Embracing pragmatics

Marija Bjeković, Henderik A. Proper, Jean-Sébastien Sottet

ER 2014, Atlanta

29.10.2014

Embracing pragmatics?

Pragmatics of enterprise modelling languages

- an explanatory framework -

“Pragmatics for modelling is the study how languages

are used for intended deployment functions in

dependence on the purposes and goals within a

community of practice.” [Thalheim2012]

Understanding and explanation of the actual use of

modelling languages

2

Agenda

Research challenge and approach

How we embraced pragmatics

Summary and outlook

3

RESEARCH CHALLENGE

4

Actual use of BPMN standard

5 [zurMuehlen&Recker2008] [Recker2010]

6 [Recker2010]

Business rules? Process landscapes? Organisational structure and roles? [Recker2010] [Wohed2006]

7

[Recker2010]

“Ad-hoc” and “local” extensions and adaptations

8

[Recker2010]

Further examples

Ongoing evolution of ArchiMate standard

Practical use of conceptual modelling [Davies2006] [Fettke2009] [Anaby-Tavor2010]

Software architecture languages [Malavolta2013]

e3value [Kort2008], i* [Elahi2008]

9

ArchiMate 1.0 ArchiMate 2.0 + Migration + Motivation

? + Business policies and rules + Strategy + Risk + Capability…

Uniform representation format

Standard exchange format

Capitalise on best practices

Knowledge transfer

Prescribe the way of modelling

10

LANGUAGE ENGINEERING

LANGUAGE USE

VALUE

Compensate for ‘missing

aspects’

Org. contexts and topics

Modelling situations and

audiences

Reduce the complexity of

the language used

Effort to learn and use

[Malavolta2013] [Anaby-Tavor2010] [Fernandez2010] [Bubenko2010]

[zurMuehlen&Recker2008] [Recker2010] [Carvallo2009] [Fernandez2010]

11

LANGUAGE ENGINEERING

LANGUAGE USE

VALUE

First and foremost understand and explain the drivers and

factors underlying the use of modelling languages

Recurrent phenomena in design/use of modelling languages

Requires a fundamental understanding

Available empirical data on language use is mostly of

quantitative nature (surveys, artefact analyses)

Observations of language use in context (qualitative) may

complement and enable for a richer and deeper understanding

[Gregor2006] EXPLANATORY THEORY

Our glasses

Utility-oriented view on models and modelling

languages

Value of language is inherently related to its use.

Socio-pragmatic constructivist stance

12

[Wyssusek2001,2002,2004]

[Proper2005]

13

EXPLANATORY THEORY

ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES

IN THEIR ACTUAL USE

Observations

ANALYTIC RESEARCH

INTERPRETATIVE RESEARCH (qualitative)

FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON THE ROLE OF

CONCEPTUAL/ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES

A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING

Critique of RW

Critique of RW

HOW WE EMBRACED

PRAGMATICS?

14

15

A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING

Critical synthesis of the selected theoretical work

Modelling in general [Stachowiak1973] [Rothenberg1989] [Wyssusek2001]

Conceptual/enterprise modelling [FRISCO1998] [Proper2005] [Hoppenbrouwers2005] [Thalheim2011,2012] [Kaschek2013] [Wilmont2013]

Makes the role of purpose in modelling explicit

Grounding:

Semiotics - Morris [Morris1946], Pierce [Short2009]

Cognitive science [Lakoff1987]

Model definition

A model is an artefact acknowledged by the observer as

representing some domain for a particular purpose.

16

• Artefact. Excludes conceptions or mental models. Model is necessarily represented in the physical space, be it material or virtual.

• Observer. Refers to model creators and (relevant) model audience. Observer plays the key role in modelling.

• Domain. Any ‘part’ or ‘aspect’ of the world (past, real, possible) considered relevant by the observer in the given modelling situation.

• Purpose. Aggregates the domain that the model pertains to and the intended usage by the intended audience.

Model definition

A model is an artefact acknowledged by the observer as

representing some domain for a particular purpose.

17

• Purposefulness. The value of a model consists in how it enables some usage of the model by its intended audience

- Influences all the processes involved in modelling in a non-trivial way - Observer is the key in evaluating the model’s purposefulness - Return on modelling effort (cost-benefit)

=> Model is only a representation of the domain for a particular purpose. A different purpose may require a different model.

Model

18

cd d

m

conception of

p

O

O - observer d - domain p - purpose cd - conception of d m – artefact representing cd influence

A fundamental view on modelling (1/2)

Abstraction Manifestation Evaluation

cd d

m

conception of

p

O

cd d

m

conception of

p

O

(model-to-be)

cd d conception of

p

O

A fundamental view on modelling (2/2)

20

cd d

m

conception of

cm

cp p

O

Mutual alignment of

conceptions is driven by

the observer’s evaluation

of the artefact’s

purposefulness.

Although always implicitly

present, it should be

explicitly considered in the

modelling process.

The idea that the purpose

and domain can be fully

determined a priori is an

illusion.

21

A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING

cd d

m

conception of

p

O

Grounding

Cognitive linguistics

Functional linguistics

Cognitive science

Proposition

To properly understand how language functions in a wider socio-

pragmatic modelling context, it is necessary to go beyond a

strictly normative view often adopted in design and evaluation of

modelling languages.

FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON THE ROLE OF

CONCEPTUAL/ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES

[Geeraerts2010]

[Cruse2011] [Clark1993]

[Lakoff1987]

[Stamper2000] [Hoppenbrouwers2003] [Hoppenbrouwers2005] [Thalheim2011,2012] [Kaschek2013] [Wyssusek2001,2004]

Role of conceptual modelling language

22

cd d

m

conception of

p

LINGUISTIC FUNCTION

REPRESENTATION FUNCTION

MODELLING LANGUAGE

Linguistic structure Role: • Frame the discourse about domain • Shape its conception

Representation system Role: • Facilitate expressing the

conception into a purposeful model, specifically for its mechanical manipulation

O

Traditionally…

23

cd d

m

conception of

p

O LINGUISTIC FUNCTION

REPRESENTATION FUNCTION

MODELLING LANGUAGE

Linguistic structure Role: • Frame the discourse about domain • Shape its conception

Goal: • Reuse across different

modelling situations

Representation system Role: • Facilitate expressing the

conception into a purposeful model, specifically for its mechanical manipulation

Goal: • Reuse across different domains,

machine readability

NORMATIVE/STIPULATED LANGUAGE (a priori)

OVEREMPHASISES TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

Linguistic function

24

cd d

m

conception of

p

O

LINGUISTIC FUNCTION

REPRESENTATION FUNCTION

MODELLING LANGUAGE

Linguistic structure is always idealised. Linguistic structure is not meaningful per se, but only if situated and rooted in the actual practices of a particular community. If the linguistic structure is not entrenched, it cannot be used in a cognitively effective way. Tendency to adapt/refine the linguistic structure to the given situation is natural.

[Lakoff1987] [Geeraerts2010]

Cognitive economy Cognitive effectiveness Cognitive fit

Variety in modelling language use

25

cd d

m

conception of

p

O Abstraction variety

Representation variety

• Abstraction level • Topics (domain scope) • Concepts for the

discourse about the domain

• Granularity of representation

• Medium

If the language/tool does not allow it, workarounds are very likely to occur.

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

26

27

EXPLANATORY THEORY

ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES

IN THEIR ACTUAL USE

Observation

ANALYTIC RESEARCH

INTERPRETATIVE RESEARCH (qualitative)

FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON THE ROLE OF

CONCEPTUAL/ENTERPRISE MODELLING LANGUAGES

A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW ON MODELLING

PURPOSE

BEYOND PURELY NORMATIVE VIEW LINGUISTIC FUNCTION

Immediate focus: Explanatory theory

Operationalisation, evaluation, further maturation

Elaborated a number of hypothesis with regards to

causes of language variation

Some initial thoughts are in the paper

Running case studies (qualitative method)

2 cases actually in the pipeline

Observations of language use in actual modelling situations

Coupled with analysis of models and other relevant artefacts,

and with interviews

28

Long term focus: Language design

29

• Careful balance representational and linguistic function of the

modelling languages

• Just enough language standarisation? • Reference language ecosystem (core + ‘local dialects’)

• Pragmatics-driven modular organisation

• Flexible modelling environments • Growing research interest across different communities

[Ossher2011] [Cho2011] [Cuadrado2012] [Gabrysiak2011] [Frank2014a,b] [Kimelman2011]

[Frank2014a,b]

30

Thank you!

http://www.ee-team.eu/

References

31

[Anaby-Tavor2010] Anaby-Tavor, A.; Amid, D.; Fisher, A.; Bercovici, A.; Ossher, H.; Callery, M.; Desmond, M.; Krasikov, S. & Simmonds, I. Insights into enterprise conceptual modeling, Data Knowledge Eng., 2010, 69, 1302-1318 [Bubenko2010] Bubenko, J. J. A.; Persson, A. & Stirna, J. An Intentional Perspective on Enterprise Modeling, Intentional Perspectives on Information Systems Engineering, Springer, 2010, 215-237 [Cuadrado2012] Sánchez-Cuadrado, J.; Lara, J. d. & Guerra, E., Bottom-Up Meta-Modelling: An Interactive Approach, Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2012, Proceedings, Springer, 2012, 3-19 [Cho2011] Cho, H.; Sun, Y.; Gray, J. & White, J., Key challenges for modeling language creation by demonstration ICSE FlexiTools Workshop, 2011 [Clark1993] Clark, H. Arenas of Language Use, University of Chicago Press, 1993 [Cruse2011] Cruse, A. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, 2011 [Davies2006] Davies, I.; Green, P. F.; Rosemann, M.; Indulska, M. & Gallo, S. How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice?, Data Knowl. Eng., 2006, 58, 358-380 [Elahi2008] Elahi, G.; Yu, E. & Annosi, M. C. Modeling Knowledge Transfer in a Software Maintenance Organization - An Experience Report and Critical Analysis, PoEM 2008, 2008, 15-29 [Fernandez2010] Fernández, H. F.; Palacios-González, E.; Garcia-Diaz, V.; Pelayo, G.; Bustelo, B. C.; Sanjuán Martinez, O. & Cueva Lovelle, J. M. SBPMN -- An Easier Business Process Modeling Notation for Business Users Computer Standards & Interfaces, Elsevier, 2010, 32, 18-28 [Fettke2009] Fettke, P. How Conceptual Modeling Is Used, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2009, Vol. 25 [Frank2014a] Frank, U. Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges, Software and System Modeling, 2014, 13, 941-962

32

[Frank2014b] Frank, U. Power-Modelling: Toward a More Versatile Approach to Creating and Using Conceptual Models, Business Modeling and Software Design, 4th International Symposium, 2014, 9-19 [FRISCO1998] Falkenberg, E. D.; Hesse, W.; Lindgreen, P.; Nilsson, B. E.; Oei, J.; Rolland, C.; Stamper, R.; Van Assche, F.; Verrijn-Stuart, A. & Voss, K. FRISCO - A Framework of Information System Concepts, IFIP WG 8.1, 1998 [Gabrysiak2011] Gabrysiak, G.; Giese, H.; Lüders, A. & Seibel, A. How Can Metamodels Be Used Flexibly,Proceedings of ICSE 2011 Workshop on Flexible Modeling Tools, FLEXITOOLS, 2011, 22 [Hoppenbrouwers2003] Hoppenbrouwers, S. Freezing Language; Conceptualisation processes in ICT supported organisations, University of Nijmegen, 2003, PhD dissertation [Hoppenbrouwers2005] Hoppenbrouwers, S.; Proper, H. & van der Weide, T. A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling, ER, 2005, 128-143 [Kaschek2013] Kaschek, R. A Semantic Analysis of Shared References, ER, 2013, 88-95 [Kimelman2011] Kimelman, D. & Hirschman, K. A Spectrum of Flexibility-Lowering Barriers to Modeling Tool Adoption, ICSE FlexiTools Workshop, 2011 [Kort2008] Kort, C. & Gordjin, J. Modeling Strategic Partnerships Using the e3value Ontology: A Field Study in the Banking Industry, Handbook of Ontologies for Business Interaction, IGI Global, 2008, 310-325 [Malavolta2013] Malavolta, I.; Lago, P.; Muccini, H.; Pelliccione, P. & Tang, A. What Industry Needs from Architectural Languages: A Survey, IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng., 2013, 39, 869-891 [Morris1946] Charles W. Morris (1946). Signs, Language and Behavior, Prentice-Hall, 1946.

[Ossher2011] Ossher, H.; Bellamy, R. K. E.; Amid, D.; Anaby-Tavor, A.; Callery, M.; Desmond, M.; de Vries, J.; Fisher, A.; Frauenhofer, T.; Krasikov, S.; Simmonds, I. & Swart, C., Business insight toolkit: Flexible pre-requirements modeling, ICSE Companion, 2009, 423-424 [Proper2005] Proper, H. A.; Verrijn-Stuart, A. A. & Hoppenbrouwers, S. On Utility-based Selection of Architecture-Modelling Concepts, APCCM 2005, 2005, 25-34

33

[Recker2010] Recker, J. Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN, Business Proc. Manag. Journal, 2010, 16, 181-201 [Rothenberg1989] Rothenberg, J. The Nature of Modeling, Artificial intelligence, simulation & modeling, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989, 75-92 [Short2009] Short,T L., Pierce‘s Theory of signs, Cambridge University Press, 2009

[Stachowiak1973] Stachowiak, H. Allgemeine Modelltheorie, Allgemeine Modelltheorie, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1973 [Thalheim2011] Thalheim, B. The Theory of Conceptual Models, the Theory of Conceptual Modelling and Foundations of Conceptual Modelling, Handbook of Conceptual Modeling, Springer, 2011, 543-577 [Thalheim2012] Thalheim, B. Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Conceptual Modelling, NLDB, 2012, 1-10 [Wilmont2013] Wilmont, I.; Hengeveld, S.; Barendsen, E. & Hoppenbrouwers, S. Cognitive Mechanisms of Conceptual Modelling - How Do People Do It?, ER, 2013, 74-87 [Wohed2006] Wohed, P.; van der Aalst, W. M. P.; Dumas, M.; ter Hofstede, A. H. M. & Russell, N. On the Suitability of BPMN for Business Process Modelling, Business Process Management, 2006, 161-176 [Wyssusek2001] Wyssusek, B.; Schwartz, M. & Kremberg, B. The Philosophical Foundation of Conceptual Knowledge – a Sociopragmatic Approach, Supplementary Proceedings of the 9th Int. Conf. on Conceptual Structures, 2001, 189-192 [Wyssusek2002] Wyssusek, B.; Schwartz, M. & Kremberg, B. Targeting the Social: A Sociopragmatic Approach Towards Design and Use of Information Systems, Information Resources Management Association Int. Conf., 2002, 832-835 [Wyssusek2004] Wyssusek, B. Ontology and ontologies in information systems analysis and design: a critique. AMCIS, 2004, 4303-4308