Advertisement

Towards a Structured Process Modeling Method: Building the Prescriptive Modeling Theory

Regular Paper
  • Jan ClaesEmail author
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
  • Frederik Gailly
  • Paul Grefen
  • Geert Poels
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 281)

Abstract

In their effort to control and manage processes, organizations often create process models. The quality of such models is not always optimal, because it is challenging for a modeler to translate her mental image of the process into a formal process description. In order to support this complex human processing task, we are developing a smart process modeling method. This paper describes how we have built the underlying prescriptive theory, which is constructed from existing evidence about successful information processing techniques in cognitive psychology.

Keywords

Business process management Business process modeling Human aspects of BPM Smart BPM Process of process modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Toward a quality framework for business process models. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 22(01), 1–15 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Meyer, P.: Kwaliteit van procesmodellen: literatuurstudie (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 370–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pinggera, J., Soffer, P., Fahland, D., Weidlich, M., Zugal, S., Weber, B., Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: Styles in business process modeling: an exploration and a model. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(3), 1055–1080 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker, J., Rosemann, M., Uthmann, C.: Guidelines of business process modeling. In: Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Pinggera, J., Reijers, H.A., Weber, B., Poels, G.: A visual analysis of the process of process modeling. Inf. Syst. E-bus. Manag. 13(1), 147–190 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Claes, J., Vanderfeesten, I., Gailly, F., Grefen, P., Poels, G.: The structured process modeling theory (SPMT) - a cognitive view on why and how modelers benefit from structuring the process of process modeling. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(6), 1401–1425 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M.: A conceptual modeling quality framework. Softw. Qual. J. 20(1), 201–228 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Recker, J.C., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Green, P.: Business process modeling: a comparative analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(4), 333–363 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part A. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12(2), 249–254 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moreno-Montes de Oca, I., Snoeck, M., Reijers, H.A., Rodríguez-Morffi, A.: A systematic literature review of studies on business process modeling quality. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 187–205 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silver, B.: BPMN: Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, Altadena (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soffer, P., Kaner, M., Wand, Y.: Towards understanding the process of process modeling: theoretical and empirical considerations. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 357–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Recker, J.C., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How novices design business processes. Inf. Syst. 37(6), 557–573 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., De Weerdt, J.: Process mining analysis of conceptual modeling behavior of novices: empirical study using JMermaid modeling and experimental logging environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 41, 486–503 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keefe, J.W.: Learning style: an overview. In: Proceedings NASSP’s Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Proscribing Programs, pp. 1–17 (1979)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K.: Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng. Educ. 78, 674–681 (1988)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Felder, R.M.: Reaching the second tier: learning and teaching styles in college science education. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 23(5), 286–290 (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pask, G.: Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style. In: Schmeck, R.R. (ed.) Proceedings Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, pp. 83–100. Springer, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pask, G.: Styles and strategies of learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 46(2), 128–148 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., Cox, P.W.: Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Rev. Educ. Res. 47(1), 1–64 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H.: Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests, Princeton, New Jersey (1976)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wooldridge, B., Haimes-Bartolf, M.: The field dependence/field independence learning styles: implications for adult student diversity, outcomes assessment and accountability. In: Proceedings Learning Styles and Learning: A Key to Meeting the Accountability Demands in Education, pp. 237–257 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thompson, M.M., Naccarato, M.E., Parker, K.C.H., Moskowitz, G.B.: The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: historical perspectives, current applications, and future directions. In: Proceedings Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition, pp. 19–39 (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neuberg, S.L., Newsom, J.T.: Personal need for structure: individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65(1), 113–131 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Claes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irene Vanderfeesten
    • 2
  • Frederik Gailly
    • 1
  • Paul Grefen
    • 2
  • Geert Poels
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business Informatics and Operations ManagementGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation SciencesEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations