Tracing the Process of Process Modeling with Modeling Phase Diagrams

  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Stefan Zugal
  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Dirk Fahland
  • Barbara Weber
  • Jan Mendling
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 99)

Abstract

The quality of a business process model is presumably highly dependent upon the modeling process that was followed to create it. Still, there is a lack of concepts to investigate this connection empirically. This paper introduces the formal concept of a phase diagram through which the modeling process can be analyzed, and a corresponding implementation to study a modeler’s sequence of actions. In an experiment building on these assets, we observed a group of modelers engaging in the act of modeling. The collected data is used to demonstrate our approach for analyzing the process of process modeling. Additionally, we are presenting first insights and sketch requirements for future experiments.

Keywords

business process modeling modeling phase diagrams process model quality empirical research modeling process 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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. DSS 46, 562–575 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendling, J.: Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. EJIS 15, 91–102 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A.: Verification of workflow task structures: A petri-net-baset approach. IS 25, 43–69 (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Proc. BIS 2006, pp. 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siau, K., Rossi, M.: Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods-a review and comparative analysis. ISJ (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moody, D.L.: The ”Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35, 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rittgen, P.: Negotiating Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 561–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A(E.), van der Weide, T.P.: 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
  10. 10.
    Persson, A., Stirna, J.: Towards Defining a Competence Profile for the Enterprise Modeling Practitioner. In: van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., Barjis, J. (eds.) PoEM 2010. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 68, pp. 232–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray, P.: Psychology. Worth Publishers (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tracz, W.: Computer programming and the human thought process. Software: Practice and Experience 9, 127–137 (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, G.: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review 63, 81–97 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crapo, A.W., Waisel, L.B., Wallace, W.A., Willemain, T.R.: Visualization and the process of modeling: a cognitive-theoretic view. In: Proc. KDD 2000, pp. 218–226 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newell, A.: Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shanteau, J.: How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica 81, 75–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morris, W.T.: On the Art of Modeling. Management Sc. 13, B–707–B–717 (1967)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Willemain, T.R.: Model Formulation: What Experts Think about and When. Operations Research 43, 916–932 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petre, M.: Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Commun. ACM, 33–44 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the process of process modeling with cheetah experimental platform. In: Proc. ER-POIS 2010, pp. 13–18 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fahland, D., Woith, H.: Towards Process Models for Disaster Response. In: Proc. PM4HDPS 2008, pp. 254–265 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Sys. Man & Cybernetics, A (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) BPM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 241–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Information & Software Technology 52, 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frederiks, P., Weide, T.: Information modeling: The process and the required competencies of its participants. DKE 58, 4–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hahn, C., Recker, J., Mendling, J.: An exploratory study of it-enabled collaborative process modeling. In: Proc. BPD 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bandara, W., Gable, G., Rosemann, M.: Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. EJIS 14, 347–360 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations