Investigations on User Preferences of the Alignment of Process Activities, Objects and Roles

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8185)


Numerous attempts have been made to research the variety of different influences on the understandability of process models. Common to all of these attempts is the limitation to the process model itself. Little empirical effort is spent on investigating the understandability of the alignment of process activities, objects, and roles. This paper tackles this issue and empirically studies preferences of how to visually align process activities with objects and roles. In particular, three visualization techniques are evaluated in order to support the combination of the object and organization units with their corresponding process model elements. The empirical study provides a strong support for the visualization of a process model that is disburdened from context information such as objects used and roles involved and thus is reduced to the sole visualization of process activities and its control-flow.


process modeling understandability model visualization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Betz, S., Eichhorn, D., Hickl, S., Klink, S., Koschmider, A., Li, Y., Oberweis, A., Trunko, R.: 3D Representation of Business Process Models. In: MobIS 2008, pp. 73–87 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardoso, J.: Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation. In: IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, pp. 167–173 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Figl, K., Laue, R.: Cognitive Complexity in Business Process Modeling. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Figl, K., Recker, J., Mendling, J.: A Study on the Effects of Routing Symbol Design on Process Model Comprehension. Decision Support Systems 54(2), 1104–1118 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hipp, M., Michelberger, B., Mutschler, B., Reichert, M.: A Framework for the Intelligent Delivery and User-Adequate Visualization of Process Information. In: 28th Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2013), Coimbra, Portugal. ACM Press (March 2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolb, J., Reichert, M.: Data Flow Abstractions and Adaptations through Updatable Process Views. In: 28th Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2013), Coimbra, Portugal. ACM Press (March 2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koschmider, A., Reijers, H.A., Dijman, R.: Empirical Support for the Usefulness of Personalized Process Model Views, Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2012, Braunschweig (March 2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maes, A., Poels, G.: Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data Knowl. Eng. 63(3), 701–724 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    North, C.: Information Visualization. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3rd edn., pp. 1222–1246. John Wiley & Sons (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recker, J., Indulska, M., Rosemann, M., Green, P.: How Good is BPMN Really? Insights from Theory and Practice. In: Proceedings 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A Study Into the Factors That Influence the Understandability of Business Process Models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 41, 449–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reinhard, T.: Complexity management in graphical models. Dissertation. University of Zurich (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sweller, J.: Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In: Ross, B. (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 43, pp. 215–266. Academic Press (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied Informatics and Formal Description MethodsKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyGermany
  2. 2.SBA ResearchViennaAustria
  3. 3.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations