Advertisement

How the Structuring of Domain Knowledge Helps Casual Process Modelers

  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Stefan Zugal
  • Barbara Weber
  • Dirk Fahland
  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Jan Mendling
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6412)

Abstract

Modeling business processes has become a common activity in industry, but it is increasingly carried out by non-experts. This raises a challenge: How to ensure that the resulting process models are of sufficient quality? This paper contends that a prior structuring of domain knowledge, as found in informal specifications, will positively influence the act of process modeling in various measures of performance. This idea is tested and confirmed with a controlled experiment, which involved 83 master students in business administration and industrial engineering from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Eindhoven University of Technology. In line with the reported findings, our recommendation is to explore ways to bring more structure in the specifications that are used as input for process modeling endeavors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Indulska, M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: Current issues and future challenges. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis, A., et al.: Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In: Proc. METRICS, pp. 141–152 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frederiks, P.J.M., van der Weide, T.P.: Information Modeling: The Process and the Required Competencies of Its Participants. DKE 58, 4–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: Research Commentary: Information Systems and Conceptual Modeling - A Research Agenda. ISR 13, 363–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H., Weide, T.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeMarco, T.: Software Pioneers. Contributions to Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindsay, P., Norman, D.: Human Information Processing: An introduction to psychology. Academic Press, London (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rolland, C., Achour, C.B.: Guiding the Construction of Textual Use Case Specifications. DKE 25, 125–160 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, A.M., et al.: Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: Proc. RE, pp. 176–185 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wohlin, C., et al.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: an Introduction. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Cheetah Experimental Platform. Accepted for ER-POIS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahland, D., Woith, H.: Towards Process Models for Disaster Response. In: Proc. PM4HDPS 2008, pp. 254–265 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph Matching Algorithms for Business Process Model Similarity Search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Constantine, L., Lockwood, L.: Structure and style in use cases for user interface design. In: Object Modeling and User Interface Design, pp. 245–280 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakob Pinggera
    • 1
  • Stefan Zugal
    • 1
  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
  • Dirk Fahland
    • 2
  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 3
  • Jan Mendling
    • 2
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 4
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Hasso-Plattner-InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany
  4. 4.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations