Advertisement

The Dynamic Visualization of Business Process Models: A Prototype and Evaluation

  • Romain Emens
  • Irene VanderfeestenEmail author
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 256)

Abstract

Business process models are commonly used for communication purposes among stakeholders. They are often distributed by means of web portals in the form of images. As the organizational population accessing these web portals has diverse needs and prior knowledge, the process models should be intuitive, likeable, well-accepted, and easily understandable [8] to reach their communication goal. Up to now, process models are mostly represented in a graphical but static, one-size-fits-all way. Visualization techniques have been applied at design time only to improve on the communication power of the model and support the model user in reading the model. The opportunity to dynamically guide model users to relevant parts of the diagram when reading the model is missed, and model users may not know where to focus their attention on. This paper provides a conceptual design for the dynamic visualization of process models. Our design is implemented in a prototype for a case study and evaluated by process participants. From this we conclude that such a dynamic visualization is preferred over a static visualization.

Keywords

Business process model Dynamic visualization Highlighting Animation User-interaction 

References

  1. 1.
    Schrepfer, M., Wolf, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: The impact of secondary notation on process model understanding. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 161–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendling, J.: Managing structural and textual quality of business process models. In: Cudre-Mauroux, P., Ceravolo, P., Gašević, D. (eds.) SIMPDA 2012. LNBIP, vol. 162, pp. 100–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melcher, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Seese, D.: On measuring the understandability of process models. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 465–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., von Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guo, H., Brown, R., Rasmussen, R.: A theoretical basis for using virtual worlds as a personalised process visualisation approach. In: Franch, X., Soffer, P. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2013. LNBIP, vol. 148, pp. 229–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Recker, J.: Business process quality management. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1, pp. 167–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hipp, M., Mutschler, B., Reichert, M.: Navigating in complex business processes. In: Liddle, S.W., Schewe, K.-D., Tjoa, A.M., Zhou, X. (eds.) DEXA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7447, pp. 466–480. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12, 249–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bobrik, R., Reichert, M., Bauer, T.: View-based process visualization. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 88–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leopold, H., Mendling, J., Polyvyanyy, A.: Generating natural language texts from business process models. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rinderle, S.B., Bobrik, R., Reichert, M.U., Bauer, T.: Business process visualization - use cases, challenges, solutions. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2006): Information System Analysis and Specification, pp. 204–211. INSTICC (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blankenship, J., Dansereau, D.F.: The effect of animated node-link displays on information recall. J. Exp. Educ. 68, 293–308 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker, J., Kugeler, M., Rosemann, M.: Process Management: A Guide for the Design of Business Processes: With 83 Figures and 34 Tables. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dehnert, J., van der Aalst, W.M.: Bridging the gap between business models and workflow specifications. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 13, 289–332 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.M., Wohed, P., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 7, 255–265 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Betz, S., Eichhorn, D., Hickl, S., Klink, S., Koschmider, A., Li, Y., Oberweis, A., Trunko, R.: 3D representation of business process models. In: Proceedings of Modellierung betrieblicher Informationssysteme (MobIS 2008). Köllen Verlag, Saarbrücken (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fill, H.-G.: Survey of existing visualisation approaches. In: Visualisation for Semantic Information Systems, pp. 39–159. Gabler (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    La Rosa, M., Wohed, P., Mendling, J., ter Hofstede, A.M., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 7, 614–629 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hipp, M., Mutschler, B., Reichert, M.: Navigating in process model collections: a new approach inspired by Google earth. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2011, Part II. LNBIP, vol. 100, pp. 87–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Philippi, S., Hill, H.J.: Communication support for systems engineering – process modelling and animation with APRIL. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 1305–1316 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Günther, C.W.: Process mining in flexible environments. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Allweyer, T., Schweitzer, S.: A tool for animating BPMN token flow. In: Mendling, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPMN 2012. LNBIP, vol. 125, pp. 98–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nawrocki, J.R., Nedza, T., Ochodek, M., Olek, L.: Describing business processes with use cases. In: Proceedings of BIS 2006, pp. 13–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Aken, J., Berends, H., Van der Bij, H.: Problem Solving in Organizations: A Methodological Handbook for Business and Management Students. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: A design science primer. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adolph, S., Cockburn, A., Bramble, P.: Patterns for Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Škrinjar, R., Trkman, P.: Increasing process orientation with business process management: critical practices’. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 33, 48–60 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jablonski, S., Bussler, C.: Workflow Management: Modeling Concepts, Architecture and Implementation (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ware, C.: Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Elsevier, Waltham (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 45, 185–213 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson, S.D.: A framework for technology education curricula which emphasizes intellectual processes. Journal of Technology Education 3, 29–40 (1992). Reprint SeriesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Assessing process models with cognitive psychology. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, EMISA 2011, Hamburg, Germany, 22–23 September 2011, vol. 190, pp. 177–182. GI (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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
  35. 35.
    Mayer, R.E.: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Müller, R., Rogge-Solti, A.: BPMN for healthcare processes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Central-European, vol. 705 (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Emens, R.: A dynamic visualisation of business process models for process participants. Master thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (2014). http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/ivanderfeesten/Papers/TAProViz2015/Master%20thesis%20Romain%20Emens.pdf
  38. 38.
    Reijers, H., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A 41(3), 449–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romain Emens
    • 1
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.VU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations