Information Systems and e-Business Management

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 147–190 | Cite as

A visual analysis of the process of process modeling

  • Jan Claes
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Hajo A. Reijers
  • Barbara Weber
  • Geert Poels
Original Article

Abstract

The construction of business process models has become an important requisite in the analysis and optimization of processes. The success of the analysis and optimization efforts heavily depends on the quality of the models. Therefore, a research domain emerged that studies the process of process modeling. This paper contributes to this research by presenting a way of visualizing the different steps a modeler undertakes to construct a process model, in a so-called process of process modeling Chart. The graphical representation lowers the cognitive efforts to discover properties of the modeling process, which facilitates the research and the development of theory, training and tool support for improving model quality. The paper contains an extensive overview of applications of the tool that demonstrate its usefulness for research and practice and discusses the observations from the visualization in relation to other work. The visualization was evaluated through a qualitative study that confirmed its usefulness and added value compared to the Dotted Chart on which the visualization was inspired.

Keywords

Business process management Process model quality Process of process modeling Visualization 

References

  1. Andrews K, Heidegger H (1998) Information slices: visualising and exploring large hierarchies using cascading, semi-circular discs. In: IEEE symposium on information visualization (Info Vis’98). IEEE computer society, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, pp 9–12Google Scholar
  2. Baird HS, Coates AL, Fateman RJ (2003) Pessimal print: a reverse turing test. Int J Doc Anal Recognit 5(2–3):158–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros AP, Ter Hofstede AHM (1998) Towards the construction of workflow-suitable conceptual modelling techniques. Inf Syst J 8(4):313–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertin J (2010) Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps. Economic & Social Research Institute, California, USA, p 438Google Scholar
  5. Brown RA (2010) Conceptual modelling in 3D virtual worlds for process communication. In: Link S, Ghose A (eds) Proceeding APCCM’10 proceedings of the seventh Asia-pacific conference on conceptual modelling - volume 110. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, pp 25–32Google Scholar
  6. Burch M, Beck F, Diehl S (2008) Timeline trees: visualizing sequences of transactions in information hierarchies. In: AVI’08 Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces. ACM, New York, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  7. Claes J, Vanderfeesten I, Reijers HA, Pinggera J, Weidlich M, Zugal S, Poels G (2012) Tying process model quality to the modeling process: the impact of structuring, movement, and speed. In: Barros A, Gal A, Kindler E (eds) Business process management. 10th international conference, BPM 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3–6, 2012. Proceedings LNCS 7481. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 33–48Google Scholar
  8. Claes J, Vanderfeesten I, Pinggera J, Reijers HA, Weber B, Poels G (2013) Visualizing the process of process modeling with PPM Charts. In: La Rosa M, Soffer P (eds) Business process management workshops. BPM 2012 international workshops, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3, 2012. Revised papers. LNBIP 132. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 744–755Google Scholar
  9. Effinger P (2013) A 3D-navigator for business process models. In: La Rosa Marcello, Soffer P (eds.) Business process management workshops. BPM 2012 International Workshops, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3, 2012. Revised papers. LNBIP 132. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 737–743Google Scholar
  10. Engelen L, Van den Brand M (2010) Integrating textual and graphical modelling languages. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 253(7):105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gantt HL (1913) Work, wages, and profits, 2nd edn. Engineering Magazine Company, New York, p 312 Google Scholar
  12. Goodman N (1968) Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols. Hackett Publishing, USA 277Google Scholar
  13. Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wiley & Sons, USA, p 455Google Scholar
  14. Guo H, Brown RA, Rasmussen RK (2013) A theoretical basis for using virtual worlds as a personalised process visualisation approach. In: 2nd International workshop on human-centric information systems (p. (In Press))Google Scholar
  15. Hahn J, Kim J (1999) Why are some diagrams easier to work with? Effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive integration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 6(3):181–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hildebrandt T, Kriglstein S, Rinderle-Ma S (2012) Beyond visualization: on using sonification methods to make business processes more accessible to users. In: Nees MA, Walker BN, Freeman J (eds) Proceedings of the 18th international conference on auditory display, Atlanta, GA, USA, 18–21 June 2012. Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, pp 248–249Google Scholar
  17. Hoppenbrouwers SJBA, Proper HA, Van der Weide TP (2005) A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Delcambre L, Kop C, Mayr HC, Mylopoulos J, Pastor O (Eds.), Conceptual modeling: ER 2005. 24th international conference on conceptual modeling, Klagenfurt, Austria, October 24-28, 2005. Proceedings. LNCS 3716. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, USA, pp 128–143Google Scholar
  18. Johnson B (1993) TreeMaps: visualizing hierarchical and categorical dataGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson B, Shneiderman B (1991) Tree-maps: a space-filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures. In: Visualization, 1991. Visualization’91, Proceedings, IEEE conference on. IEEE Comput Soc Press, pp 284–291)Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan B, Maxwell J (2005) Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems: impact of healthcare information systems, 30–55Google Scholar
  21. Kim J, Hahn J, Hahn H (2000) How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Inf Syst Res 11(3):284–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognit Sci 11(1):65–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lohse GL (1993) A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Hum Comput Interact 8(4):353–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mendling J, Recker JC, Reijers HA (2010a) On the usage of labels and icons in business process modeling. Int J Inf Syst Model Des 1(2):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moody DL (2009) The “Physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. Softw Eng IEEE Trans 35(6):756–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers MD (1997) Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Q 21(2):241–242 MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modelling and telos. In: Loucopoulos P, Zicari R (eds) Conceptual modelling, databases and CASE: an integrated view of information systems development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  29. Neumann P (2005) Actress: visualizing relations in hierarchical data. In: Brodlie K, Duke D, Joy K (eds) Proceeding EUROVIS’05 proceedings of the seventh joint eurographics/IEEE VGTC conference on visualization. Eurographics Association Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland, pp 53–60Google Scholar
  30. Nordbotten JC, Crosby ME (1999) The effect of graphic style on data model interpretation. Inf Syst J 9(2):139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Norman DA (2002) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New York, USA, p 257Google Scholar
  32. Novak O (2002) Visualization of large graphs (study report). Czech Technical University, Prague, p 35Google Scholar
  33. OMG (2011a) Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0Google Scholar
  34. OMG (2011b) Unified modeling language, superstructure (UML) version 2.4.1Google Scholar
  35. Paivio A (1990) Mental representations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manage Inf Syst 24(3):45–77. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phalp KT (1998) The CAP framework for business process modelling. Inf Softw Technol 40(13):731–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinggera J, Zugal S, Weber B (2010) Investigating the process of process modeling with cheetah experimental platform. In: Mutschler B, Recker J, Wieringa R, Ralyte J, Plebani P (eds.), ER-POIS 2010. Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on empirical research in process-oriented information systems. CEUR WS Vol-603. CEUR-WS, pp 13–18Google Scholar
  39. Pinggera J, Soffer P, Zugal S, Weber B, Weidlich M, Fahland D, Mendling J (2012) Modeling styles in business process modeling. In: Bider I, Halpin T, Krogstie J, Nurcan S, Proper E, Schmidt R, Wrycza S (eds.), Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling. 13th International conference, BPMDS 2012, 17th international conference, EMMSAD 2012, and 5th eurosymposium, held at CAiSE 2012, Gdańsk, Poland, June 25–26, 2012. Proceedings. LNBIP 113. Springer, pp 151–166Google Scholar
  40. Pinggera J, Zugal S, Weidlich M, Fahland D, Weber B, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2012) Tracing the process of process modeling with modeling phase diagrams. In: Daniel F, Barkaoui K, Dustdar S (eds.), Business process management workshops. BPM 2011 international workshops, Clermont-Ferrand, France, August 29, 2011, Revised selected papers, part I. LNBIP 99 (Vol. LNBIP 99). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 370–382Google Scholar
  41. Pinggera J, Furtner M, Martini M, Sachse P, Katharina R, Zugal S, Weber B (2013) Investigating the process of process modeling with eye movement analysis. In: La Rosa Marcello, Soffer P (Eds.), Business process management workshops. BPM 2012 International workshops, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3, 2012. Revised papers. LNBIP 132. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 438–450Google Scholar
  42. Pinggera J, Soffer P, Fahland D, Weidlich M, Zugal S, Weber B, Mendling J (2013) Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Softw Syst Model (accepted)Google Scholar
  43. Polyvyanyy A (2012) Structuring process modelsGoogle Scholar
  44. Polyvyanyy A, Smirnov S, Weske M (2010) Business process model abstraction. In: Vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds.), Handbook on business process management 1. Introduction, methods, and information systems. Part II. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 149–166Google Scholar
  45. Quinlan PT (2003) Visual feature integration theory: past, present, and future. Psychol Bull 129(5):643–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reichert M (2013). Visualizing large business process models: challenges, techniques, applications. In: La Rosa Marcello, Soffer P (eds.), Business process management workshops. BPM 2012 International Workshops, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3, 2012. Revised papers. LNBIP 132. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 725–736Google Scholar
  47. Reisig W, Rozenberg G (1998) Lectures on petri nets I: basic models, advances in petri nets, LNCS 1491. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p 681Google Scholar
  48. Scheer A-W (1998) Business process engineering: reference models for industrial enterprises. Springer-Verlag, Germany, p 757Google Scholar
  49. Song M, Van der Aalst WMP (2007) Supporting process mining by showing events at a glance. In Chari K, Kumar A (eds.), Proceeding of the seventeenth annual workshop on information technologies and systems (WITS’07). pp 139–145Google Scholar
  50. Stasko JT, Zhang E (2000) Focus + context display and navigation techniques for enhancing radial, space-filling hierarchy visualizations. In: Information visualization, 2000. IEEE symposium on (Vol. 2000). IEEE Comput Soc Press, pp 57–65Google Scholar
  51. Thompson MM, Naccarato ME, Parker KE (1989) Assessing cognitive need: the development of the personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity scales. In Annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, HalifaxGoogle Scholar
  52. Treisman AM (1982) Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 8(2):194–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Treisman AM, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12(1):97–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tufte ER (1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, USA 197Google Scholar
  55. Van der Aalst WMP (1998) The application of petri nets to workflow management. J Circuit Syst Comput 8(1):21–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van der Aalst WMP (2011) Process mining: discovery, conformance and enhancement of business processes. Springer, Heidelberg, p 352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van der Aalst WMP, Ter Hofstede AHM (2005) YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf Syst 30(4):245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Dongen BF, De Medeiros AKA, Verbeek HMW, Weijters AJMM, Van der Aalst WMP (2005) The ProM framework: a new era in process mining tool support. In: Ciardo G, Darondeau P (eds.), Applications and theory of petri nets. 26th international conference, ICATPN 2005, Miami, USA, June 20–25, 2005. Proceedings. LNCS 3536. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 444–454Google Scholar
  59. Vessey I, Galletta D (1991) Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Inf Syst Res 2(1):63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weber R (1997) Ontological foundations of information systems. Coopers & Lybrand, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, p 212Google Scholar
  61. Weber B, Pinggera J, Zugal S, Wild W (2010) Handling events during business process execution: an empirical test. In: Mutschler B, Recker J, Wieringa R (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on empirical research in process-oriented information systems (ER-POIS’10). CEUR-WS, pp 19–30Google Scholar
  62. Weidlich M, Zugal S, Pinggera J, Weber B, Reijers HA, Mendling J (2010) The impact of change task type on maintainability of process models. In: Mutschler B, Recker J, Wieringa R (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on empirical research in process-oriented information systems (ER-POIS’10). CEUR-WS, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  63. Weijters AJMM, Van der Aalst WMP (2001) Process mining: discovering workflow models from event-based data. In: Kröse B, De Rijke M, Schreiber G, Van Someren M (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Belgium-Netherlands conference on artificial intelligence (BNAIC 2001). pp 283–290Google Scholar
  64. Weske M (2007) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 372Google Scholar
  65. Wilson JM (2003) Gantt charts: a centenary appreciation. Eur J Oper Res 149(2):430–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Winn W (1990) Encoding and retrieval of information in maps and diagrams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 33(3):103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winn W (1993) An account of how readers search for information in diagrams. Contemp Educ Psychol 18(2):162–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Fekete JD, Van Wijk JJ, Stasko JT, North C (2008) The value of information visualization. In: Kerren A, Stasko JT, Fekete J-D, North C (eds.), Information visualization. Human-centered issues and perspectives. LNCS 4950. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  69. Zur Muehlen M, Recker JC (2008) How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Bellahsène Z, Léonard M (eds.), Advanced information systems engineering. 20th international conference, CAiSE 2008 Montpellier, France, June 16–20, 2008 proceedings. LNCS 5074. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 465–479Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Claes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
    • 2
  • Jakob Pinggera
    • 3
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 2
  • Barbara Weber
    • 3
  • Geert Poels
    • 1
  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations