Selecting the “Right” Notation for Business Process Modeling: Experiences from an Industrial Case

  • Jörn Wiebring
  • Kurt Sandkuhl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 229)


During the last 20 years, much research work has been spent on determining which notation is the “best” one for business process modelling in industrial practice. However, most of this work has been performed outside the actual application context, i.e. often in labs, academic environments or experimental settings. We aim at contributing to the field by presenting and discussing a case of selecting the notation for a complete organization. More concrete, the paper covers the process of making a decision which notation is the most appropriate one for a medium-sized organization from utility industries. The steps taken in this decision making process include the analysis of requirements originating from regulation in the domain, a survey among the future users of the notation, and the analysis and evaluation of organizational requirements. The main contributions of this paper are (1) a real-world example illustrating issues and challenges when deciding on the “right” process modeling notation including influences from the application domain, (2) a survey comparing the understandability of notations from the end user perspective and (3) lessons learned from the decision making process and the survey.


Business process modelling Experience report Business process management Process modelling notations 



This work was partly financed by the German State of Mecklenburg – Western Pomerania with funds of the European Fund for Regional Development in the research project ECLORA. Furthermore, it was partially financially supported by Government of Russian Federation, Grant 074-U01.


  1. 1.
    Ahlemann, F.: Strategic Enterprise Architecture Management: Challenges, Best Practices, and Future Developments. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aguilar-Savén, R.S.: Business process modelling: review and framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 90(2), 129–149 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allweyer, T.: BPMN 2.0: introduction to the standard for business process modeling. BoD–Books on Demand (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, J., Pfeiffer, D., Räckers, M.: Domain specific process modelling in public administrations – the PICTURE-approach. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: Unified Modeling Language (UML). Rational Software Corporation, Santa Clara (1998). Version, 1Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bortz, J., Döring, N.: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation – Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bundesnetzagentur: Geschäftsprozesse zur Kundenbelieferung mit Elektrizität, GPKE. Konsolidierte Fassung ab 1 April 2012.$file/Konsolidierte_Lesefassung_GPKE.pdf Accessed 20 November 2014
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Mäesalu, R., Reijers, H.A., Semenenko, N.: Understanding business process models: the costs and benefits of structuredness. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive complexity in business process modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalpic, B., Bernus, P.: Business process modelling in industry—the powerful tool in enterprise management. Comput. Ind. 47(3), 299–318 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khademhosseinieh, B., Seigerroth, U.: Towards evaluating efficiency of enterprise modeling methods. In: Skersys, T., Butleris, R., Butkiene, R. (eds.) ICIST 2012. CCIS, vol. 319, pp. 74–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knuth, D.E.: Computer-drawn flowcharts. Commun. ACM 6(9), 555–563 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krogstie, J.: Model-Based Development and Evolution of Information Systems. A Quality Approach. Springer, London (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maes, A., Poels, G.: Evaluating quality of conceptual models based on user perceptions. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 54–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melcher, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Seese, D.: On measuring the understandability of process models. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 465–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mikula, S.: Qualität von Geschäftsprozessnotationen. Diploma-Thesis, Rostock University, September 2011Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of notations: towards a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ottensooser, A., Fekete, A., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Menictas, C.: Making sense of business process descriptions: an experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. J. Syst. Softw. 85(3), 596–606 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Overhage, S., Birkmeier, D.Q., Schlauderer, S.: Qualitätsmerkmale, -metriken und -messverfahren für Geschäftsprozessmodelle. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 54(5), 217–235 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parsons, J., Cole, L.: What do pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 327–342 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Recker, J., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Australia, Toowoomba, 5th–7th December 2007Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reisig, W.: A Primer in Petri Net Design. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. The Enterprise Engineering Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). ISBN 978-3662437247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: The Third Wave, 1st edn. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van der Aalst, W.M., Ter Hofstede, A.H.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inform. Syst. 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management – Concepts, Languages, Architectures, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    White, S.A.: Introduction to BPMN. IBM Cooperation 2 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Stadtwerke Rostock AGRostockGermany
  3. 3.ITMO UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations