When Cognitive Biases Lead to Business Process Management Issues

  • Maryam Razavian
  • Oktay Turetken
  • Irene VanderfeestenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 281)


There is a broad consensus that design decision making is important for Business Process Management success. Despite many business process design approaches and practices that are available, the quality of business process analysis and design relies heavily on human factors. Some of these factors concern cognitive biases. In this paper, we explore the role of cognitive biases in four key issues regarding the design-time phases of the business process management lifecycle. We outline some research directions that may help us understand and improve the effects of cognitive biases in the design-related practices of business process management.


  1. 1.
    Parkes, A.: Critical success factors in workflow implementation. In: 6th Pacific Asia Conference on Information System (PACIS 2002), pp. 363–380 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mansar, S.L., Reijers, H.A.: Best practices in business process redesign: validation of a redesign framework. Comput. Ind. 56(5), 457–471 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silver, B.: BPMN Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Vliet, H., Tang, A.: Decision making in software architecture. J. Syst. Softw. 117, 638–644 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Razavian, M., Tang, A., Capilla, R., Lago, P.: In two minds: how reflections influence software architecture design thinking. J. Softw. Evol. Process 6(28), 394–426 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hadar, I., Soffer, P., Kenzi, K.: The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: an exploratory study. Requir. Eng. 19(2), 143–159 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman, D.: Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin, London (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arnott, D.: Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Inf. Syst. J. 16(1), 55–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epley, N., Gilovich, T.: The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. Psychol. Sci. 17(4), 311 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans, J.: In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7(10), 454–459 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gigerenzer, G.: Adaptive Thinking - Rationality in the Real World. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klein, G.: Naturalistic decision making. Hum. Factor J. Hum. Factor Ergon. Soc. 50(3), 456–460 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parsons, J., Saunders, C.: Cognitive heuristics in software engineering: applying and extending anchoring and adjustment to artifact reuse. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30, 873–888 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murphy, F., Staples, S.: Reengineering in Australia: factors affecting success. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 6(1) (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dijkman, R., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A.: Business process architectures: overview, comparison and framework. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 10(2), 129–158 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadiq, S., Indulska, M., Bandara, W., Chong, S.: Major issues in business process management: a vendor perspective (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turetken, O., Demirors, O.: Plural: a decentralized business process modeling method. Inf. Manage. 48(6), 235–247 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S., Börger, E.: Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turetken, O., Demirors, O.: Business process modeling Pluralized. In: Fischer, H., Schneeberger, J. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2013. CCIS, vol. 360, pp. 34–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36754-0_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Calikli, G., Bener, A., Arslan, B.: An analysis of the effects of company culture, education and experience on confirmation bias levels of software developers and testers. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2, New York, NY, USA, pp. 187–190. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hergovich, A., Schott, R., Burger, C.: Biased evaluation of abstracts depending on topic and conclusion: further evidence of a confirmation bias within scientific psychology. Curr. Psychol. 29, 188–209 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tang, A., Aleti, A., Burge, J., van Vliet, H.: What makes software design effective? Des. Stud. 31(6), 614–640 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reijers, H., Mansar, S.L.: Best practices in business process redesign: an overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega 33(4), 283–306 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vanwersch, R.J.B., Vanderfeesten, I., Rietzschel, E., Reijers, H.A.: Improving business processes: does anybody have an idea? In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 3–18. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keren, G.: Cognitive aids and debiasing methods: can cognitive pills cure cognitive ills? Adv. Psychol. 68, 523–552 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maryam Razavian
    • 1
  • Oktay Turetken
    • 1
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation SciencesEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations