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

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
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. 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. PRAGMATICS AND MODELLING

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. PRAGMATICS, MODELLING
AND COGNITION

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. 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. 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. Working Memory
Executive Functions
Fundamental EFs
Higher-level EFs
Emotional
Control
AttentionInhibition
Relational
Reasoning
Abstraction

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. 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. 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. BEYOND THE DESIGN PARADIGM: WILL
MODELLING MEET MINING?
And now for something rather different (and yet…)

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. 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
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. 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. 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