تأثیر سبک‌شناختی بر درک پذیری مدل‌های فرایند کسب‌وکار

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران (نویسنده مسئول) m.joneidi@atu.ac.ir

2 عضو هیئت علمی، دانشکده مهندسی انرژی و فیزیک، دانشگاه امیرکبیر، تهران

چکیده

امروزه با رشد سازمان‌ها و پیچیده شدن فرایندهای کسب‌وکار، مدیریت و کنترل آن‌ها از اهمیت بیشتری نسبت به قبل برخوردار است. مدل‌های فرآیند کسب‌وکار معمولاً با به‌کارگیری برخی از نشانه‌های گرافیکی، وظایف، رویدادها، حالت‌ها و منطق جریان کنترل فرایند کسب‌وکار را تشریح می‌نمایند. اگرچه یکی از اهداف اصلی آن‌ها، تسهیل ارتباط میان ذی‌نفعان مختلف است، اما بینش محدودی در مورد عوامل مؤثر بر درک آن‌ها توسط انسان وجود دارد. از میان عوامل مختلفی که بر فهم و درک ‌پذیری مدل‌های فرایند کسب‌وکار اثرگذار هستند، این مقاله به دو عامل پرداخته است: سبکِ شناختی خواننده مدل و دانش نظری وی در خصوص مدل‌سازی فرایند کسب‌وکار. پژوهش به بررسی تفاوت‌های سبکِ شناختی و این‌که سبک‌ها چه ‌ارتباطی با نمرات درک‌ پذیری مدل فرایند دارد، می‌پردازد. مطالعه با روش تحقیق «توصیفی-پیمایشی» و در مدیریت امور طرح و برنامه و فناوری اطلاعات بانک ملت و با انتخاب 183 نمونه و با ابزار پرسشنامه به اجرا در آمده است. نتایج نشان داد که درصد بالایی از پاسخ‌گویان، دارای سبک شناختی سازش‌پذیر هستند (60 نفر معادل 33%) و همچنین در خصوص میزان دانش نظری در خصوص BPM و BPMN2.0، 85 نفر معادل 46% از پاسخگویان در سطح 2 بودند، حال‌آنکه فقط 6% در سطح 4 قرار داشتند. نتایج همچنین تفاوت چشم‌گیری را بین نمونه‌ها با سبک شهودی و تحلیلگر، در رابطه با میزان درک پذیری مدل فرایند کسب‌وکار نشان می‌دهند. هم‌چنین ارتباط بین دانش نظری مدل‌سازی فرایند کسب‌وکار و میزان درک آن‌ها از مدل نیز معنی‌دار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Cognitive Style on the Understandability of Business Process Models

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahdi Joneidi Jafari 1
  • Saeedi Setayeshi 2
1 * Ph.D. Condidate, IT Management ,Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran (Corresponding Author: m.joneidi@atu.ac.ir)
2 Faculty Member, College of Energy Engineering and Physics, Amir Kabir University of Technology, Tehran
چکیده [English]

 
Nowadays, with the development of organizations and complexity of business processes, the management and control of such organizations are much more important than before. Business process models (BPM) typically capture some of the graphical notations, tasks, events, states, and logic of a business process control flow. Business process models are key artifacts in the development of information systems. While one of their main purposes is to facilitate communication among stakeholders, little is known about the factors that influence their comprehension by human agents. Among the various factors that affect the understandability and comprehension of business process modeling, this paper deals with two factors: a reader’s cognitive style and theoretical knowledge on business process modeling. The research examines the cognitive style index (CSI) differences and how styles relate to their scores in process model understandability. This study is a descriptive-survey research and was carried out in Mellat Bank’s Information Technology and Plan and Program Management by selecting 183 samples using a questionnaire. The results showed that a high percentage of respondents had an adaptive cognitive style (60 people, 33%), 85 respondents (46%) were at level 2 of theoretical knowledge about BPM and BPMN2.0, and only 6% were in level 4. The results also indicate a significant difference between intuitive and analytic samples with respect to the level of BPM understandability. There was also a significant relationship between theoretical knowledge of business process modeling and their understanding of the model.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Model Understandability
  • Cognitive Style Index (CSI)
  • Theoretical Business Process Modeling Knowledge
 

روحانی، س.، زارع رواسان، ا. و دیلمی، ه. (1394). عوامل کلیدی موفقیت پیاده‌سازی سیستم مدیریت فرایند کسب‌وکار. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت کسب‌وکار هوشمند، 3(12)، 53-76.

Allinson, C., & Hayes, J. (2012). The Cognitive Style Index: Technical Manual and User Guide. Pearson Education Ltd. Retrieved from www.talentlens.co.uk

Allinson, C., Chell, E., & Hayes, J. (2000). Intuition and entrepreneurial behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 31–43. doi:10.1080/135943200398049

Allinson, C.; Hayes, J. (1996, January). The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition-Analysis For Organizational Research. Journal of Managmt Studies, 33, 119–135.

Armstrong, S. (2000). The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in management education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 323-339. doi:10.1080/014434100750018020

Aysolmaz, B., Brown, R., Bruza, P., & Reijers, H. (2016). 3D Visualization Approach for Process Training in Office Environments. Conference On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, OTM 2016 held in conjunction with Conferences on CoopIS, CandTC and ODBASE 2016 (pp. 418-436). Rhodes: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics).

Backhaus, K., & Liff, J. (2007, August). Cognitive Styles and Approaches To Studying in Management Education. Journal of Management Education, 31(4), 445–466. doi:10.1177/1052562905284674

Brigham, K., & Sorenson, R. (2008). Cognitive Style Differences of Novice Serial and Portfolio Entrepreneurs: A Two-Sample Test. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship

Research, 28(6), 1-15. Retrieved from http://digitalknowledge .babson. edu/fer/ vol28/iss6/3

Claes, J. (2017). The Structured Process Modeling Method (SPMM) - What is the best way for me to construct a process model? Decision Support Systems, 100, 57-76. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.02.004

Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Gailly, F., Grefen, P., & Poels, G. (2015). The Structured Process Modeling Theory (SPMT) - A cognitive view on why and how modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(6), 1401–1425. doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9585-y

Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., & Poels, G. (2015). A Visual Analysis of the Process of Process Modeling. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 13, 147-190. doi:10.1007/s10257-014-0245-4

Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H., Pinggera, J., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Poels, G. (2012). Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed. Business Process Management, 33–48.

Cools, E., Armstrong, S., & Verbrigghe, J. (2014). Methodological practices in cognitive style research: Insights and recommendations from the field of business and psychology. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 627–641. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2013.788245

Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Gallo, S. (2006). How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering, 58(3), 358–380. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2005.07.007

Dehnert, J., & Aalst, W. (2004). Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(3), 289–332. doi:10.1142/S0218843004000973

Figl, K. (2017). Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(1), 41–67. doi:10.1007/s12599-016-0460-2

Figl, K. (2017). Comprehension of Procedural Visual Business Process Models A Literature Review. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(1), 41–67. doi:10.1007/s12599-016-0460-2

Figl, K.; Recker, J. (2016, March). Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Requirements Engineering, 21(1), 63–85. doi:10.1007/s00766-014-0210-2

Green, T., & Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 7(2), 131–174. doi:10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009

Houy, C., Fettke, P., & Loos, P. (2012). Understanding Understandability of Conceptual Models: What Are We Actually Talking about? In P. Atzeni, D. Cheung, & S. Ram, Conceptual Modeling (Vol. 7532, pp. 64-77). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34002-4_5

Laue, R., & Gadatsch, A. (2010). Measuring the Understandability of Business Process Models - Are We Asking the Right Questions? In M. zur Muehlen, & J. Su (Ed.),

International Conference on Business Process Management. 66, pp. 37-48. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20511-8_4

Leymann, F., & Roller, D. (1997). Workflow-based applications. IBM System Journal, 36, 102–123.

Ma, W., Sun, K., & Ma, J. (2012). The Influence of Cognitive Learning Styles on the Use of Online Learning Environments. International Conference on Hybrid Learning (pp. 221–230). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32018-7_21

Mendling, J. (2008). Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction and Guidelines for Correctness (Vol. 6). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89224-3

Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., & Recker, J. (2012). Factors of Process Model Comprehension Findings From a Series of Experiments. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 195-206. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2011.12.013

Mendling, J.; Reijers, Hajo A. (2010). Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Information Systems, 35(4), 467-482. doi:10.1016/j.is.2009.03.009

Mendling, J.; Reijers, Hajo A.; Cardoso, J. (2007). What makes process models understandable? (G. Alonso, P. Dadam, & M. Rosemann, Eds.) International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 48–63. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_4

Moody, D. (2004). Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models: an experimental analysis. ADBIS 2004. 3255, pp. 129–143. Heidelberg: Springer.

Myers, I., & Briggs, K. (1962). The Myers-Briggs type indicator. Educational Testing Service. NJ: Princeton.

Ornstein, R. (1997). Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest (2nd ed). New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., & Tabbers, H. (2003). Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8

Petre, M. (1995). Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM, 38(6), 33–44.

Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Mendling, J. (2015). Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Software & Systems Modeling, 14, 1055–1080. doi:10.1007/s10270-013-0349-1

Poppe, E., Brown, R., Recker, J., Johnson, D., & Vanderfeesten, I. (2017). Design and Evaluation of Virtual Environments Mechanisms to Support Remote Collaboration on Complex Process Diagrams. Information Systems, 66, 59-81. doi:10.1016/j.is.2017.01.004

Razavian, M., Turetken, O., & Vanderfeesten, I. (2017). When Cognitive Biases Lead to Business Process Management Issues. International Conference on Business Process Management (pp. 147-156). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58457-7_11

Recker, J. (2012). Empirical investigation of the usefulness of Gateway constructs in process models. European Journal Information System, 22, 673–689.

Recker, J., Reijers, H., & Van de Wouw, S. (2014). Process Model Comprehension: The Effects of Cognitive Abilities, Learning Style, and Strategy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34, 199-222. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b1df/7c01ffe250b69b767acee30b5397ab3c4ecd.pdf

Reijers, H., & Mendling, J. (2011, May). Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 41(3), 449–462. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2087017

Reijers, H.A.; Mendling, J. (2008). Modularity in process models: review and effects. BPM 2008. 5240, pp. 20–35. Heidelberg: Springer.

Reijers, H.A.; Mendling, J.; Dijkman, R.M. (2011). Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Information System, 36, 881–897.

Sanchez-Gonzalez, L., Garcia, F., Ruiz, F., & Mendling, J. (2012). Quality indicators for business process models from a gateway complexity perspective. Information and Software Technology, 54(11), 1159–1174. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2012.05.001

Türetken, O., Vanderfeesten, I., & Claes, J. (2017, June 12-16). Cognitive style and business process model understanding. International Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Information Systems Engineering Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (CAiSE 2017), 286, pp. 72-84. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60048-2_7

Türetken, O.; Rompen, T.; Vanderfeesten, I.; Dikici, A.; Van Moll, J. (2016). The Effect of Modularity Representation and Presentation Medium on the Understandability of Business Process Models in BPMN. International Conference on Business Process Management. 9850, pp. 289–307. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_17

Vessey, I., & Galletta, D. (1991). Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 63–84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.63

Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling—A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363–376. doi:10.1287/isre.13.4.363.69

Zhao, X., & Liu, C. (2010). Steering dynamic collaborations between business processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics -Part A: Systems and Humans, 40(4), 743–757. doi:10.1109/ TSMCA.2010. 2044409

Zugal, S. (2013). Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models. Software & Systems Modeling, 14(3), 1081–1103. doi:10.1007/s10270-013-0356-2