Pragmatics, Cognition,
and Conceptual Modelling
Why Process Modelling and Process Mining may Converge
Stijn Hoppenbrouwers...
2
Prof. dr. Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
stijn.hoppenbrouwers@han.nl
 Model-Based Information systems
 Business Engineering, Bus...
The Context of Conceptual Modelling
Diagram or verbalized?
What are CMs used for?
• Generally
• Specifically, situationall...
PRAGMATICS AND MODELLING
Pragmatics?
Language
(linguistics/semiotics)
Generic meaning
(semantics)
Meaning (semantics)Form (syntax)
Word order
Word ...
Rules Interactions
Models
Log
Modelling as a Focused Conversation
 Product: information; answers to questions
– What ques...
Goals of Modelling
Collaborative modelling is a constrained activity, with many goals
and sub-goals, for example:
Goals
Ut...
Dialogue Games 1/2
 My “frame of choice” for describing the modelling
process
 Much more open than a “workflow” or “cook...
Propose
I propose the following IDEA:
I propose the following VARIABLE for
the idea:
I propose the following IDEA as
expre...
PRAGMATICS, MODELLING
AND COGNITION
Dirk van der Linden et al.:
What do modelling concepts mean to individuals?
 Paper presentation later in this workshop
 ...
Ilona Wilmont et al.:
Abstraction and Executive Control
 Cognitive underpinnings of the act of modelling
 Nature or nurt...
Ilona’s Basic Research Variables
50+ observed
coll. modelling sessions
pragmatics &
discourse
action
concepts
cognitive ps...
Working Memory
Executive Functions
Fundamental EFs
Higher-level EFs
Emotional
Control
AttentionInhibition
Relational
Reaso...
Levels of
Abstraction
Representations
Concepts Relations
Generali-
sation
Instantiation
(Vertical
switching)
Form/synt
ax
...
Some concrete implications
 Abstraction is relative, not absolute
 What is abstract can become concrete to someone
 Inc...
Danny Oldenhave et al.: Game Psychology
 Different angle at “games”: gamification
 Make cooperation more focused and eng...
BEYOND THE DESIGN PARADIGM: WILL
MODELLING MEET MINING?
And now for something rather different (and yet…)
Let’s ask ourselves some radical questions
 Many have been considered with making modelling more
accessible, easier, more...
Towards a new paradigm in ISs?
 Could we perhaps move into a new “modelling” paradigm putting
operational communication c...
Social Network Information and Cooperation Systems
(SNICS); the case of Healthcare
21
Care agreements:
“[I] ask [you] to d...
Some references
 Cruse (2000). Meaning in Language, an Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford
University Press....
More references
 Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A and Wilmont, I.: Focused Conceptualisation: Framing Questioning and
Answering in...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Pragmatics, Cognition, and Conceptual Modeling. Why Process Modelling and Process Mining may Converge.

711 views

Published on

The slides to the keynote Stijn Hoppenbrouwers delivered at COGNISE 2014, co-located with CAiSE 2014, in Thessaloniki, Greece, on June 17 2014.

Published in: Engineering, Technology, Spiritual
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
711
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • HYP: We propose that relational reasoning and abstraction are key cognitive processes in modelling. They depend on the selection, maintenance and integration of relevant information, with constant monitoring for consistency and integrity. All these processes make use of executive control and goal pursuit, which in turn depends on working memory capacity [6], which is influenced by attention span [38] and emotional markers [8].
    (how does the new model map? well enough?)

    Both WMC [42], [16] and attention span [26], [38] have proven to be significant sources of individual differences in abstraction, reasoning and problem solving. Even though the WM capacity limit is fixed within the 3-5 range, there are significant individual differences to be observed. Explanations for this are sought in storage and processing capacity variations. There is a debate as to whether the efficiency of processing ability is solely responsible for all WM functionality [42], or whether storage and processing capacities are independent and both contribute to overall individual differences [18].

    In favour of the first perspective, individuals with a high WMC were found to be much better at attending to relevant information and thus inhibiting irrelevant information.
    Low capacity individuals, in contrast, processed both target and distracter information, ending up with far less meaningful information overall and so rendering distractions detrimental to performance [16], [42]. This effect has been demonstrated for the auditory [39] and the visual modality [64].
    On the other hand, in favour of physical storage capacity, Todd & Marois [62] show that in the absence of processing requirements, brain activity in the posterior parietal areas correlated with WM performance.
  • The role of abstraction in a modelling session:

    halford et al. 2010: Representations have to maintain form across different levels of abstraction (structure consistency), and retain their meaning when participating in compound representations (compositionality). Also, if one can understand the meaning of a relation, then one can generate novel instances for that specific relation (systematicity). These properties ensure that relations retain their integrity, both internally and in the context of the whole model.

