A Study of Different Visualizations for Visualizing Differences in Process Models

  • Manuel Gall
  • Günter Wallner
  • Simone Kriglstein
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9382)


Finding differences between two processes can be a complex, time consuming, and expensive task. Our work is based on the difference graph approach which calculates the differences between two process models and – if available – their instances. In this paper we evaluate different possibilities for visualizing these differences. For this purpose we have selected some common visual properties such as color, shape, and size and evaluated these different visualizations with 31 participants through an online survey. Our results show that color coding and symbols were the preferred methods of the participants for depicting differences in a graph visualization.


Process differences Difference graph Visualization Process model Instance flow 



Simone Kriglstein was supported by CVAST (funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research, and Economy in the exceptional Laura Bassi Centres of Excellence initiative, project nr: 822746).


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Business alignment: using process mining as a tool for delta analysis and conformance testing. Requir. Eng. 10(3), 198–211 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A decade of business process management conferences: personal reflections on a developing discipline. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albrecht, M., Estrella-Balderrama, A., Geyer, M., Gutwenger, C., Klein, K., Kohlbacher, O., Schulz, M.: Visually comparing a set of graphs. In: Graph Drawing with Applications to Bioinformatics and Social Sciences. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 08191 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrienko, N., Andrienko, G.: Exploratory Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Data: A Systematic Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Archambault, D.: Structural differences between two graphs through hierarchies. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface, pp. 87–94. Canadian Inf. Processing Society (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps/Jacques Bertin; Translated By William J. Berg. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erten, C., Harding, P.J., Kobourov, S.G., Wampler, K., Yee, G.: GraphAEL: graph animations with evolving layouts. In: Liotta, G. (ed.) GD 2003. LNCS, vol. 2912, pp. 98–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gall, M., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Differencegraph (2015).
  10. 10.
    Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual notation. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 377–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green, M.: Toward a perceptual science of multidimensional data visualization: Bertin and beyond. ERGO/GERO Human Factors Science (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kabicher, S., Kriglstein, S., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Visual change tracking for business process models. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 504–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kriglstein, S., Wallner, G., Rinderle-Ma, S.: A visualization approach for difference analysis of process models and instance traffic. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 219–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Küster, J.M., Gerth, C., Förster, A., Engels, G.: Detecting and resolving process model differences in the absence of a change log. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 244–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mackinlay, J.: Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Trans. Graph. 5(2), 110–141 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: an analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 16–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porst, R.: Fragebogen. Ein Arbeitsbuch, 3rd edn. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.: Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Inf. Syst. 33(1), 64–95 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soto, M., Münch, J.: Process model difference analysis for supporting process evolution. In: Richardson, I., Runeson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2006. LNCS, vol. 4257, pp. 123–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, Z., Wen, L., Wang, J., Wang, S.: TAGER: transition-labeled graph edit distance similarity measure on process models. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Missikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T. (eds.) OTM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8841, pp. 184–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Gall
    • 1
  • Günter Wallner
    • 2
  • Simone Kriglstein
    • 3
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute Art & TechnologyUniversity of Applied Arts ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Institute for Design & Assessment of TechnologyTechnical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations