=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1367/paper-05
|storemode=property
|title=Toward Advanced Visualization Techniques for Conceptual Modeling
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1367/paper-05.pdf
|volume=Vol-1367
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/GuldenR15
}}
==Toward Advanced Visualization Techniques for Conceptual Modeling==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1367/paper-05.pdf
Toward Advanced Visualization Techniques for
Conceptual Modeling
Jens Gulden1 and Hajo A. Reijers2
1
University of Duisburg-Essen,
Universitätsstr. 9, 45141 Essen, Germany
jens.gulden@uni-due.de
2
VU University Amsterdam,
De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
h.a.reijers@vu.nl
Abstract. Conceptual models and their visualizations play an impor-
tant role in the in the Information Systems (IS) field. Their track record,
however, is mixed. While their benefits are clearly perceived, practition-
ers also struggle with their use. This paper picks up on a potential factor
that limits the effectiveness of conceptual models, namely the poor de-
sign rationale behind their visual appearance. We argue for the benefits
of a holistic view on the visual side of a conceptual modeling technique,
which should draw from both perceptual and cognitive theories to im-
prove the representation of objects. We present concrete activities and
outline their fundamentals in the form of a research agenda.
Keywords: Visualization, Analysis, Modeling, Cognitive Efficiency, Human-
Computer-Interaction
1 Introduction
The IS discipline is concerned with the processing and usage of information
within organizational contexts. To understand and communicate the setting that
information systems need to operate in, as well as to specify the requirements
such systems need to adhere to, visual conceptual models have become an im-
portant aid. Visual conceptual models cover a wide variety of representations,
such as class diagrams, business process models, use case models, etc. They are
commonly used to reflect a designer’s understanding of a system as it is working
or as it is intended to be working. A conceptual model can be used to validate
such an understanding with business professionals, or to guide developers to ac-
tually build a system, among other purposes. The effort that is spent on creating
a conceptual model often pays off in terms of the efficiency or effectiveness of
the project it is used in [14, 24].
Conceptual models are often displayed in visual form, e. g., as diagrams, to
represent abstract data. The idea behind this is that such a visual approach stim-
ulates natural characteristics of visual processing in human cognition. Despite
the obvious relevance of the visual side of a conceptual model, existing research
on this aspect of conceptual models is fairly thin. The exact way how to visual-
ize information is still widely regarded as a cosmetic concern, secondary to the
meaning of the information captured. Consider, for example, the appearance of
a modeling language like YAWL: The visual appearance of the modeling con-
structs has obviously been a much lesser concern than the specification of their
formal semantics [4]. While recent research has certainly picked up on visual
aspects of a conceptual model, e. g. in [15, 9, 5], the emphasis is on the effective
use of the visual aspects of a modeling technique – not the proper design or
redesign of the technique itself.
In this paper, we argue that the visualization rationale behind a conceptual
modeling technique must be treated as a primary concern by the IS field. Specif-
ically, we believe that there is a need for theoretic strengthening, which should
rest on a deeper understanding of what conceptual models aim to capture: the
complex socio-technical interplay among humans and software systems.
Our contribution is a research agenda which is founded on the insight that
the capabilities of the human brain are essential ingredients for visual design.
The research that we outline is meant to enhance the use of conceptual models
toward a higher level of effectiveness. Despite their noted success, it must be
acknowledged that conceptual models still pose difficulties with users, specifi-
cally non-experts [1, 3, 19]. By considering both the conceptual and perceptual
qualities of IS artifacts in an integrated way, a conceptual model potentially be-
comes a more readily usable asset. A key element to achieve this is to assign a
real-world semantics to its elements, which was already identified as a research
challenge in [24] but not picked up on so far.
This position paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, theories and related
work will be discussed that are relevant for our research agenda. Proposals for
research directions are then presented in Section 3. We will conclude this paper
with a summary and outlook in Section 4.
2 A theoretical view on information visualization
2.1 Demand for theoretical underpinnings of information
visualization in IS
While visualization techniques are to some extent studied by IS scholars, we
consider it remarkable that the techniques for conceptual modeling have barely
evolved from a visual perspective. The most dominant techniques for business
process modeling, for example, are still highly similar to the archetypical “pro-
cess flow chart” proposed in the 1920s [7]. Specifically, a process model – whether
expressed as EPC, BPMN model or UML Activity Diagram – is still shown as
a static diagram in which different types of symbols are connected by arrows.
Considering advances that have been made in fields such as computer anima-
tion and information visualization in recent years, it seems reasonable to expect
that untapped sources exist for better depictions of conceptual models. In this
section, we will review a number of disciplines and their corresponding theories
for inspiration.
Graphic Design The field of Graphic Design research has developed and expli-
cated design recommendations and quality criteria for visualizations in diverse
areas of practical applications [18]. The focus is primarily on aesthetics, with
questions about the cognitive impact of visual expressions in the center of the
discipline, and reasoning about transporting conceptual meaning and under-
standing towards its periphery. Graphic Design offers a stable core of knowl-
edge about the effectiveness of different visualization modes. The terminological
apparatus of Graphic Design research for reflecting about visualizations goes
far beyond the simplified notion of hierarchically composed, atomistic graphical
shapes as being common in IS today. It thus can be expected that incorporating
parts of the stable core knowledge achieved in Graphic Design will provide a
relevant theoretic advance for IS research on conceptual model visualization.
Interaction Design Research activities in Interaction Design especially care
about how environments for presenting information should be shaped in order to
allow humans to accurately make sense out of information [20]. The core idea is
that suitable ecological settings influence the way information is perceived and
processed [23]. Interaction Design does not embrace visualization techniques as
its core concern, but rather cares for analyzing information needs and reason-
ably arranging visualization techniques and other means of human-to-software
communication to fulfil them efficiently. In this sense, it lies in the very center
of Interaction Design’s interests to theorize about relationships between perceiv-
ing and understanding, which is one key element for an advanced handling of
visualizations which is yet missing in IS research on visualization.
Cognitive Science Cognitive Sciences operate in the force field between rea-
soning about thinking and understanding, and examining characteristics of the
mind, down to the physical functioning of the human brain. While in Graphic
Design phenomena such as gestalt perception and pre-conceptual categorizations
are taken as-is and are systematized specifically for the purpose of providing de-
sign recommendations for visualizations, the focus in Cognitive Science is much
wider and incorporates research about all cognitive phenomena and mental ca-
pabilities [2]. Besides language use, memorizing, and reasoning, e. g., this also
covers visual processing of the human mind and the relationship between seeing
and understanding. When it comes to finding means for assessing the efficiency
of specific modes of visualizations for conceptual models in IS, Cognitive Sciences
are likely to provide appropriate fundamentals.
Philosophy of Mind The philosophical direction of Embodied Cognition of-
fers an explanation model for human thinking which derives capabilities, such as
speaking languages or understanding abstract concepts, from basic experiences
humans make as bodily beings in a physical world [12]. According to this ap-
proach, humans repeatedly perceive patterns (such as “things fall down when
they don’t have a surface to rest on”, or “two objects cannot be simultaneously
in the same place”), which, after repeated steps of metaphorical abstractions,
finally let higher-level cognitive capabilities emerge. Given the elaborations of
this idea available from philosophical works, a translation of key concepts for ap-
plication in IS can be expected to contribute to a rich terminological apparatus
for reflection on model visualization.
2.2 Related work
As stated in the introduction, most work that considers visual aspects of con-
ceptual models focuses on the best possible use of the visual elements of existing
techniques, as in [15, 9, 5]. In these types of work, the modeling technique it-
self is not put into question. Only a few attempts to systematically introduce
research questions around model visualizations exist in IS and its neighboring
discipline computer science. [22] attempts to develop a measure for the economic
value of visualization based on effectiveness and efficiency. By focussing only on
cost aspects, however, a qualitative evaluation of information visualization is
not considered at all. As [17] remarks, the differences between textual languages
and visual representations are so diverse “that fundamentally different princi-
ples are required for evaluating and designing visual languages”. The proposed
solution, however, remains limited by typical paradigmatic presuppositions that
are common in the way visualization is treated in IS research today (see 2.3).
Other contributions in the literature, which put data or information visual-
ization into focus, e. g. [21, 13, 25], operate mainly on a visual design level and do
not embed their examinations into the wider focus of reasoning about developing
modeling techniques and improved information systems.
2.3 Shortcomings of current approaches
The current state of theoretic reflection about model visualization is character-
ized by a set of paradigmatic limitations, which narrow down existing approaches
to operate with restricted notions of visualizations. Some presuppositions by
which current research is constricted become visible in Moody’s attempt [17] to
provide a theory on the “physics” of notation. While the approach is thoroughly
motivated by the identification of severe weaknesses in current reflections on
visualizations, the examination carried out contains statements such as “there
must be a one-to-one correspondence between symbols and their referent con-
cepts” (cited from [8]). This explicitly excludes a notion of patterns as carriers
of meaning in visualizations, although there is strong evidence that exactly the
cognitive capabilities of processing of patterns rather than linear language is one
key element of understanding visual perception.
Additionally, [17] claims that it “says nothing about [. . . ] semantic issues”.
This expresses an aim for introducing a methodological simplification in order
to make the examination better handleable. However, as argued above, there
are good reasons to believe that fruitful answers to questions about predicting
and measuring the cognitive effectiveness and efficiency of visualizations can
only be given when a joint theoretic view on conceptual thinking and perceptual
processes is taken in. Indeed, the methodological separation of conceptualization
and representation might be the very reason why visualization research in IS
currently seems to be stuck in a crisis.
3 Research direction
3.1 Seeing is thinking, and vice versa – overcome the methodical
reductionism that divides conceptualization and perception
It is a widespread belief that the use of visualization for communication increases
the efficiency and accuracy of communication, because the cognitive apparatus of
humans handles visual impressions differently from spoken or written language.
When seeing, humans can simultaneously grasp an unvisualizationderstanding
on multiple levels of granularity. Complex relationships can easily be understood
by being affected by patterns, and understanding visual impressions can happen
in parallel. This is only possible because in our minds the conceptual qualities
transported by a visualization, i. e., knowledge expressed by it, and the perceptual
qualities, which are the visual impressions that shape the way our minds handles
the perceived impressions, are intricately intertwined [11, 16].
The very question of how to make “good” visualizations implies that concep-
tual thinking and visual thinking must be brought together. Separating concep-
tualization and perception would lead, in our view, into the wrong methodolog-
ical direction. By this separation, any attempt to gain a prescriptive theoretic
approach that allows to consciously judge why some visualizations will lead to
a more efficient and accurate understanding than others is jeopardized from the
very beginning, because the “understanding” side is excluded beforehand.
Rather than trying to approach the research questions by seemingly reducing
the complexity, but, in fact, preventing an appropriate argumentation architec-
ture for answering the questions, a theory seems required that offers a combined
view on conceptual semantics and perceptual qualities. The road toward an elab-
oration of such an approach is sketched in the remaining part of this paper.
3.2 Developing an advanced theory for information visualization
We suggest to follow some coarse-grained steps for performing research in the
direction that we outlined.
In an initial phase, the existing body of knowledge from disciplines such as
graphic design, interaction design, cognitive sciences, gestalt psychology, and
philosophy of mind should be examined to find stable theoretic knowledge in
which conceptual elements and visual design rationales are systematically com-
bined. Prospectively, it will be sufficient to concentrate on core elements of the
respective disciplines which are no longer undergoing intra-disciplinary discus-
sions.
Based on conceptualizations from these research areas, a linkage to IS can
be established by applying its methodical means, such as conceptual model-
ing, meta-modeling, knowledge representation and transformation techniques,
to “translate” the imported knowledge from other disciplines into languages
of IS. This procedure resembles one of the very core competencies and pur-
poses of IS, namely the terminological reconstruction of domains of discourse to
(semi-)formal languages [6] for the further design and development of information
systems. The notable difference in this case is the terminological reconstruction
performed on the methodological level to establish scientific means for construct-
ing IS methods, instead of performing it on the methodical level, where external
domains of discourse are investigated.
Once conceptualizations in the languages of IS are made explicit, software can
be described using the imported concepts. For research purposes, tool support for
software-based visualization methods in IS can be provided. The capabilities of
these solutions cannot yet be described more precisely, because they will become
characterizable only as a result of the examinations on imported knowledge from
other disciplines.
With the existence of prototypical methods with implemented tooling sup-
port, visualization approaches will become eligible for systematic evaluation
through established design science criteria [10]. Evaluation can either be per-
formed qualitatively, i. e., by analyzing and comparing visualization approaches
with the terminological equipment developed through the reconstruction of im-
ported theories, or quantitatively, i. e., by applying empirical experiments and
surveys.
3.3 Theory architecture
Our proposal extends the existing and in our view oversimplified architecture
of existing visualization approaches for conceptual models, as it is displayed
in Fig. 1 (a). The traditional view assumes that visualizations can sufficiently
be described by one-to-one mappings between conceptual elements and visual
representations. The specification of visualizations is performed on the level of
meta-models, where types of model elements and types of visual elements are
related to each other.
The extensions of the theory architecture that our proposed research program
implies incorporate an additional level of reflection on the meta2 level. Fig. 1 (b)
illustrates this by repeating the original mapping structure in its lower part, and
adding the element “Model of Conceptual Qualities” which represents terminol-
ogy to describe characteristics of meta-concepts, the element “Model of Percep-
tual Qualities” which represents imported knowledge about visualizations with
regard to their cognitive impact and features that influence their understand-
ing, and the element “Model of cognitive efficient patterns” which stands for
IS-specific insights about combing the other two. It should be noted that at the
current stage of formulating the demands for a research program on conceptual
model visualization, the introduced meta elements merely act as placeholders for
research results yet to be achieved. Possible manifestations of these elements, and
their representations in formal document artifacts, still remain to be elaborated.
4 Conclusion
In this work, we have signalled a fundamentally flawed view on the role of vi-
sualization aspects of conceptual models. Our argument, inspired by a range of
Conceptual Visualization
map Mapping Model
(Meta-)Models map Features
(a)
Model of Model of Model of
Conceptual Cognitive efficient Perceptual
Qualities map map Qualities
patterns
abstract apply abstract
Conceptual Extended Visualization
(Meta-)Models map Mapping Model map Features
(b)
Fig. 1: Traditional notion of a visualization specification (a), and the suggested
extensions (b)
theories, is that a separation of conceptual thinking and perceptual processes is
a dead end. Considering the importance of conceptual modeling for the IS field,
it seems appropriate for researchers in this discipline to take on the challenge
and embrace a wider perspective on visualization research than characteristic
for the state of the art. It is our hope that the research agenda we provided may
serve as an inspiration for this endeavor.
References
1. Dinesh Batra and George M Marakas. Conceptual data modelling in theory and
practice. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(3):185–193, 1995.
2. José Luis Bermúdez. Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Science of the
Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2014.
3. Islay Davies, Peter Green, Michael Rosemann, Marta Indulska, and Stan Gallo.
How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge
Engineering, 58(3):358–380, 2006.
4. Kathrin Figl, Jan Mendling, Mark Strembeck, and Jan Recker. On the cogni-
tive effectiveness of routing symbols in process modeling languages. In Business
Information Systems, pages 230–241. Springer, 2010.
5. Kathrin Figl and Mark Strembeck. On the importance of flow direction in business
process models. In ICSOFT-EA 2014 - Proceedings of the 9th International Con-
ference on Software Engineering and Applications, Vienna, Austria, 29-31 August,
2014, pages 132–136, 2014.
6. Ulrich Frank. Multi-level modeling - toward a new paradigm of conceptual model-
ing and information systems design. Business & Information Systems Engineering
(BISE), 6(3), 2014.
7. Frank B Gilbreth and LM Gilbreth. Process charts and their place in management.
Mechanical engineering, 70:38–41, 1922.
8. Nelson Goodman. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Hackett
Publishing, Indianapolis, 1968.
9. Thomas Gschwind, Jakob Pinggera, Stefan Zugal, Hajo A Reijers, and Barbara
Weber. A linear time layout algorithm for business process models. Journal of
Visual Languages & Computing, 25(2):117–132, 2014.
10. Alan R. Hevner, Salvatore T. March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. Design science
in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1):75–105, March 2004.
11. E. Husserl and D. Moran. Logical Investigations, volume 2 of International library
of philosophy and scientific method. Routledge, 2001.
12. G. Johnson, M.; Lakoff. Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its
Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York, 1999.
13. Andy Kirk. Data Visualization: a successful design process. Packt Publishing,
Birmingham, 2012.
14. Ned Kock, Jacques Verville, Azim Danesh-Pajou, and Dorrie DeLuca. Commu-
nication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign
success: Results from a field study. Decision Support Systems, 46(2):562–575, 2009.
15. Marcello La Rosa, Arthur HM Ter Hofstede, Petia Wohed, Hajo A Reijers, Jan
Mendling, and Wil MP van der Aalst. Managing process model complexity via
concrete syntax modifications. Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions on,
7(2):255–265, 2011.
16. M. Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge classics. Routledge,
2002.
17. Daniel L. Moody. The “physics” of notations: Toward a scientific basis for con-
structing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 35(6):756–779, 11/12 2009.
18. R. Poulin. The Language of Graphic Design: An Illustrated Handbook for Under-
standing Fundamental Design Principles. Rockport Publishers, 2011.
19. Michael Rosemann. Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part b. Business Process
Management Journal, 12(3):377, 2006.
20. Dan Saffer. Designing for Interaction: Creating Innovative Applications and De-
vices. New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, 2nd edition, 2009.
21. Robert Spence. Information Visualization. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2nd
edition, 2007.
22. J.J. van Wijk. The value of visualization. In C. Silva, E. Groeller, and H. Rush-
meier, editors, Proceedings IEEE Visualization 2005, pages 76–86, 2005.
23. K. J. Vicente and J. Rasmussen. Ecological interface design: Theoretical founda-
tions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, (22):589–606, 1992.
24. Yair Wand and Ron Weber. Research commentary: information systems and con-
ceptual modeling – a research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4):363–
376, 2002.
25. Hunter Whitney. Data Insights: New Ways to Visualize and Make Sense of Data.
Morgan Kaufman, Waltham, 2013.