<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Cognitive Efforts in Using Integrated Models of Business Processes and Rules</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Wei Wang</string-name>
          <email>w.wang9@uq.edu.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Marta Indulska</string-name>
          <email>m.indulska@business.uq.edu.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Shazia Sadiq</string-name>
          <email>shazia@itee.uq.edu.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Brisbane</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AU">Australia</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>University of Queensland Business School, The University of Queensland</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Brisbane</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AU">Australia</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>33</fpage>
      <lpage>40</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The conceptual and pragmatic overlap between business process models and business rules indicates a need to model the two related aspects together. Yet, in practice, many business rules are modeled separately from the processes models they affect. While a considerable amount of research has developed integration methods for process and business rule modeling, whether such integration improves (or diminishes) the understanding of business processes has not been investigated. This paper explores whether the integration of business process models with business rules improves user cognition of process models. A four-stage cognitive process is proposed in the context of process model understanding followed by a discussion of how each of the process stages is affected by integrated models based on underlying theoretical perspectives from cognitive science.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Business Process Management</kwd>
        <kwd>Business Process Modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>Integrated Modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>Cognition Theory</kwd>
        <kwd>Human Information Processing</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Conceptual models are widely used in organizations by information systems analysts
and designers to represent, understand and analyze complex business domains [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. A
good understanding of a domain is a prerequisite to effective communication and
design. Thus, how conceptual models improve human cognition of the domain
represented is one of the most important research questions, and a considerable
amount of work has examined the role of different factors in improving human
understanding of conceptual models [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Such questions have also been explored in the
context of business process models, where, for example, factors that affect the
business process model understanding have been examined [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Business process models mainly focus on the modeling of business activities of an
organization, and, as conceptual models of practice, are regarded as essential tools for
the remaining stages of the BPM life cycle such as process (re)design, analysis,
simulation, verification, and information system specification. In practice, business rules
play an indispensable role in the design and implementation of process models. For
example, business rules are extracted from laws, policies and procedures, and used to
guide the design and specification of business processes.</p>
      <p>
        Business rules can be represented in an integrated manner or in a separated
manner. By ‘integrated manner’, we mean graphically in a process model. In such
integrated models, business rules can be represented either as text annotations (e.g.
BPMN has a text annotation construct for such a purpose), as graphical links to
external rules, or diagrammatically using a combination of sequence flows, activities and
gateways (see Fig. 1). By ‘separated manner’, we mean the rules constraining process
activities are documented in separate documents or rule engines, and the relations and
connections of business process models and the rules are not explicitly represented in
the process models. Traditionally, business rules, other than control flow, are modeled
in a separated manner [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. Over the past two decades the need to model business rules
in an integrated manner with business processes has been argued theoretically as well
as validated empirically [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref6">5, 6</xref>
        ], and a variety of integration methods and several
guidelines have been developed [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Despite arguments for such integration and despite the different integration
methods developed, whether such integration improves user understanding of the process
models has not been investigated. In particular, while researchers have argued that
integrated modeling can improve the understanding of business processes, this
proposition has neither been theoretically analyzed, nor empirically evaluated. Accordingly,
in this paper, we propose a four-stage cognitive process based on a cognitive model in
human information searching and processing [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], and explore theoretical foundations
that underpin the understanding of process models. We use cognitive load theory,
information representation theory, and information integration theory to explore
whether the integration of business process models with business rules might improve
human understanding of business processes, in each of the four stages. Our work is
limited to the context of model understanding. There may be other situations, e.g.
process execution, where the separation of rules might be preferable.
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Theoretical Background</title>
      <p>We look to existing theories of cognition, information representation, and information
integration to understand the effects of integrating business process models and
business rules on user understanding of the models. In the following sections, we outline
the related theories.
2.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Cognitive Load Theory</title>
        <p>
          Cognitive load can be defined as a construct representing the load that performing a
particular task imposes on the learner's cognitive system [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref9">9, 10</xref>
          ]. Three types of
cognitive load can be distinguished. Intrinsic cognitive load is determined by an interaction
between the nature of the material being learned and the expertise of the learners.
Extraneous cognitive load is the extra load beyond the intrinsic cognitive load
resulting from mainly poorly designed external representations, whereas germane cognitive
load is the load related to processes that contribute to the construction and automation
of schemas, which are organized patterns of thought or behavior that organizes
categories of information[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ]. Due to the limit of working memory capacity and cognitive
resources, a heavy cognitive load or cognitive overload typically creates errors, and
the rate of error increases with the level of cognitive load [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ].
2.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Information Representation Theory</title>
        <p>
          It has been well argued and evaluated in prior related research that the way
information is represented significantly affects both extraneous and germane load [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref13">12, 13</xref>
          ].
Researchers have argued that "static pictures and diagrams are better than sentential
representations" [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ] in terms of information comprehension and inferencing. Two
key factors distinguish diagrammatical representations from sentential representations
in terms of cognition efficiency in human information processing systems- viz.
information explicitness and search efficiency [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ]. In terms of information explicitness,
information represented in diagrams is more explicit and needs less computational
effort [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ]. In contrast, informationally equivalent representation of the same content
but in a sentential form typically requires further mental formulation to make it
explicit for use, which requires greater computational cognitive effort [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref13">12, 13</xref>
          ]. In terms of
search efficiency, in a diagrammatic representation information is organized by
location. Information elements that are relevant are grouped together, and information
elements needed for inference are often present at adjacent locations, or connected
with associations. Relations between graphical elements map onto the relations of
information elements in such a way that they restrict or enforce the kinds of
interpretations that can be made [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ]. This information grouping and connecting nature of
diagrams makes problem solving proceed through a smooth traversal of the diagram,
in which little cognitive effort in terms of search computation is required [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ]. In a
sentential representation, information is often organized as a list of text items. Finding
the relevant information item that matches the conditions of inferences requires
searching linearly down the list, and the several items needed may be widely
dispersed.
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>Information Integration Theory</title>
        <p>
          Information presented in an integrated manner is considered to reduce cognitive load,
while split-source information can generate a heavy cognitive load in the process of
information assimilation [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ]. Accordingly, in the context of process and rule
modeling, information representation research indicates that integrating business rules into
relevant business process models can reduce cognitive load thus to improve the
understanding of business processes. The processing of separate and mutually referring
information, such as separate business rules and process models, frequently and
unnecessarily requires attention to be split and switched between different sources which
inevitably consumes part of available working memory capacity and decreases
cognitive resources available for learning [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15 ref16">15, 16</xref>
          ]. Thus, if information is integrated into
the external representation, less cognitive efforts are needed to assimilate information
[32].
        </p>
        <p>The theories indicate that process models and rules should be represented in a
graphical and integrated manner, thus to reduce cognitive effort to achieve a better
understanding of process models.
3</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Cognitive Load in Integrated Process Models</title>
      <p>In this paper, we explore and compare the cognitive effort differences between
process and rules that modeled in an integrated manner and a separated manner. To do
so, we introduce the cognitive process that takes place when learning or analyzing
business process models and business rules. We argue that to fully understand a
business process, three components need to be studied: the process model, the business
rules, and the impact or implications the rules have on the process activities.While the
learning sequence of these components varies due to individual learning habits and
preferences, four learning activities are indispensable in such a learning process: one
needs to know the existence of rules constraining the process, then identify the rules,
study the rules, and finally combine their knowledge of the process and how the
business rules constrain it. While these four learning activities are required regardless of
whether the business rules are modeled in a separated manner or in an integrated
manner, the way the four activities are performed in the two scenarios is significantly
different.</p>
      <p>
        We look to the human information searching and processing cognitive model,
where information occurs in five stages, viz. goal formation, category selection,
information extraction, integration, and recycling [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]. We adapt this model to the
business process and business rule context. Goal formation involves identification of the
objective in the form of information that is to be found. In the context of business
process and rule modeling, this is a rule awareness stage, which is the stage at which
the user needs to become aware of the rules constraining a business activity. Category
selection involves locating an appropriate category in which information could be
relevant to the task. In our context, the focus is on each rule element/statement instead
of a section of information, and we consider this to be a rule locating stage.
Extraction of information related to the extraction of useful information in the identified
category so that the goal can be fulfilled. Business rules are more complicated than
the information referred to in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], which can be directly ‘decoded’. Accordingly, in
our context extraction alone is not sufficient and rule comprehension is required.
Integration is the act of synthesizing information extracted with previously obtained
information. In our context, this stage relates to the synthesis of rules with process
models. Recycling refers to transiting iteratively through the first four stages until the
goal is fulfilled. In our context it refers to the understanding of each business activity
and the rules constraining it, thus the understanding of the overall business process
with all relevant constraints. This stage is an iteration stage which is crucial but is
outside the scope of this paper as we consider it to bot differ significantly based on
the type of information provided. Our process thus includes the stages of rule
awareness, rule locating, rule comprehension, and information integration. In the following
sub-sections, we explore each stage of the process and the effect of integrated models
vs. separated representation.
3.1
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Rule Awareness</title>
        <p>To ensure a complete understanding of a business process, a stakeholder must be
aware of the existence of rules that the business activities are required to be in
compliance with. The lack of awareness of business rules can lead to noncompliant
process execution, and can also result in longer times and costs in information system
development. In a situation where the modeling is done in a separated manner, i.e.
with a separate document listing business rules, there is a risk that the stakeholder’s
understanding of the underlying process model will be incomplete and problematic.
Therefore, the execution of business activities by this stakeholder could breach
policies or regulations, and generate exceptions that are not allowed by the rules. Further,
such modeling might create problems at the requirement engineering phase of systems
development projects. If there are rules that cannot be clearly identified or there is a
lack of awareness of the rules then these will be missed at the design and
implementation stages, and thus could cost significant resources and time for remediation in later
stages.</p>
        <p>
          Researchers have found that it is a basic human cognition feature to be aware of
information if indications of relevance are explicitly provided [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
          ], and diagrams, by
their very nature, can explicitly connect relevant elements together [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ]. Thus, we
argue that awareness of business rules can be improved by integrating the rules into
relevant process model diagrams through any of the already existing integration
approaches. In particular, for very large and complex process models, we argue that
integration methods such as hyperlinks of rules or collapsible annotations can
improve rule awareness without increasing the complexity of the process model.
3.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Rule Locating</title>
        <p>After awareness of relevant rules in existence, the next step is to locate the rules.
Depending on whether or how locating indication is provided the cognitive effort in
locating information can be significantly different.</p>
        <p>In separated models, no indication is provided on where (e.g. location in a rule
repository) a relevant business rule is stored. In such a case, a comprehensive search
through all of the rules is required to find the relevant rule. Semantic interpretation
and matching of each rule to the relevant activity in the process model for the purpose
of identifying its relevance is required, which is time-consuming and error-prone. The
time needed for the search is directly affected by the size of the rule list, and two
types of error can occur. The first type of error is missing relevant rules in the
sequential reading of rules (false negatives). The second type of error is focusing on
plausible relevant rules that are actually irrelevant (false positives), which results in
additional cognitive load and could negatively affect the understanding of the process.</p>
        <p>
          We argue that by integrating business rules into business process models the
cognitive effort in searching for relevant rules can be reduced. For example, the use of
links [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
          ] to integrate the business rules into the models provides the location of
relevant rules to that specific part of the process. Representing business rules in
annotations and associating these with relevant activities that the rule constrains, can
evidently reduce cognitive effort.
3.3
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>Rule Comprehension</title>
        <p>
          Rule comprehension refers to the development of understanding of an individual
information element. A comprehension process takes place to assimilate the information
after it is located. The argument that diagrams are better than sentential
representations in terms of cognition efficiency has been well evaluated in research [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref13">12, 13</xref>
          ].
Diagrammatic representations can explicitly represent information, making
information readily available, while sentential descriptions typically are implicit and have to
be mentally formulated [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ], which requires greater cognitive effort.
        </p>
        <p>
          Business rules can be represented using business process modeling languages as
well as business rule modeling languages [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ], or simply natural language. Business
process modeling languages generally have simple graphical syntax and semantics,
while business rules languages are text-based and often abstract, and have a logical
syntax that requires a degree of expertise for interpretation and modeling [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
          ].
Although the representational capacity of process modeling languages may be
prohibitive [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
          ], it is evident that business rules that are integrated into business process
models, using graphical constructs are easier to comprehend.
3.4
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>Information Integration</title>
        <p>
          An individual business rule is unintelligible without the business process context.
Implications of a business rule can only be correctly and fully interpreted when the
context information is integrated. In other words, business activities cannot be fully
understood until they are integrated with the constraining business rules. If
information elements are not integrated physically in external representation, as is the case
with separate business rules and process models, then one has to mentally integrate
them which imposes additional cognitive load [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>The act of mental integration involves dividing attention between the multiple
sources of information, cross-referencing each source, mentally manipulating
diagrammatic and text elements, and finding relations among elements associated with
the diagram and statements.</p>
        <p>
          We observe that physical integration of business rules and process models can
enhance process model comprehension and learning. By graphically modeling a rule in
the relevant location on the process model, the cognitive load of dividing attention,
cross-referencing, and mental information integration of different information sources
is removed. Moreover, explicit relations between rules and activities in an integrated
graphical representation map onto the relations between the features of the process
being modeled in such a way that they restrict or enforce the kinds of interpretations
that can be made, which facilitates perceptual inferences [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ].
4
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusion and Discussion</title>
      <p>In this paper, we contribute to business process modeling research by providing a
theoretical basis for exploring the effect of integrating business process models and
business rules on the understanding of business processes. Our study introduces a
4stage cognition process in the context of process and rule modeling, viz. awareness,
locating, comprehension and integration, and adopts cognitive theories, including
cognitive load theory, information representation theory, and information integration
theory to explore each stage. The theoretical analysis indicates that the integration of
business process models with business rules can improve awareness of business rules,
reduce cognitive effort and reduce errors in the locating of business rules and the
mental integration of business process models and business rules. Further, the
integration of business rules in diagrammatic form is more explicit for comprehension than
sentential representation.</p>
      <p>A comprehensive empirical evaluation is required to evaluate this research. We
anticipate that besides traditional understanding performance measurements such as
time to complete task and number of errors made, which only provide data on the
cognition aspect, measurements that capture the process of cognition are essential in
the evaluation. In the next step of this research, we will develop an experiment
protocol and use eye-tracking devices, which can collect a variety of cognitive behavior
data, to explore empirically the four stage process and the effect of integrated and
separated modeling of business processes and rules.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Recker</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rosemann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Green</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Indulska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? MIS Quarterly</article-title>
          .
          <volume>35</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>57</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>79</lpage>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Allen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>March</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S.T.:
          <article-title>The effects of state-based and event-based data representation on user performance in query formulation tasks</article-title>
          .
          <source>Mis Quarterly</source>
          .
          <fpage>269</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>290</lpage>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mendling</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Strembeck</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Recker</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Factors of process model comprehensionFindings from a series of experiments</article-title>
          .
          <source>Decision Support Systems</source>
          .
          <volume>53</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>195</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>206</lpage>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Zur</given-names>
            <surname>Muehlen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Indulska</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Kittel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>K.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Towards integrated modeling of business processes and business rules</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 19h Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS)-Creating the Future: Transforming Research into Practice, Christchurch</source>
          , New Zealand. pp.
          <fpage>690</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>697</lpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>Citeseer</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Recker</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Indulska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rosemann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Green</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The ontological deficiencies of process modeling in practice</article-title>
          .
          <source>European Journal of Information Systems</source>
          .
          <volume>19</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>501</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>525</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Indulska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sadiq</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Integrated modelling of business process models and business rules: a research agenda</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS)</source>
          . University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Indulska</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sadiq</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Factors Affecting Business Process and Business Rule Integration</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS)</source>
          . University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guthrie</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.T.:
          <article-title>Locating Information in Documents: Examination of a Cognitive Model</article-title>
          . Reading Research Quarterly.
          <volume>23</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>178</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>199</lpage>
          (
          <year>1988</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Paas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tuovinen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tabbers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gerven</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.W.M.V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory</article-title>
          .
          <source>Educational Psychologist</source>
          .
          <volume>38</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>63</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>71</lpage>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Paas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Van Merriënboer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks</article-title>
          .
          <source>Educational psychology review. 6</source>
          ,
          <fpage>351</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>371</lpage>
          (
          <year>1994</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mousavi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Low</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sweller</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of educational psychology</source>
          .
          <volume>87</volume>
          ,
          <issue>319</issue>
          (
          <year>1995</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scaife</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rogers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies</article-title>
          .
          <volume>45</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>185</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>213</lpage>
          (
          <year>1996</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Larkin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Simon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words</article-title>
          .
          <source>Cognitive science</source>
          .
          <volume>11</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>65</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>100</lpage>
          (
          <year>1987</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chandler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sweller</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction</article-title>
          .
          <source>British Journal of Educational Psychology</source>
          .
          <volume>62</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>233</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>246</lpage>
          (
          <year>1992</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chandler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sweller</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction</article-title>
          .
          <source>Cognition and instruction. 8</source>
          ,
          <fpage>293</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>332</lpage>
          (
          <year>1991</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kalyuga</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chandler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sweller</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction</article-title>
          .
          <source>Applied cognitive psychology. 13</source>
          ,
          <fpage>351</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>371</lpage>
          (
          <year>1999</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sweller</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chandler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          : Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn.
          <source>Cognition and Instruction</source>
          .
          <volume>12</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>185</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>233</lpage>
          (
          <year>1994</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sperber</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Wilson,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Ziran</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>He</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Yongping Ran:
          <article-title>Relevance: Communication and cognition</article-title>
          .
          <source>Citeseer</source>
          (
          <year>1986</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          19.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sapkota</surname>
            , B., van Sinderen,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Exploiting rules and processes for increasing flexibility in service composition</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW)</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          14th IEEE International. pp.
          <fpage>177</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>185</lpage>
          . IEEE (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          20.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sadiq</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A survey of comparative business process modeling approaches</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Business Information Systems</source>
          . pp.
          <fpage>82</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>94</lpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2007</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          21.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Zur</given-names>
            <surname>Muehlen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Indulska</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: A representational analysis</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information systems</source>
          .
          <volume>35</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>379</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>390</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          22.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Blackwell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Green</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Notational systems-the cognitive dimensions of notations framework</article-title>
          .
          <source>HCI Models</source>
          , Theories, and
          <article-title>Frameworks: Toward an Interdisciplinary Science</article-title>
          . Morgan Kaufmann. (
          <year>2003</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>