Skip to main content

Theoretical foundations and implementation of business process diagrams’ complexity management technique based on highlights

Software & Systems Modeling volume 18, pages 1079–1095 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

The main purpose of business process diagrams is to make the communication between process-related stakeholders more effective. To this end, they need to be simple to read, which is often challenging to achieve. In this manner, the complexity of business process diagrams can negatively affect their correctness and understandability. The goal of this paper was to investigate an approach that makes business process diagrams appear less complex, without changing the corresponding notation. This was done by manipulating one of the properties of the notation’s elements, namely opacity. Firstly, a literature overview was performed in order to obtain the theoretical foundations. Secondly, an exploratory case study was conducted and the results were applied in practice. Finally, the proposed solution was implemented in the form of a prototype software solution. Our analysis demonstrated that the structural complexity of the diagrams decreases when applying the proposed solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Moody, D.: The ‘physics’ of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems, BIS 2006, pp. 1–12 (2006)

  3. Latva-Koivisto, A.M.: Finding a complexity measure for business process models, Research report Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory (2001)

  4. Decker, G., Puhlmann, F.: Extending BPMN for modeling complex choreographies. In: Proceedings of the On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS: OTM Confederated International Conferences CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS 2007, Vilamoura, Portugal, November 25–30, 2007, Part I, pp. 24–40 (2007)

  5. Fernández, H.F., Palacios-González, E., García-Díaz, V., PelayoG-Bustelo, B.C., Sanjuán Martínez, O., Cueva Lovelle, J.M.: SBPMN—an easier business process modeling notation for business users. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 32(1–2), 18–28 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How much language is enough? Theoretical and practical use of the business process modeling notation. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering 20th International Conference, CAiSE 2008 Montpellier, France, June 16–20, 2008 Proceedings, pp. 465–479 (2008)

  7. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of business process management. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Mili, H., Tremblay, G., Jaoude, G.B., Lefebvre, E., Elabed, L., El Boussaidi, G.: Business process modeling languages: sorting through the alphabet soup. ACM Comput. Surv. 43(1), 1–56 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: BPMN: an introduction to the standard. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 34(1), 124–134 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tran, H., Zdun, U., Dustdar, S.: View-based integration of process-driven SOA models at various abstraction levels. In: Kutsche, R-D., Milanovic, N. (eds.) Model-Based Software and Data Integration, pp. 55–66. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  11. Kocbek, M., Jost, G., Hericko, M., Polancic, G.: Business process model and notation: the current state of affairs. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 12(2), 509–539 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: Business process modeling survey. In: Business process trends, p. 36 (2011). http://www.bptrends.com/surveys/Process_Modeling_Survey-Dec_11_FINAL.pdf

  13. Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12(3), 377–384 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Terry, M., Mynatt, E.D.: Enhancing general-purpose tools with multi-state previewing capabilities. Knowl. Based Syst. 18(8), 415–425 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cardoso, J.: How to measure the control-flow complexity of web process and workflows. Workflow Handb. 2005, 199–212 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Edmonds, B.: Complexity and scientific modelling. Found. Sci. 5(3), 379–390 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Wohed, P., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 7(2), 255–265 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moody, D.: Complexity effects on end user understanding of data models: an experimental comparison of large data model representation methods. In: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS’2002), pp. 482–496 (2002)

  19. Reijers, H.A., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decis. Support Syst. 51(3), 339–349 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Müller, R., Rogge-Solti, A.: BPMN for healthcare processes. In: 3nd Central-European Workshop on Services and Their Composition ZEUS 2011, vol. 705, pp. 65–72 (2011)

  21. Moody, D.: What makes a good diagram? Improving the cognitive effectiveness of diagrams in IS development. In: Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, W.G., ZupanÄiÄ, J., Magyar, G., Knapp, G. (eds.) Advances in Information Systems Development: New Methods and Practice for the Networked Society, pp. 481–492. Springer, Boston (2007)

  22. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How visual cognition influences process model comprehension. Decis. Support Syst. 96, 1–16 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J.: Eye-tracking the factors of process model comprehension tasks. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference, CAiSE 2013, Valencia, Spain, June 17–21, 2013, pp. 224–239. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Erol, S.: Coloring Support for Process Diagrams: A Review of Color Theory and a Prototypical Implementation. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wien (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Glassner, A.: Interpreting alpha. J. Comput. Graph. Tech. JCGT 4(2), 30–44 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. León, K., Mery, D., Pedreschi, F., León, J.: Color measurement in L*a*b* units from RGB digital images. Food Res. Int. 39(10), 1084–1091 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Park, S., Pantanowitz, L., Parwani, A.V.: Digital imaging in pathology. Clin. Lab. Med. 32(4), 557–584 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. ITS Project Methodology (Process Improvement Interview Questions): [Online]. http://its.umich.edu/about/methodology (2010). Accessed 03 Dec 2016

  29. Gagne, D., Trudel, A.: Time-BPMN. In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing, pp. 361–367 (2009)

  30. Khlif, W., Zaaboub, N., Ben-Abdallah, H.: Coupling metrics for business process modeling. WSEAS Trans. Comput. 9(1), 31–41 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lerner, B.S., Christov, S., Osterweil, L.J., Bendraou, R., Kannengiesser, U., Wise, A.: Exception handling patterns for process modeling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 36(2), 162–183 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. O. M. G. D. Number, P. D. F. A. File, BPMN 2.0 by Example. Group, vol. 0, p. 47 (2010)

  33. Rolón, E., Sánchez, L., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Caivano, D., Visaggio, G.: Prediction models for BPMN usability and maintainability. In: 2009 IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing, pp. 383–390 (2009)

  34. Reynoso, L., Rolón, E., Genero, M., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Formal definition of measures for BPMN models. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 5891, pp. 285–306. LNCS (2009)

  35. Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i* visual notation. Requir. Eng. 15(2), 141–175 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Smetanova 17, 2000, Maribor, Slovenia

    Gregor Jošt, Marjan Heričko & Gregor Polančič

Authors
  1. Gregor Jošt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marjan Heričko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregor Polančič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregor Jošt.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Ilia Bider and Rainer Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jošt, G., Heričko, M. & Polančič, G. Theoretical foundations and implementation of business process diagrams’ complexity management technique based on highlights. Softw Syst Model 18, 1079–1095 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0618-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0618-5

Keywords

  • Business process diagram
  • Complexity
  • Highlights
  • Opacity
  • BPMN