How Advanced Change Patterns Impact the Process of Process Modeling

  • Barbara Weber
  • Sarah Zeitelhofer
  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Victoria Torres
  • Manfred Reichert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 175)


Process model quality has been an area of considerable research efforts. In this context, correctness-by-construction as enabled by change patterns provides promising perspectives. While the process of process modeling (PPM) based on change primitives has been thoroughly investigated, only little is known about the PPM based on change patterns. In particular, it is unclear what set of change patterns should be provided and how the available change pattern set impacts the PPM. To obtain a better understanding of the latter as well as the (subjective) perceptions of process modelers, the arising challenges, and the pros and cons of different change pattern sets we conduct a controlled experiment. Our results indicate that process modelers face similar challenges irrespective of the used change pattern set (core pattern set versus extended pattern set, which adds two advanced change patterns to the core patterns set). An extended change pattern set, however, is perceived as more difficult to use, yielding a higher mental effort. Moreover, our results indicate that more advanced patterns were only used to a limited extent and frequently applied incorrectly, thus, lowering the potential benefits of an extended pattern set.


Process Model Quality Process of Process Modeling Change Patterns Controlled Experiment 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.
    Casati, F.: Models, Semantics, and Formal Methods for the design of Workflows and their Exceptions. PhD thesis, Milano (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: Styles in business process modeling: An exploration and a model. Software & Systems Modeling, 1–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weber, B., Pinggera, J., Torres, V., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns in Use: A Critical Evaluation. In: Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Soffer, P., Krogstie, J., Schmidt, R., Halpin, T., Bider, I. (eds.) BPMDS 2013 and EMMSAD 2013. LNBIP, vol. 147, pp. 261–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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
  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.
    Fahland, D., Woith, H.: Towards process models for disaster response. In: Ardagna, D., Mecella, M., Yang, J. (eds.) BPM 2008 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 17, pp. 254–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Höst, M., Regnell, B., Wohlin, C.: Using students as subjects-a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Software Engineering 5, 201–214 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Porter, A.A., Votta, L.G.: Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replication using professional subjects. Empirical Software Engineering 3, 355–379 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Runeson, P.: Using students as experiment subjects—an analysis on graduate and freshmen student data. In: Proc. EASE 2003, pp. 95–102 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., Licata, L.: Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, 764–766 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Rittgen, P.: Negotiating Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 561–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Poels, G.: Visualizing the Process of Process Modeling with PPMCharts. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 744–755. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 438–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
  • Sarah Zeitelhofer
    • 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