Towards an Integrated Framework for Invigorating Process Models: A Research Agenda

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 256)

Abstract

Process models abstract a dynamic phenomenon in the form of a static representation. This contrast makes them difficult to comprehend. Innovative usage of dynamic multimedia techniques in combination with static process model visualization knowledge remains an opportunity to address this problem. In this paper, we unfold our research plan to invigorate process models through the development of eight different embellishment components to enhance process comprehension.

Keywords

Business process models Process model comprehension Process model visualization Process model animation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 660646. We thank Romain Emens for his review of the literature that has been incorporated in this study.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 41, 449–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Recker, J., Reijers, H.A., van de Wouw, S.G.: Process model comprehension: the effects of cognitive abilities, learning style, and strategy. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 199–222 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension—findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53, 195–206 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12, 249–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 87–99 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    La Rosa, M., Hofstede, A.H.M.Ter, 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, 255–265 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    La Rosa, M., Wohed, P., Mendling, J., Ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 7, 614–629 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reijers, H.A., Freytag, T., Mendling, J., Eckleder, A.: Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decis. Support Syst. 51, 339–349 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Betz, S., Eichhorn, D., Hickl, S., Klink, S., Koschmider, A., Li, Y., Oberweis, A., Trunko, R.: 3D representation of business process models. In: MobIS 2008, pp. 79–93 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schönhage, B., van Ballegooij, A., Eliens, A.: 3D gadgets for business process visualization—a case study. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Virtual Reality Modeling Language (Web3D-VRML), pp. 131–138 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Philippi, S., Hill, H.J.: Communication support for systems engineering – process modelling and animation with APRIL. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 1305–1316 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Günther, C.W.: Process Mining in Flexible Environments (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nawrocki, J., Nedza, T., Ochodek, M., Olek, L.: Describing business processes with use cases. Bus. Inf. Syst. BIS 2006, 13–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gemino, A.: Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Requir. Eng. 9, 153–168 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamet, E., Gavota, M., Quaireau, C.: Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learn. Instr. 18, 135–145 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boucheix, J.-M., Lowe, R.K., Putri, D.K., Groff, J.: Cueing animations: dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. Learn. Instr. 25, 71–84 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jamet, E.: An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 32, 47–53 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morett, L.M., Clegg, B.A., Blalock, L.D., Mong, H.M.: Applying multimedia learning theory to map learning and driving navigation. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 12, 40–49 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Höffler, T.N., Leutner, D.: Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learn. Instr. 17, 722–738 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations