Skip to main content

Requirements Comprehension Using BPMN: An Empirical Study

Abstract

The Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) has become the de facto standard for process modeling. Currently, BPMN models can be (a) analyzed or simulated using specialized tools, (b) executed using business process management systems (BPMSs), or (c) used for requirements elicitation. Although there are many studies comparing BPMN to other modeling techniques for analyzing and executing processes, there are few showing the suitability of BPMN models as a source for requirements comprehension in projects where process-aware software is built without using BPMSs. This chapter presents a study aimed at comparing the comprehension of software requirements regarding a business process using either BPMN or traditional techniques, such as use cases. In our study, we analyzed responses of 120 undergraduate and graduate students regarding the requirements comprehension achieved when using only BPMN models, only use cases, or both. The results do not show significant impact of the artifacts on the comprehension level. However, when the understanding of the requirement involves sequence of activities, using the BPMN shows better results on the comprehension time.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-17666-2_5
  • Chapter length: 27 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-17666-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. V.R. Basili, G. Caldiera, H.D. Rombach, Goal Question Metric Paradigm, vol. 1 (Wiley, New York, 1994), pp. 528–532

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Birkmeier, S. Overhage, Is BPMN really first choice in joint architecture development? An empirical study on the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users, in 6th International Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures ( QoSA 2010) (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 119–134

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Birkmeier, S. Kloeckner, S. Overhage, An empirical comparison of the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users, in 18th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010) (2010), pp. 51:1–51:12

    Google Scholar 

  4. M.A. Cibrán, Translating BPMN models into UML activities, in Business Process Management Workshops (BPM 2008), vol. 17 (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 236–247

    Google Scholar 

  5. G.W. Corder, D.I. Foreman, Non Parametric Statistics for Non-Statisticians (Wiley, New York, 2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. F. Di Cerbo, G. Dodero, G. Reggio, F. Ricca, G. Scanniello, Precise vs. ultra-light activity diagrams - an experimental assessment in the context of business process modelling, in 12th International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2011) (Springer, Berlin, 2011), pp. 291–305

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Feldt, A. Magazinius, Validity threats in empirical software engineering research - an initial survey, in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’2010), Redwood City, San Francisco Bay, July 1–July 3, 2010 (2010), pp. 374–379

    Google Scholar 

  8. K. Figl, Comprehension of procedural visual business process models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(1), 41–67 (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. K. Figl, J. Recker, Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Requir. Eng. 21(1), 63–85 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. K. Figl, J. Mendling, M. Strembeck, The influence of notational deficiencies on process model comprehension. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14(6), 312–338 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. Gabryelczyk, A. Jurczuk, Does experience matter? Factors affecting the understandability of the business process modelling notation. Procedia Eng. 182, 198–205 (2017). 7th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Gemino, Y. Wand, A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requir. Eng. 9(4), 248–260 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-004-0204-6

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. F. Gilbreth, L. Gilbreth, Process Charts. First Steps in Finding the One Best Way to Do Work (The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1921)

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. Goos, D. Meintrup, Statistics with JMP: Hypothesis Tests, ANOVA and Regression (Wiley, New York, 2016). https://books.google.com.co/books?id=GYyXCwAAQBAJ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. R.J. Grissom, J.J. Kim, Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2005). https://books.google.com.co/books?id=4C49CGkNxLAC

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Gross, J. Doerr, EPC vs. UML activity diagram - two experiments examining their usefulness for requirements engineering, in 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE ’09) (2009), pp. 47–56

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Gross, J. Jurkiewicz, J. Doerr, J. Nawrocki, Investigating the usefulness of notations in the context of requirements engineering - research agenda and lessons learned, in Second IEEE International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE 2012) (2012), pp. 9–16

    Google Scholar 

  18. C. Haisjackl, S. Zugal, Investigating differences between graphical and textual declarative process models, in Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops, CAiSE 2014 International Workshops (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014), pp. 194–206

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Harmon, The state of business process management 2016. A BPTrends Report, 2016. https://www.bptrends.com/bptrends-surveys/

  20. G. Jošt, J. Huber, M. Heričko, G. Polančič, An empirical investigation of intuitive understandability of process diagrams. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 48, 90–111 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. D. Karagiannis, S. Junginger, R. Strobl, Introduction to business process management systems concepts, in Business Process Modelling (Springer, Berlin, 1996), pp. 81–106

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Kettenis, Getting started with use case modeling, White Paper, Oracle (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Kocbek, G. Jošt, M. Heričko, G. Polančič, Business process model and notation: the current state of affairs. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 12(2), 509–539 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. H. Leopold, J. Mendling, O. Günther, Learning from quality issues of BPMN models from industry. IEEE Softw. 33(4), 26–33 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. M.A. López-Campos, A.C. Marquez, J.F.G. Fernández, Modelling using UML and BPMN the integration of open reliability, maintenance and condition monitoring management systems: an application in an electric transformer system. Comput. Ind. 64(5), 524–542 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. D. Lübke, K. Schneider, Visualizing use case sets as BPMN processes, in Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV’08) (2008), pp. 21–25

    Google Scholar 

  27. O. Macek, K. Richta, The BPM to UML activity diagram transformation using XSLT, in Annual International Workshop on DAtabases, TExts, Specifications and Objects (DATESO 2009), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 471 (2009), pp. 119–129

    Google Scholar 

  28. J.H. McDonald, Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd edn. (Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  29. C. Monsalve, A. April, A. Abran, On the expressiveness of business process modeling notations for software requirements elicitation, in 38th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON 2012) (IEEE, New York, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  30. OMG, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0, 2011. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/

  31. A. Ottensooser, A. Fekete, H.A. Reijers, J. Mendling, C. Menictas, Making sense of business process descriptions: an experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. J. Syst. Softw. 85(3), 596–606 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  32. D. Peixoto, V.A. Batista, A.P. Atayde, E.P. Borges, R. Resende, C. Isaías, P.S. Pádua, A comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 activity diagrams, in VII Simposio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Pichler, H. Rumetshofer, Business process-based requirements modeling and management, in First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV’06), 2006

    Google Scholar 

  34. A. Przybylek, A business-oriented approach to requirements elicitation, in 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE) (IEEE, New York, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  35. P. Ravesteyn, R, Batenburg, Surveying the critical success factors of BPM systems implementation. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 16(3), 492–507 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. Recker, A. Dreiling, Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education, in Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2007, University of Southern Queensland (2007), pp. 356–366

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. Recker, A. Dreiling, The effects of content presentation format and user characteristics on novice developers’ understanding of process models. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 28(6), 65–84 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  38. R.D.A. Rodrigues, M.D.O. Barros, K. Revoredo, L.G. Azevedo, H. Leopold, An experiment on process model understandability using textual work instructions and BPMN models, in 29th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES 2015) (2015), pp. 41–50

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. Romano, J.D. Kromrey, J. Coraggio, J. Skowronek, Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: should we really be using t-test and Cohen’sd for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys? in Annual Meeting of the Florida Association of Institutional Research (2006), pp. 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  40. N. Russell, W.M.P. van der Aalst, A.H.M. ter Hofstede, P. Wohed, On the suitability of UML 2.0 activity diagrams for business process modelling, in 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling - (APCCM ’06) (Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, 2006), pp. 95–104

    Google Scholar 

  41. K. Sandkuhl, J. Wiebring, Experiences from selecting a BPM notation for an enterprise, in Business Information Systems Workshops (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015), pp. 126–138

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  42. S. Schach, Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  43. S.S. Shapiro, M.B. Wilk, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611 (1965). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2333709

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  44. S. Tiwari, A. Gupta, Investigating comprehension and learnability aspects of use cases for software specification problems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 91, 22–43 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.06.003

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  45. W.M.P. van der Aalst, Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  46. W.M.P. van der Aalst, L. Aldred, M. Dumas, A.H.M. ter Hofstede, Design and implementation of the YAWL system, in 16th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2004) (2004), pp. 142–159

    Google Scholar 

  47. O.L. Vega-Márquez, H. Duarte, J. Chavarriaga, Software development process supported by business process modeling - an experience report, in Seventh International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design - Volume 1 (BMSD 2017) (SciTePress, Setúbal, 2017), pp. 242–245

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. O.-L. Vega-Márquez, J. Chavarriaga, M. Linares-Vásquez, M. Sánchez, Requirements comprehension using BPMN models: an empirical study - ESDEBP, chapter # 3 online appendix, 2018. https://olvegam.github.io/esdebp-c3-oa/

  49. Y. Wautelet, S. Poelmans. Aligning the elements of the RUP/UML business use-case model and the BPMN business process diagram, in 23rd International Working Conference Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2017) (2017), pp. 22–30

    Google Scholar 

  50. D. Weitlaner, A. Guettinger, M. Kohlbacher, Intuitive comprehensibility of process models, in S-BPM ONE - Running Processes (Springer, Berlin, 2013), pp. 52–71

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lili Johana Rozo, Hawer Forero, Óscar Agudelo, and Carlos Andrés López from Universidad de los Llanos, Helga Duarte from Universidad Nacional de Colombia, and Andrea Herrera and Óscar González from Universidad de los Andes, for their collaboration reviewing and commenting on the case studies used in our experiments and for their help collecting data in their courses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Lucero Vega-Márquez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vega-Márquez, O.L., Chavarriaga, J., Linares-Vásquez, M., Sánchez, M. (2019). Requirements Comprehension Using BPMN: An Empirical Study. In: Lübke, D., Pautasso, C. (eds) Empirical Studies on the Development of Executable Business Processes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17666-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17666-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17665-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17666-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)