Visualization of the Evolution of Layout Metrics for Business Process Models

  • Cornelia Haisjackl
  • Andrea Burattin
  • Pnina Soffer
  • Barbara Weber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 281)


Considerable progress regarding impact factors of process model understandability has been achieved. For example, it has been shown that layout features of process models have an effect on model understandability. Even so, it appears that our knowledge about the modeler’s behavior regarding the layout of a model is very limited. In particular, research focuses on the end product or the outcome of the process modeling act rather than the act itself. This paper extends existing research by opening this black box and introducing an enhanced technique enabling the visual analysis of the modeler’s behavior towards layout. We demonstrate examples showing that our approach provides valuable insights to better understand and support the creation of process models. Additionally, we sketch challenges impeding this support for future research.


Process of process modeling Human–centered support Process model quality Understandability Layout properties Visualization 



This research is supported by Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P26140.


  1. 1.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rittgen, P.: Quality and perceived usefulness of process models. In: Proceedings of the SAC 2010, pp. 65–72 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scheer, A.W.: ARIS—Business Process Modeling, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kock, N., Verville, J., Danesh-Pajou, A., DeLuca, D.: Communication flow orientation in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: results from a field study. Decis. Support Syst. 46(2), 562–575 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein, V., Soffer, P.: Identifying and quantifying visual layout features of business process models. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) CAISE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 200–213. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Purchase, H.: Which aesthetic has the greatest effect on human understanding? In: DiBattista, G. (ed.) GD 1997. LNCS, vol. 1353, pp. 248–261. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). doi: 10.1007/3-540-63938-1_67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Günther, O.: Learning from quality issues of BPMN models from industry. IEEE Softw. 33(4), 26–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moody, D.L.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosa, M.L., ter Hofstede, A., Wohed, P., Reijers, H., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W.P.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 7(2), 255–265 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-05352-8_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. LNBIP, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89224-3_4 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Softw. Syst. Model 14(3), 1055–1080 (2015). doi: 10.1007/s10270-013-0349-1. ISSN:1619-1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Tracing the process of process modeling with modeling phase diagrams. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 370–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A.E., Weide, T.P.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11568322_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rittgen, P.: Negotiating models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 561–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72988-4_39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the process of process modeling with cheetah experimental platform. In: Proceedings of the ER-POIS 2010, pp. 13–18 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burattin, A., Bernstein, V., Neurauter, M., Soffer, P., Weber, B.: Detection and quantification of flow consistency in business process models. CoRR abs/1602.02992 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38, 33–44 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gschwind, T., Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Reijers, H., Weber, B.: A linear time layout algorithm for business process models. Technical report RZ3830, IBM Research (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinggera, J.: The process of process modeling. Ph.D. thesis, University of Innsbruck, Department of Computer Science (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Recker, J.: Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with bpmn. Bus. Process Manage. J. 16(1), 181–201 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Poels, G.: Visualizing the process of process modeling with PPMCharts. In: Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 744–755. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36285-9_75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crapo, A.W., Waisel, L.B., Wallace, W.A., Willemain, T.R.: Visualization and the process of modeling: a cognitive-theoretic view. In: Proceedings of the KDD 2000, pp. 218–226 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelia Haisjackl
    • 1
  • Andrea Burattin
    • 1
  • Pnina Soffer
    • 2
  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Technical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations