start to end
(according to the process flow)
Finish part before continuing
Diagonal zone in charts
With or within chunks
TU/e Colloquium 2013
24/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
Cognitive aspects
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT)
limited capacity of working memory
Cognitive Fit Theory (CFT)
effect increase if task representation fits
TU/e Colloquium 2013
25/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
Conclusion 1
How to construct models?
Apply a modeling style consistently!
Properties of
modeling process
Properties of
resulting model
PRIMARY RESEARCH FOCUS
Structured process modeling
Aspect-oriented
modeling
Flow-oriented
modeling
Chunked
modeling
TU/e Colloquium 2013
26/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Different studies
Apply process mining techniques on historical data (Eo-BS)
Develop PPM visualization (Co-DS)
Different structuring styles (Ea-BS)
Link modeling strategy with model quality (Co-BS)
Develop method/tool to increase model quality (Co-DS)
Different research methods
Behavioral science (BS) vs. Design science (DS)
Explorative (Eo) vs. Explanatory (Ea) vs. Confirmative (Co)
Different studies
Apply process mining techniques on historical data
Develop PPM visualization
Different structuring styles
Link modeling strategy with model quality
Develop method/tool to increase model quality
Methodology
TU/e Colloquium 2013
27/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Business Process Modeling (BPM)
Business process model
Graphical, abstract representation of a process
Important tool for analysis and improvement
Business process model in BPMN notation
TU/e Colloquium 2013
28/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Process model quality
Less nodes
Less crossing arcs
Less nested gateways
…
More realistic
More precise
More complete
…
Which model is better?
TU/e Colloquium 2013
29/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Which model is better?
Process model quality
Less nodes
Less crossing arcs
Less nested gateways
…
More realistic
More precise
More complete
…
InspectionExecution
TU/e Colloquium 2013
30/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Execution Inspection
Process model quality
Conclusion 2
Process model quality?
Depends on the goal of the model!
TU/e Colloquium 2013
31/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
How does SPM influence model quality?
Structured process modeling lowers
cognitive efforts and cognitive overload
Less unintentional quality issues in model
Focus on correctness and completeness
Focus on understandability and maintainability
But no effect on
Missing knowledge of domain or model language
Wrong quality focus
TU/e Colloquium 2013
32/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Structured Process Modeling (SPM)
Structured process modeling causes
model quality improvement!
Explanation 1:
• Apply structured modeling style
• Lowers cognitive load
• Results in improved process model quality
Explanation 2:
• Have a lot of modeling experience
• Results in a consistent modeling style
• And in improved process model quality
Or not?
TU/e Colloquium 2013
33/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Experiments
How to prove causality?
Take two identical groups of people
Give only one group a treatment
Let both groups make the same exercise
Check for significant difference of the results
Difference can only be caused by treatment
TU/e Colloquium 2013
34/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Experiments
Two identical groups
Randomized: assign participants randomly to group
Block randomized: control for secondary variables
• E.g. equal amount of (fe)male participants in each group
Check with pre-test: check primary variables
• E.g. check difference in experience of both groups
TU/e Colloquium 2013
35/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Experiments
Give only one group a treatment
Traditionally pharmaceutical
In our case learning a technique
Placebo effect
Treatment effect (TE) should be verified and
separated from learning effect (LE)
Treatment group: TE + LE
Control group: LE
TU/e Colloquium 2013
36/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Experiments
Triple blinded
Blind experiment: participants do not know if they
are in the treatment group or the control group
Double blind: participants and administrators do
not know to which group participants belong
Triple blind: participants, administrators and data
analysts do not know the group assignment
TU/e Colloquium 2013
37/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Experiments
Make the same exercise under the same
conditions
Keep as much variables constant as possible
Try to control for the others
Literally the only difference between the two
groups should be the treatment
TU/e Colloquium 2013
38/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Participants for comparative experiment
High school students? OK!
Undergraduates? OK!
Experienced modelers? OK!
Non human movie characters? Not OK!
Cognitive processes in the human mind
Experiments
Participants for comparative experiment
High school students?
Undergraduates?
Experienced modelers?
Non human movie characters?
TU/e Colloquium 2013
39/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Experiments with undergraduates
When use students?
For confirmative, comparative experiments
No reason to believe that effect is different
(general human cognitive processes)
Very homogeneous group, large groups
When not to use students?
For explanatory, observational experiments
Use real modelers with varying levels of experience
Representative sample
TU/e Colloquium 2013
40/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Experiments
Conclusion 3
Use undergraduate students in experiments?
Sometimes no, sometimes yes!
ComparativeExplanatory
TU/e Colloquium 2013
41/41
Ghent University & Eindhoven University of Technology
jan.claes@ugent.be – www.janclaes.info
Contact information
Jan Claes
jan.claes@ugent.be
http://www.janclaes.info
Twitter: @janclaesbelgium
Thanks for your attention!
Do you have feedback on my research plans?
> explanatory theories <
> behavioral science <
> methodology <
> evaluation <
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.