Pragmatics, Cognition, and Conceptual ModellingWhy Process Modelling and Process Mining may Converge

Stijn Hoppenbrouwers

HAN UAS, ArnhemRadboud University, NijmegenThe Netherlands

COGNISE 2014 keynoteThessalonikiJune 17, 2014

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

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”

PRAGMATICS AND MODELLING

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/doingIt usually adds to generic “skeleton meanings”

2D position

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

Goals of Modelling

Collaborative modelling is a constrained activity, with many goals and sub-goals, for example:

Goals

Utility Goals Modelling Goals

Analysis

SimulationComputation

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”

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”

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

PRAGMATICS, MODELLING AND COGNITION

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

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.

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 disagreementoccur, and what they seem based on

Working Memory

Executive Functions

Fundamental EFs

Higher-level EFs

Emotional Control

AttentionInhibition

Relational Reasoning

Abstraction

Levels of Abstraction

Representations

Concepts Relations

Generali-sation

Instantiation

(Vertical switching)

Form/syntax

Retention of Meaning/

Disambigu-ation

Abstraction: “leaving things out”

Generic/Abstract/Type:more cognitive processingpower (RLPFC activation)

Concrete/Instance:less cognitive processingpower (VLPFC activation)

Horizontal switching: shift in focus

Medium Abstract:medium cognitive processingpower (DLPFC activation)

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

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

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 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

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

Social Network Information and Cooperation Systems(SNICS); the case of Healthcare

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

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/

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