Focused Conceptualisation : Framing Questions and Answers in Model-Oriented Dialogue Games

1. Stijn Hoppenbrouwers and Ilona Wilmont Focused Conceptualisation:Framing Questions and Answers in Model-Oriented Dialogue Games

2. What are we trying to do here? General, long-term context: • Analysis and theory of Enterprise Modelling sessions • With the aim to better understand what happens in them • And the higher aim of eventually providing better support for them (procedures, tools; concepts)

3. Focus • Special attention to working/communicating with non-specialists: “modelling with stakeholders” • Guiding them through the conceptualisation process • Matching the process, concepts and communication to their skills, expertise, and attitudes/motivations • So, also emphasis on “collaborative modelling” • Open eye for wider context of enterprise development and system development; specifically: Agile Service Development

4. Some considerations • There is a clear link with “conversations with stakeholders” in general: • What’s the difference between a structured requirements interview and a modelling session, if any? • What drives conversations-for-modelling, and what constrains them? What are the “rules of the game”? • Types of rule (previous work): • Content goals • Syntactic goals • Validation goals • Procedural and Interaction constraints • Roles imposed (and special rules accordingly) • …

5. Interactions Rules Interactions, Rules, Models (RIM); Propositions posed and discussed in the interactions constitute the model (which is a text); Goals are also rules (subset) Game metaphor; Dialogue games Implicit and explicit rules Rules for the game and in the game Rules explicit, but also implicit Log Underlying Concepts in a Nutshell Models (propositions)

6. Communication Situations • Those contexts in which conversations for modelling actually happen • People and what they do, in particular what they say • Driven by “questions asked” descriptivecontent • Constrained by “types of answers allowed” constraints on form, including clearly defined concepts • Hypothesis: The literature and our own findings suggest that the burden of using a non-natural syntax is much greater than that of giving a meaningful description (in the stakeholder’s own terms) for a particular use

7. Foci in Communication Situations • We distinguish between two basic foci: • Pragmatic focus: “getting the job done” by means of some (focused) description, in whatever form; • Semantic-syntactic focus: using he right (prescribed) concepts (word classes) and syntax-compliant combinations thereof • We think pragmatic focus comes natural to most people or at least can by guided by prompting and questioning, whereas semantic-syntactic focus is a harder and above all different trick to learn. • However, we do need both foci in the end.

8. Some further considerations • Pragmatic focus should be leading over sem-syn focus • In many (informal) cases, prag focus can do without sem-syn focus • Syn-sem focus can, however, be dictated by other requirements: technological, analytical, … • Only imposing sem-syn constraints without also making the prag focus very clear is useless. • You can exercise both foci, even separately • Different syn-sem foci do not mix well. • So even though prag focus is leading, if you want to use the same propositions under sem-syn constraints, you’d better start imposing them straight away… (challenge) • Way out of this: elicit focused, structured argumentation without imposing syntactic restrictions and then derive syntactically constrained models from argumentation

9. Abstraction • Key competency & issue in Modelling • “Leaving out known information that is irrelevant to the pragmatic goals/focus” • Only if semantic-syntactic concept types are neatly used can such types be used to select the relevant from the irrelevant; • Other factors are also involved in determining relevancy

10. Decomposing the act of abstraction • Three basic (logical) activities: Generate, Classify, Select • These can, however, well be collapsed in the mind of the person conceiving and expressing the abstraction • Yet they can also show as distinguishable, cognitive phenomena • Categorisation involves some form of typing, yet it does not have to be equal to “concept typing” • Other options: granularity, temporal relevance, scope; epistemic and communicational redundancy; …

11. Decomposing complex modelling tasks into series of easier tasks 2x3 matrix: • There are certainly further ways of classifying and decomposing tasks, andmore nuanced types of activity, e.g. comparing, ranking, merging, and so on • In practice, such decomposition is executed regularly, by people who knowhow to make modelling accessible (modellers, facilitator) • Initially, we just hope to better understand how this works

12. Focused Conceptualisations: an Instrument • For analysis and design of dialogue games (real life or artificial) we need a clear and concrete viewpoint on communication situations: “FoCons”. • Think of situations like an interview, a modelling session, a model validation session, etc. • Analysis: what conceptualisation goals do people try to achieve in this situation? What “job do they try to do”? What do people know and what are they able to do? How is the focus achieved? • Design: given a certain job to do, how to break it up in manageable FoCons an how to execute these well, in view of what people are able to and motivated to do?

13. FoCon FoCons What goes in? What comes out? GEN CLASS SEL • Prompting /representation Technique • Questions to ask? • Types of answer? • Instructions to give? • Games to play? FoCons can be linked and iterated (ad-hoc, triggered, planned)

14. Testing and using FoCons: 3 cases • Analysis of a phase of modelling in a collaborative modeling session: the ‘actor identification’ phase for a UML activity diagram (swim lane): activity-actor matches guide selection of actors • Group Model Building script analysed trough FoCons and used to design a GMB dialogue game • Analysis of (the flaws in) a real life elicitation and modelling session, aiming to create an operational legal decision procedure based on declarative regulation. Shows pragmatic and semantic-syntactic foci that were beyond the domain modeller.

15. General Questions 1 • How does the paper relate to actual, industrial practice of enterprise modeling? Is it, in this sense, premature, exploratory work, or does it have a more direct relation? Has it been tested in practice? Used? Experiences? • What would be the main message (one-liner) you would like practitioners to remember concerning your paper? “When thinking about EM, ask yourself: what are people actually doing when they deal or interact with my models, what skills are needed for this, and how can I match this with the needs and attitudes of my Stakeholders?”

16. General Questions 2 • How does the paper relate to applied theory development for enterprise modelling: are there any generic lessons learned or principles discussed that deserve a place in the “body of knowledge” of EE/EM? • What would be the main message (one-liner) you would like academics to remember concerning your paper? “Keep an eye on supporting Pragmatic Focus as a leading factor; don’t just go for Semantic-Syntactic Focus alone, and don’t expect stakeholders to wield it actively (or even passively)”