Visualizing the Process of Process Modeling with PPMCharts

  • Jan Claes
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Hajo A. Reijers
  • Barbara Weber
  • Geert Poels
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 132)


In the quest for knowledge about how to make good process models, recent research focus is shifting from studying the quality of process models to studying the process of process modeling (often abbreviated as PPM) itself. This paper reports on our efforts to visualize this specific process in such a way that relevant characteristics of the modeling process can be observed graphically. By recording each modeling operation in a modeling process, one can build an event log that can be used as input for the PPMChart Analysis plug-in we implemented in ProM. The graphical representation this plug-in generates allows for the discovery of different patterns of the process of process modeling. It also provides different views on the process of process modeling (by configuring and filtering the charts).


Analysis Techniques and Visualization for Processes Visualization Techniques for Processes Change Visualization for Processes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M.: Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams. Data & Knowledge Engineering 64(3), 534–557 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H.A., Pinggera, J., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Fahland, D., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Poels, G.: Tying Process Model Quality to the Modeling Process: The Impact of Structuring, Movement, and Speed. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 Workshops 2011, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 370–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Song, M., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Supporting process mining by showing events at a glance. In: Proc. WITS 2007, pp. 139–145 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. Journal of Information Systems 15(1), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Recker, J.C.: Business process quality management. In: Handbook on Business Process Management 1, pp. 167–185. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Proc. ICBIS 2006, pp. 1–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Quality metrics for business process models. In: BPM and Workflow Handbook, pp. 179–190 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rittgen, P.: Quality and perceived usefulness of process models. In: Proc. SAC 2010, pp. 65–72. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(4), 333–363 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Soffer, P., Kaner, M., Wand, Y.: Towards Understanding the Process of Process Modeling: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 357–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Weidlich, M., Fahland, D., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Modeling Styles in Business Process Modeling. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) EMMSAD 2012 and BPMDS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crapo, A.W., Waisel, L.B., Wallace, W.A., Willemain, T.R.: Visualization and the process of modeling: a cognitive-theoretic view. In: Proc. ACM SIGKDD 2000, pp. 218–226 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology 52(2), 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    zur Muehlen, M., Recker, J.: How Much Language Is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller, G.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Claes
    • 1
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
    • 2
  • Jakob Pinggera
    • 3
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 2
  • Barbara Weber
    • 3
  • Geert Poels
    • 1
  1. 1.Ghent UniversityBelgium
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of InnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations