Requirements Comprehension Using BPMN: An Empirical Study



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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



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.


  1. 1.
    V.R. Basili, G. Caldiera, H.D. Rombach, Goal Question Metric Paradigm, vol. 1 (Wiley, New York, 1994), pp. 528–532Google Scholar
  2. 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. 119–134Google Scholar
  3. 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. 51:1–51:12Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.A. Cibrán, Translating BPMN models into UML activities, in Business Process Management Workshops (BPM 2008), vol. 17 (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 236–247Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.W. Corder, D.I. Foreman, Non Parametric Statistics for Non-Statisticians (Wiley, New York, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 291–305Google Scholar
  7. 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. 374–379Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Figl, Comprehension of procedural visual business process models. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59(1), 41–67 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Figl, J. Recker, Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Requir. Eng. 21(1), 63–85 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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 ManagementGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Gemino, Y. Wand, A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requir. Eng. 9(4), 248–260 (2004). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    P. Goos, D. Meintrup, Statistics with JMP: Hypothesis Tests, ANOVA and Regression (Wiley, New York, 2016). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.J. Grissom, J.J. Kim, Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2005). Google Scholar
  16. 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. 47–56Google Scholar
  17. 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. 9–16Google Scholar
  18. 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. 194–206Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Harmon, The state of business process management 2016. A BPTrends Report, 2016.
  20. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Karagiannis, S. Junginger, R. Strobl, Introduction to business process management systems concepts, in Business Process Modelling (Springer, Berlin, 1996), pp. 81–106Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Kettenis, Getting started with use case modeling, White Paper, Oracle (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Leopold, J. Mendling, O. Günther, Learning from quality issues of BPMN models from industry. IEEE Softw. 33(4), 26–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Lübke, K. Schneider, Visualizing use case sets as BPMN processes, in Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV’08) (2008), pp. 21–25Google Scholar
  27. 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. 119–129Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J.H. McDonald, Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd edn. (Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, 2014)Google Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    OMG, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0, 2011.
  31. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 2008Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Pichler, H. Rumetshofer, Business process-based requirements modeling and management, in First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV’06), 2006Google Scholar
  34. 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. 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. 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. 356–366Google Scholar
  37. 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. 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. 41–50Google Scholar
  39. 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. 1–3Google Scholar
  40. 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. 95–104Google Scholar
  41. 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. 126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    S. Schach, Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    S.S. Shapiro, M.B. Wilk, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611 (1965). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    S. Tiwari, A. Gupta, Investigating comprehension and learnability aspects of use cases for software specification problems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 91, 22–43 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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. 142–159Google Scholar
  47. 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. 242–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.
  49. 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. 22–30Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    D. Weitlaner, A. Guettinger, M. Kohlbacher, Intuitive comprehensibility of process models, in S-BPM ONE - Running Processes (Springer, Berlin, 2013), pp. 52–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Universidad de los LlanosVillavicencioColombia

Personalised recommendations