    Christoff et al. 2009: abstraction in the frontal lobe follows an arc with concrete relations and concepts activating the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, medium abstract relations and concepts the dorsolateral pfc and highly abstract relations/concepts the rostrolateral pfc. The more abstract the concept or relation, the more cognitive processing power was required, independently of task difficulty.

    switching within abstraction levels can happen horizontally, entailing a shift in focus or scope, or vertically, which encompasses shifting between concrete and generic concepts/relations.
  • Pragmatics, Cognition, and Conceptual Modeling. Why Process Modelling and Process Mining may Converge.

    1. 1. Pragmatics, Cognition, and Conceptual Modelling Why Process Modelling and Process Mining may Converge Stijn Hoppenbrouwers HAN UAS, Arnhem Radboud University, Nijmegen The Netherlands COGNISE 2014 keynote Thessaloniki June 17, 2014
    2. 2. 2 Prof. dr. Stijn Hoppenbrouwers stijn.hoppenbrouwers@han.nl  Model-Based Information systems  Business Engineering, Business Intelligence  Collaboration, Communication, Language  Collaborative Modelling  Organisation – IT Innovation Professor, Fac. Engineering, HAN USC Arnhem Assistant Professor, CScience, RU Nijmegen
    3. 3. The Context of Conceptual Modelling Diagram or verbalized? What are CMs used for? • Generally • Specifically, situationally Abstraction: “lenses” How crucial is the “meta model”?M. product versus m. product Social aspects Human/cognitive aspects “work thinking” versus “engineering thinking”
    4. 4. PRAGMATICS AND MODELLING
    5. 5. Pragmatics? Language (linguistics/semiotics) Generic meaning (semantics) Meaning (semantics)Form (syntax) Word order Word form Intonation … Meaning in context (pragmatics) Action meaning (illocutionary) Conceptual meaning (propositional) Action Language utterances both mean something and do something Pragmatics concerns contextualised meaning/doing It usually adds to generic “skeleton meanings” 2D position
    6. 6. Rules Interactions Models Log Modelling as a Focused Conversation  Product: information; answers to questions – What questions? – What constraints to answers?  Process: conversation; Q, A, discussion.  Example: simple process modelling session  Stance: pragmatics should be leading (not syntax/semantics): WHAT DO YOU MODEL FOR?  (But what about the Engineering point of view?) RIM model • Modelling: (co-)creation of a text • Propositions are discussed, accepted, rejected, … • Breakdown of conversation in Interactions: fairly standard discourse analysis/speech acts etc. • Both interactions and models are subject to Rules • Goals are an important sub-class of rules • Many (sub)goals at many levels
    7. 7. Goals of Modelling Collaborative modelling is a constrained activity, with many goals and sub-goals, for example: Goals Utility Goals Modelling Goals Analysis Simulation Computation Development Specification Generation Guidance Communi- cation Learning Negotiation Convincing Content Conceptuali- sation Grammar Deliverables Validation Argumentation Understanding AgreementAbstraction Textual Formal (proof) Consent Commitment Note that the “utility goals” determine the setting of the “modelling goals”
    8. 8. Dialogue Games 1/2  My “frame of choice” for describing the modelling process  Much more open than a “workflow” or “cookbook”  Theoretical roots in Wittgenstein’s ‘language games’ and in Argumentation Theory  InterLoc operationalization: “Structured Chats”; constrained conversation “moves”  Opener mechanism: e.g. “I disagree with this because …”; “I propose to include activity Y, after activity X”
    9. 9. Propose I propose the following IDEA: I propose the following VARIABLE for the idea: I propose the following IDEA as expressed through the following VARIABLE: I propose the following CAUSE with its POLARITY [variable, +/-]: I propose the following CONSEQUENCE with its POLARITY [variable, +/-]: I propose that the polarity of this variable is [+/-]: Ask I have a question: I have a question about this proposition: Argue I agree: I disagree: Accept / Reject I accept the proposition: I reject the proposition: Remark I would like to clarify this: I have a remark: Facilitator statements and questions (only to be used by facilitator) Instruction of the facilitator: Directive of the facilitator: This is the problem variable: Please write down a number of ideas as to what may influence, or be influenced by, the Problem Variable Please propose an IDEA and if possible a VARIABLE, [player]: Which VARIABLE would you like to link to this idea? Which of the variables are a CAUSE for change in the problem variable? Which of the variables are a CONSEQUENCE for change in the problem variable? What is the POLARITY of this variable [POS/NEG]? Looking at the model, do you see any additional variables? There is a CLOSED LOOP [description; polarity]: Openers Used to Structure the GMB Chat
