Change Patterns in Use: A Critical Evaluation

  • Barbara Weber
  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Victoria Torres
  • Manfred Reichert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 147)


Process model quality has been an area of considerable research efforts. In this context, the correctness-by-construction principle of change patterns provides promising perspectives. However, using change patterns for model creation imposes a more structured way of modeling. While the process of process modeling (PPM) based on change primitives has been investigated, little is known about this process based on change patterns. To obtain a better understanding of the PPM when using change patterns, the arising challenges, and the subjective perceptions of process designers, we conduct an exploratory study. The results indicate that process designers face little problems as long as control-flow is simple, but have considerable problems with the usage of change patterns when complex, nested models have to be created. Finally, we outline how effective tool support for change patterns should be realized.


Process Model Quality Process of Process Modeling Change Patterns Exploratory Study Problem Solving 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    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. Decision Support Systems 46, 562–575 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mendling, J., Verbeek, H.M.W., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Neumann, G.: Detection and prediction of errors in EPCs of the SAP reference model. Data and Knowledge Engineering 64, 312–329 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber, B., Reichert, M., Rinderle, S.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features - Enhancing Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering 66, 438–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., Weber, B.: On the formal semantics of change patterns in process-aware information systems. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 279–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: ADEPTflex: Supporting Dynamic Changes of Workflow without Losing Control. JIIS 10, 93–129 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casati, F.: Models, Semantics, and Formal Methods for the design of Workflows and their Exceptions. PhD thesis, Milano (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 2011 Workshops, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 357–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 Workshops, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 370–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claes, J., et al.: 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
  11. 11.
    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.) BPMDS 2012 and EMMSAD 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dadam, P., Reichert, M.: The ADEPT project: a decade of research and development for robust and flexible process support. Comp. Scie. - R&D 23, 81–97 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gray, P.: Psychology. Worth Publishers (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tracz, W.: Computer programming and the human thought process. Software: Practice and Experience 9, 127–137 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeffries, R., Turner, A., Polson, P., Atwood, M.: The Process Involved in Designing Software. In: Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, pp. 255–283. Erlbaum (1981)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rist, R.: Schema Creation in Programming. Cognitive Science 13, 389–414 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kant, E., Newell, A.: Problem Solving Techniques for the design of algorithms. Information Processing & Management 20, 97–118 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson, J.: Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review 89, 369–406 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guindon, R., Curtis, B.: Control of cognitive processes during software design: what tools are needed? In: Proc. CHI 1988, pp. 263–268 (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 257–285 (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brooks, R.: Towards a theory of the cognitive processes in computer programming. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9, 737–751 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., (Erik) Proper, H.A., 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
  23. 23.
    Petre, M.: Why Looking Isn’t Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming. Commun. ACM, 33–44 (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: How the Structuring of Domain Knowledge Can Help Casual Process Modelers. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 445–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fahland, D., Woith, H.: Towards process models for disaster response. In: Proc. PM4HDPS 2008, pp. 254–265 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Recker, J., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How novices design business processes. Inf. Syst. 37, 557–573 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Part A 41, 449–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frederiks, P., Weide, T.: Information modeling: The process and the required competencies of its participants. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58, 4–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rittgen, P.: Negotiating Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 561–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H., Weber, B., Poels, G.: Visualizing the Process of Process Modeling with PPMCharts. In: Proc. TAProViz 2012, pp. 744–755 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pinggera, J., Furtner, M., Martini, M., Sachse, P., Reiter, K., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Eye Movement Analysis. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM 2012 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 438–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gschwind, T., Koehler, J., Wong, J.: Applying patterns during business process modeling. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 4–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
  • Jakob Pinggera
    • 1
  • Victoria Torres
    • 2
  • Manfred Reichert
    • 3
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaSpain
  3. 3.University of UlmGermany

Personalised recommendations