Cargando…

Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models

Business process models are widely used artifacts in design activities to facilitate communication about business domains and processes. Despite being an extensively researched topic, some aspects of conceptual business modeling are yet to be fully explored and understood by academicians and practit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boutin, Karl-David, Davis, Christopher, Hevner, Alan, Léger, Pierre-Majorique, Labonte-LeMoyne, Elise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9731113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507322
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.982764
_version_ 1784845837825736704
author Boutin, Karl-David
Davis, Christopher
Hevner, Alan
Léger, Pierre-Majorique
Labonte-LeMoyne, Elise
author_facet Boutin, Karl-David
Davis, Christopher
Hevner, Alan
Léger, Pierre-Majorique
Labonte-LeMoyne, Elise
author_sort Boutin, Karl-David
collection PubMed
description Business process models are widely used artifacts in design activities to facilitate communication about business domains and processes. Despite being an extensively researched topic, some aspects of conceptual business modeling are yet to be fully explored and understood by academicians and practitioners alike. We study the attentional characteristics specific to experts and novices in a semantic and syntactic error detection task across 75 Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) models. We find several intriguing results. Experts correctly identify more error-free models than novices, but also tend to find more false positive defects. Syntactic errors are diagnosed faster than semantic errors by both groups. Both groups spend more time on error-free models. Our findings regarding the ambiguous differences between experts and novices highlight the paradoxical nature of expertise and the need to further study how best to train business analysts to design and evaluate conceptual models.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9731113
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97311132022-12-09 Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models Boutin, Karl-David Davis, Christopher Hevner, Alan Léger, Pierre-Majorique Labonte-LeMoyne, Elise Front Neurosci Neuroscience Business process models are widely used artifacts in design activities to facilitate communication about business domains and processes. Despite being an extensively researched topic, some aspects of conceptual business modeling are yet to be fully explored and understood by academicians and practitioners alike. We study the attentional characteristics specific to experts and novices in a semantic and syntactic error detection task across 75 Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) models. We find several intriguing results. Experts correctly identify more error-free models than novices, but also tend to find more false positive defects. Syntactic errors are diagnosed faster than semantic errors by both groups. Both groups spend more time on error-free models. Our findings regarding the ambiguous differences between experts and novices highlight the paradoxical nature of expertise and the need to further study how best to train business analysts to design and evaluate conceptual models. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9731113/ /pubmed/36507322 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.982764 Text en Copyright © 2022 Boutin, Davis, Hevner, Léger and Labonte-LeMoyne. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Boutin, Karl-David
Davis, Christopher
Hevner, Alan
Léger, Pierre-Majorique
Labonte-LeMoyne, Elise
Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models
title Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models
title_full Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models
title_fullStr Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models
title_full_unstemmed Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models
title_short Don’t overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models
title_sort don’t overthink it: the paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9731113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507322
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.982764
work_keys_str_mv AT boutinkarldavid dontoverthinkittheparadoxicalnatureofexpertiseforthedetectionoferrorsinconceptualbusinessprocessmodels
AT davischristopher dontoverthinkittheparadoxicalnatureofexpertiseforthedetectionoferrorsinconceptualbusinessprocessmodels
AT hevneralan dontoverthinkittheparadoxicalnatureofexpertiseforthedetectionoferrorsinconceptualbusinessprocessmodels
AT legerpierremajorique dontoverthinkittheparadoxicalnatureofexpertiseforthedetectionoferrorsinconceptualbusinessprocessmodels
AT labontelemoyneelise dontoverthinkittheparadoxicalnatureofexpertiseforthedetectionoferrorsinconceptualbusinessprocessmodels