    10. 10. PRAGMATICS, MODELLING AND COGNITION
    11. 11. Dirk van der Linden et al.: What do modelling concepts mean to individuals?  Paper presentation later in this workshop  Contextuality, prototype theory, word meaning  “Dialectology in Conceptual Modelling”  Measuring individual meaning: the Semantic Differential  Link with the individual: C.S. Pierce / FRISCO; actor added as crucial fourth element in the Ogden/Richards “triangle of meaning” FRISCO tetrahedron
    12. 12. Ilona Wilmont et al.: Abstraction and Executive Control  Cognitive underpinnings of the act of modelling  Nature or nurture? What is learnable?  Clashes between capacities in collaborative modelling?  Abstraction: core of modelling; “lenses” and focus  Relational Reasoning  Executive control: – Crucial for abstraction – Crucial in monitoring and achieving modelling goals  Working memory underneath  “Self constraint” (inhibition) is a crucial property  Many other aspects! All complementary.
    13. 13. Ilona’s Basic Research Variables 50+ observed coll. modelling sessions pragmatics & discourse action concepts cognitive psychology neuropsychology In the observed/recorded sessions: looking mostly at where aimlessness, miscommunication, misunderstanding and disagreement occur, and what they seem based on
    14. 14. Working Memory Executive Functions Fundamental EFs Higher-level EFs Emotional Control AttentionInhibition Relational Reasoning Abstraction
    15. 15. Levels of Abstraction Representations Concepts Relations Generali- sation Instantiation (Vertical switching) Form/synt ax Retention of Meaning/ Disambigu- ation Abstraction: “leaving things out” Generic/Abstract/Type: more cognitive processing power (RLPFC activation) Concrete/Instance: less cognitive processing power (VLPFC activation) Horizontal switching: shift in focus Medium Abstract: medium cognitive processing power (DLPFC activation)
    16. 16. Some concrete implications  Abstraction is relative, not absolute  What is abstract can become concrete to someone  Including “Concrete instances/examples” is crucial if abstraction is a challenge  Concrete = “familiar” rather than “material”  Executive Control and WM are crucial to: – Abstraction / Relational Reasoning – Monitoring progress and the achievement of goals  … which emphasizes the importance of knowing the goals of your modelling effort: action pragmatics  If you leave context (generalization), you risk loosing domain meaning and with that your co-modellers
    17. 17. Danny Oldenhave et al.: Game Psychology  Different angle at “games”: gamification  Make cooperation more focused and engaging  Design for emotion and experience  Once again: achieving behaviour change and work towards goal achievement  Steps in design (collaborative environments, ISs): 1. Establish business objectives 2. Describe desired behaviour 3. Describe intended players (killers, achievers, socializers, explorers) 4. Consider motivation for behavioural change 5. Consider the fun factor (emotion/cognition) 6. Select appropriate game elements
    18. 18. BEYOND THE DESIGN PARADIGM: WILL MODELLING MEET MINING? And now for something rather different (and yet…)
    19. 19. Let’s ask ourselves some radical questions  Many have been considered with making modelling more accessible, easier, more interactive, more user friendly, …  But how far, in the long run, can we stretch the well established practice of Conceptual Modelling at design time?  Time, money, effort; willingness, capacity?  How might we instead/also do covert, natural modelling as a by-product of regular, operational communication about work?  This would increase the need for taking the cognitive and pragmatic factor in IS even more seriously, more closely fusing IS and HCI/CSCW  The goal-driven, contextual nature of systems modelling and design would be greatly emphasized, bringing to the fore both pragmatics and cognition as essential pillars of IS modelling and design
    20. 20. Towards a new paradigm in ISs?  Could we perhaps move into a new “modelling” paradigm putting operational communication central and touching upon AI and (process) mining techniques in combination with (collaborative) modeling techniques?  Will we jump into the chaotic, socially networked, mass-oriented world of the “end user” and use wizard-like interaction forms to elicit and co-conceptualize the input for tailored cooperation and work support?  Conceptual modelling new style meets business intelligence, analytics, big data, AI, with gamification as an add-on?
    21. 21. Social Network Information and Cooperation Systems (SNICS); the case of Healthcare 21 Care agreements: “[I] ask [you] to do [this]”; “[I] agree to do [this] for [you]; “[I] intend to do [this-and-this] with [the client]”; “[I] take [this medicine] [daily] at [Xs] orders”; “[I] provide [you] with [this information] within two days”. “Attitutude info” could be added! “I can’t hack this”; “What is this good for?” “Can someone explain this to me?” “That’s a great relief!” “Can’t I do a bit more of this sort of thing?” “Can I please get help with this?” “You can’t do this!” Wild idea: Links up with DEMO concepts, But in operations, not in design
    22. 22. Some references  Cruse (2000). Meaning in Language, an Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.  Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. University of Chicago Press.  E.D. Falkenberg, W. Hesse, P. Lindgreen, B.E. Nilsson, J.L.H. Oei, C. Rolland, R.K. Stamper, F.J.M. Van Assche, A.A. Verrijn-Stuart, K. Voss, FRISCO : A Framework of Information System Concepts, The IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO, December 1996.  S.J.B.A. (Stijn) Hoppenbrouwers, H.A. (Erik) Proper, and Th.P. van der Weide. A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In: Conceptual Modeling - ER 2005 - 24 International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol: 3716, Pages: 128- 143, June, 2005, ISBN 3540293892.  S.J.B.A. (Stijn) Hoppenbrouwers, H.A. (Erik) Proper, and Th.P. (Theo) van der Weide. Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation. In: G. Goldkuhl, M. Lind, and S. Haraldson, editors, Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP‘05), pages 139–155, Kiruna, Sweden, EU, June 2005. Linköpings Universitet and Hogskolan I Boras, Linköping, Sweden, EU.  D. (Denis) Ssebuggwawo, S.J.B.A (Stijn) Hoppenbrouwers, and H.A (Erik) Proper: Analyzing a Collaborative Modeling Game. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE'09 Forum at the 21th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8-12 June 2009. Edited by: Eric Yu, Johann Eder, Colette Rolland. Published on CEUR-WS: 28-May-2009 ONLINE: http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-453/
    23. 23. More references  Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A and Wilmont, I.: Focused Conceptualisation: Framing Questioning and Answering in Model-Oriented Dialogue Games. In: Bommel, P. van, Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Overbeek, S., Proper, H.A., and Barjis, J.: The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. Proceedings of the Third IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling (PoEM 2010), held November 9-10 in Delft, the Netherlands. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP) vol. 68. Berlin: Springer, 2010.  J. Pinggera, S. Zugal and B. Weber: Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Cheetah Experimental Platform. In: Proc. ER-POIS ’10, pp. 13–18, 2010.  S.J.B.A. Hoppenbrouwers and E.A.J.A. Rouwette: A Dialogue Game for Analysing Group Model Building: Framing Collaborative Modelling and its Facilitation. In: R. Magalhaes (edt.), International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering (IJODE), vol. 2, no. 1, p19-40; special issue on collaborative modeling. New York, USA: Interscience Publishers, 2012.  Ilona Wilmont, Sytse Hengeveld, Stijn Hoppenbrouwers and Erik Barendsen. Cognitive Mechanisms of Conceptual Modelling: How Do People Do It? In: proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2013), Hong Kong. Springer LNCS vol. 8217, pp74-87, 2013. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.  Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Wharton Digital Press.  Danny Oldenhave, Stijn Hoppenbrouwers, Theo van der Weide, and Remco Lagarde. Gamification to Support the Run Time Planning Process in Adaptive Case Management. In: proceedings of EMMSAD 2013, in conjunction with CAiSE 2013 (Sevilla, Spain). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 147, pp385-394. Heidelberg: Springer.  Bjekovic M., Sottet J.-S., Favre J.-M., Proper E (2013). A Framework for Natural Enterprise Modelling. In: proceedings of the 15th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2013), Vienna, Austria

    ×