Skip to main content
Log in

Identifying common and persistent errors made by novice analysts when modeling business processes using UML activity diagram: utilizing a hierarchical error classification

  • Research
  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate process modeling is critical to the successful design of information systems. Therefore, learning to design correct, complete, and irredundant process models is an important part of training for systems analysts, yet it is very challenging, especially for novice analysts. To teach high-quality modeling skills, it is essential to identify the common difficulties encountered in designing process models. Motivated by this insight, we formulated two research objectives: (1) identify the errors made by novices during process modeling, and analyze and classify them in light of three quality criteria—completeness, irredundancy, and correctness; (2) identify the most common errors, particularly the most persistent ones, that is, those most resistant to training. To this end, we analyzed 525 models built by 181 students (two or three models per student) during an academic course. We classified the students’ modeling errors, based on the principles of the modeling language, and carried out a frequency analysis, wherein we counted the prevalence of each error type. Our analysis produced a four-layer hierarchical classification of errors with 52 elements, including 38 error categories, subcategories, and irreducible types. We also identified the most common and most persistent error categories, both of which pertained mainly to difficulties in abstracting from a given scenario. This hierarchical classification plays an important role in establishing ways to improve the quality of process models designed by systems analysts, especially novices. Moreover, identifying persistent errors and “cracking” them is an essential step in designing a learning methodology that will help novice analysts to recognize such errors and, indeed, avoid them in the first place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  • Anda, B., Dreiem, H., Sjøberg, D. I., & Jørgensen, M. (2001). Estimating software development effort based on use cases-experiences from industry. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 487–502.

  • Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batra, D., & Davis, J. G. (1992). Conceptual data modelling in database design: Similarities and differences between expert and novice designers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 37(1), 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., Rosemann, M., & Von Uthmann, C. (2000). Guidelines of business process modeling. In Business process management (pp. 30–49). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Beimel, D., & Kedmi-Shahar, E. (2019). Improving the identification of functional system requirements when novice analysts create use case diagrams: The benefits of applying conceptual mental models. Requirements Engineering, 24(4), 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bider, I., Henkel, M., Kowalski, S., & Perjons, E. (2015, May). Teaching enterprise modeling based on multi-media simulation: A pragmatic approach. In International Conference on E-Technologies (pp. 239–254). Springer, Cham.

  • Dahan, M., Shoval, P., & Sturm, A. (2014). Comparing the impact of the OO-DFD and the Use Case methods for modeling functional requirements on comprehension and quality of models: A controlled experiment. Requirements Engineering, 19(1), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figl, K., Recker, J., & Mendling, J. (2013). A study on the effects of routing symbol design on process model comprehension. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 1104–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geambaşu, C. V. (2012). BPMN vs UML activity diagram for business process modeling. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 11(4), 637–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geambaşu, C. V. (2012, June). BPMN vs. UML activity diagram for business process modeling. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference Accounting and Management Information Systems AMIS, (pp. 934–945).‏

  • Genero, M., Fernández-Saez, A. M., Nelson, H. J., Poels, G., & Piattini, M. (2011). Research review: A systematic literature review on the quality of UML models. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 22(3), 46–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadar, I., & Hazzan, O. (2004). On the contribution of UML diagrams to software system comprehension. Journal of Object Technology, 3(1), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, M. I., Koppel, R., & Bar-Lev, S. (2007). Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—An interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(5), 542–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfert, M. (2009). Challenges of business processes management in healthcare. Business Process Management Journal.

  • Jun, G. T., Ward, J., Morris, Z., & Clarkson, J. (2009). Health care process modelling: Which method when? International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 21(3), 214–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, A., & Shmallo, R. (2015). Improving relational data modeling through learning from errors. In Proceedings of the IADIS Multi Conference of Computer Science and Information Systems MCCSIS, Theory and Practice in Modern Computing TPMC (pp. 198–202).

  • Ligęza, A., & Potempa, T. (2014). AI approach to formal analysis of BPMN models: Towards a logical model for BPMN diagrams. In Advances in Business ICT (pp. 69–88). Springer, Cham.

  • Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Solvberg, A. (1994). Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11(2), 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendling, J., Verbeek, H. M. W., van Dongen, B. F., van der Aalst, W. M., & Neumann, G. (2008). Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 64(1), 312–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G. B., Lefebvre, É., Elabed, L., & Boussaidi, G. E. (2010). Business process modeling languages: Sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 43(1), 1–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D. L., & Shanks, G. G. (2003). Improving the quality of data models: Empirical validation of a quality management framework. Information Systems, 28(6), 619–650.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peixoto, D. C., Batista, V. A., Atayde, A. P., Borges, E. P., Resende, R. F., & Pádua, C. I. P. (2008, June). A comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 activity diagrams. In Anais do VII Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software (pp. 1–12). SBC.‏

  • Peleg, M., & Dori, D. (2000). The model multiplicity problem: Experimenting with real time specification methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(8), 742–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker, J., & Rosemann, M. (2009). Teaching business process modelling: Experiences and recommendations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recker, J., Safrudin, N., & Rosemann, M. (2012). How novices design business processes. Information Systems, 37(6), 557–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijers, H. A., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., & Eckleder, A. (2011). Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhartz-Berger, I., & Dori, D. (2005). OPM vs. UML-Experimenting with comprehension and construction of web application models. Empirical Software Engineering, 10, 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, S., Sajeev, A. S. M., Bihary, S., & Ranjan, A. (2013). An empirical study of error patterns in industrial business process models. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 7(2), 140–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozman, T., Polancic, G., & Horvat, R. V. (2008). Analysis of most common process modeling mistakes in BPMN process models. Eur SPI’2007.

  • Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G. (1999). The unified modeling language reference manual.

  • Sadowska, M. (2015). An approach to assessing the quality of business process models expressed in BPMN. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, 9(1).

  • Santos, E., Campbell, J., Patel, D., Hindle, A., & Amaral, J. (2018). Syntax and sensibility: Using language models to detect and correct syntax errors. In 2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) (pp. 311–322). IEEE.

  • Shoval, P., & Frumermann, I. (1994). OO and EER conceptual schemas: A comparison of user comprehension. Journal of Database Management, 5(4), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoval, P., & Shiran, S. (1997). Entity-relationship and object-oriented data modeling-an experimental compari-son of design quality. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 21(3), 297–315.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, A., & Te’ eni, D. (1995). Modeling as constrained problem solving: An empirical study of the data modeling process. Management Science, 41(3), 419–434.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Suchenia, A. (2021). Towards a taxonomy of business process and its anomalies. International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security, 21(11), 230–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Aalst, W. M. (1999). Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Information and Software Technology, 41(10), 639–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. A. (2004). Introduction to BPMN. Ibm Cooperation, 2(0), 0.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Dizza Beimel and Arava Tsoiry. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dizza Beimel, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dizza Beimel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Table 11 Summary of Task 1 and 2 criteria and categories along with their scoring method
Fig. 4
figure 4

Recommended solution for semester A scenario of Task 2

Fig. 5
figure 5

Recommended solution for semester B scenario of Task 2

First Task

The background to the task:

The following text tells the story of Rebecca.

The text describes two processes, which you are required to model. The processes are:

  1. 1.

    Administrative admission to the hospital

  2. 2.

    Nursing reception in the emergency room (ER)

Task description:

  1. 1.

    You must model both processes using UML Activity Diagram.

  2. 2.

    You received 2 pages. Describe each process on a separate page. At the top of the page, state the name of the modeled process and your ID number.

  3. 3.

    You have 1 h to complete the task.

The text of the story

Rebecca, a 75-year-old woman, was rushed by an ambulance to the ER at the nearest hospital, as she was not feeling well. She arrived at the hospital when she was escorted to her daughter, fully conscious, and complained of a feeling of pressure in her chest. She shouted that she was suffocating and had great difficulty breathing. It seemed that she breathes heavily and contracted with each intake of air into her lungs. She also complained of weakness in her legs and nausea.

When she was admitted to the ER, her daughter was asked to go to the admissions office to carry out an orderly admission process for her mother, who had difficulty speaking and walking. First, the receptionist looked for the patient’s details (according to her ID number) in the hospital’s databases. Since this is her first visit to the hospital, no hospitalization history of the patient was found. Therefore, the receptionist opened a new medical record for Rebecca. After that, the daughter was required to fill out a full admission form that included health insurance information and a short health declaration. The receptionist went over the details of the form with her daughter and asked if her mother was connected to a distress sensor at home. Finally, the receptionist issued a sticker with the patient’s name and her ID card, stuck it on a paper folder, and gave it to her daughter, who went with it back to the ER.

Meanwhile, due to the urgency of the mother’s condition, the nurse in the emergency department has already begun the nursing admission process. First, the nurse checked the following indicators: body temperature (thermometer), pulse and blood pressure, and blood oxygen saturation (saturation) using an optical reader attached to the finger. These tests give an immediate and initial picture of the cardiovascular system, which includes the function of the heart, lungs, and blood vessels. These tests allow the doctor to determine, among other things, how stable the patient is or whether it is a medical emergency that requires immediate treatment. The nurse also performed a pain assessment. After the nurse finished taking all the necessary measurements, she entered the data into the patient’s nursing record (this can only be done if a medical record for the patient exists in the system). When the daughter returned from the admissions office, the nurse asked her to tell a short medical history about the mother, in addition, the daughter was asked to detail which medications the mother regularly takes and for what reason. The nurse also asked to know what the mother’s life habits were. The daughter informed that the mother lives alone. She is self-employed and smokes at least one pack of cigarettes a day. The daughter went on to say that the mother was staying with her over the weekend and added that last month the mother was hospitalized at another hospital near her home, due to acute pneumonia. The nurse asked if she had any results of recent laboratory tests, chest x-rays, or the interpretation of CT or MRI scans. The upset daughter replied that unfortunately she does not have this information, and since today is Saturday, she will not be able to locate the family doctor to find out. At the end of the questioning, the nurse entered the patient’s complaint and then determined a nursing diagnosis according to the details given to her.

Second Task

The background to the task:

In the “Full Health” hospital in the state of Zimbabwe, there are advanced medical services thanks to donations coming from around the world, but an information system has not yet been implemented in the emergency room (ER). The ER is near the rooms of the specialist doctors, a laboratory for blood tests, and various institutes (such as CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, and EKG) operated by professional technicians. The following is a description of a procedure for treating a patient who comes to the ER for diagnosis, receiving initial treatment, and, if necessary, transferring to the hospitalization in one of the hospital's departments.

Task description:

  1. 1.

    Draw an Activity Diagram for modeling the treatment process described in the story

  2. 2.

    Assume that the work process in which the patient performs tests and visits the doctors is modeled in a separate diagram. Thus, in this current diagram, present it as an action.

The text of the story

The patient arrives at the reception office, where a member of the medical staff performs an initial registration, which includes opening a file in which the following details will appear: name, postal code, telephone, time of arrival at the ER, the severity of the patient's condition (mild, moderate, severe, or critical), and whether he is independent or Disabled (a patient defined as independent can move around by himself and a patient defined as disabled will be moved from place to place by a sanitor). At the end of the initial registration, the staff member performs an initial diagnosis and adds to the file the identified symptoms, a list of specialist doctors with whom the patient must be examined, and a list of tests that the patient must undergo (blood tests, X-rays, EKG, etc.). Then, he places the file to the patient (if he is independent) or to an invited sanitor (if he is disabled). He instructs the patient (or the sanitor) that he must go to all the specialist doctors that appear on the list and perform all the tests that appear on the list, and at the end of all these, he returns to the ER and is admitted to one of the ER doctors.

At this stage, the medical staff member turns to receive the next patient, while the current patient begins to perform the tests and/or the visits to the specialist doctors. The patient must first perform all the tests, and at the end perform all the doctor's visits (the order of the tests and the order of the visits is not important). If he is required to be tested at an institute/laboratory, he goes to the appropriate institute/laboratory, hands over his file wait for his turn, and at the end of the test, the institute's technician adds the test results to the file and hands it to the patient. A patient who needs to be examined by a specialist doctor arrives at the doctor's room, hands him the file, and waits for the doctor to call him (according to the appointment or the urgency of the treatment). At the end of the examination, the doctor adds the diagnosis and his recommendations to the file, and the patient continues to the next doctor.

At the end of all the visits and tests, the patient returns to the ER, and he is seen by one of the emergency doctors to make a decision: either performing additional tests/visits, or, releasing the patient to his home, or, admitting the patient to one of the hospital's departments. For a patient who has decided to be discharged, the doctor will prepare a discharge letter, one copy will be given to the patient and one copy will be sent to the archive. A patient who decided to be hospitalized will be transferred to the appropriate department along with his file.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beimel, D., Tsoury, A. & Lev, S.B. Identifying common and persistent errors made by novice analysts when modeling business processes using UML activity diagram: utilizing a hierarchical error classification. Software Qual J 31, 1149–1178 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-023-09628-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-023-09628-2

Keywords

Navigation