‘Deixis and Pragmatics’ for Handbook of Pragmatics handb-horn4
Pragmatics, Cognition, and Conceptual Modeling. Why Process Modelling and Process Mining may...
-
Upload
stijn-hoppenbrouwers -
Category
Engineering
-
view
165 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Pragmatics, Cognition, and Conceptual Modeling. Why Process Modelling and Process Mining may...
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
[email protected] 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