Advertisement

Effect of Linked Rules on Business Process Model Understanding

  • Wei Wang
  • Marta Indulska
  • Shazia Sadiq
  • Barbara Weber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10445)

Abstract

Business process models are widely used in organizations by information systems analysts to represent complex business requirements and by business users to understand business operations and constraints. This understanding is extracted from graphical process models as well as business rules. Prior research advocated integrating business rules into business process models to improve the effectiveness of important organizational activities, such as developing shared understanding, effective communication, and process improvement. However, whether such integrated modeling can improve the understanding of business processes has not been empirically evaluated. In this paper, we report on an experiment that investigates the effect of linked rules, a specific rule integration approach, on business process model understanding. Our results indicate that linked rules are associated with better time efficiency in interpreting business operations, less mental effort, and partially associated with improved accuracy of understanding.

Keywords

Business process modeling Business rule modeling Cognitive research 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the advice from Dr Thomas Taimre regarding the use of relevant statistical methods.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheng, R., Sadiq, S., Indulska, M.: Framework for business process and rule integration: a case of BPMN and SBVR. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2011. LNBIP, vol. 87, pp. 13–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21863-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sapkota, B., van Sinderen, M.: Exploiting rules and processes for increasing flexibility in service composition. In: 2010 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), pp. 177–185. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kappel, G., Rausch-Schott, S., Retschitzegger, W.: Coordination in workflow management systems — a rule-based approach. In: Conen, W., Neumann, G. (eds.) ASIAN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1364, pp. 99–119. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0027102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.F., Indulska, M.: Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? MIS Q. 35, 57–79 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M., Kittel, K.: Towards integrated modeling of business processes and business rules. In: Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS)-Creating the Future: Transforming Research into Practice, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 690–697. Citeseer (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Habich, D., Richly, S., Demuth, B., Gietl, F., Spilke, J., Lehner, W., Assmann, U.: Joining business rules and business processes. In: Proceedings of IT (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zur Muehlen, M., Indulska, M.: Modeling languages for business processes and business rules: a representational analysis. Inf. Syst. 35, 379–390 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kluza, K., Kaczor, K., Nalepa, G.J.: Enriching business processes with rules using the Oryx BPMN Editor. In: Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7268, pp. 573–581. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29350-4_68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nalepa, G.J., Kluza, K., Kaczor, K.: Proposal of an inference engine architecture for business rules and processes. In: Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.) ICAISC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7895, pp. 453–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38610-7_42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milanovic, M., Gasevic, D., Rocha, L.: Modeling flexible business processes with business rule patterns. In: 2011 15th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 65–74 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Shek, S.: Rule based business process compliance. In: Proceedings of the RuleML2012@ ECAI Challenge, article 5 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Bus. Horiz. 36, 90–91 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovacic, A., Groznik, A.: The business rule-transformation approach. In: 26th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, vol. 1, pp. 113–117 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rabova, I.: Methodology of the enterprise architecture creating and the role of the enterprise architecture in rural development. Agricultural Economics-Zemedelska Ekonomika 56, 334–340 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Skersys, T., Tutkute, L., Butleris, R., Butkiene, R.: Extending BPMN business process model with SBVR business vocabulary and rules. Inf. Technol. Control 41, 356–367 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S.: Cognitive efforts in using integrated models of business processes and rules - semantic scholar. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE Workshop), Ljubljana, Slovenia. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ly, L.T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Göser, K., Dadam, P.: On enabling integrated process compliance with semantic constraints in process management systems. Inf. Syst. Front. 14, 195–219 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Green, P.F., Rosemann, M.: Perceived ontological weaknesses of process modeling techniques: further evidence. In: Proceedings of the ECIS, pp. 312–321 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herbst, H., Knolmayer, G., Myrach, T., Schlesinger, M.: The specification of business rules: a comparison of selected methodologies. In: Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, pp. 29–46 (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krogstie, J., McBrien, P., Owens, R., Seltveit, A.H.: Information systems development using a combination of process and rule based approaches. In: Andersen, R., Bubenko, J.A., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1991. LNCS, vol. 498, pp. 319–335. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). doi: 10.1007/3-540-54059-8_92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McBrien, P., Seltveit, A.H.: Coupling process models and business rules. In: Sölvberg, A., Krogstie, J., Seltveit, A.H. (eds.) Information Systems Development for Decentralized Organizations. ITIFIP, pp. 201–217. Springer, Boston, MA (1995). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-34871-1_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knolmayer, G., Endl, R., Pfahrer, M.: Modeling processes and workflows by business rules. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 16–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45594-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burton-Jones, A., Meso, P.N.: Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Inf. Syst. Res. 17, 38–60 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.M.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36, 881–897 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension—findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53, 195–206 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bera, P.: Does cognitive overload matter in understanding BPMN models? J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 52, 59–69 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Recker, J.C., Dreiling, A.: Does it matter which process modelling language we teach or use? An experimental study on understanding process modelling languages without formal education. In: Toleman, M., Cater-Steel, A., Roberts, D. (eds.) Faculty of Science and Technology, pp. 356–366. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Figl, K.: Comprehension of procedural visual business process models–a literature review. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59, 41–67 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Loucopoulos, P., Kadir, W.M.N.W.: BROOD: business rules-driven object oriented design. J. Database Manage. (JDM) 19, 41–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sweller, J., Chandler, P.: Why some material is difficult to learn. Cogn. Instr. 12, 185–233 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Charness, G., Gneezy, U., Kuhn, M.A.: Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81, 1–8 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meghanathan, R.N., van Leeuwen, C., Nikolaev, A.R.: Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 1063 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Weber, B., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Assessing the impact of hierarchy on model understandability – a cognitive perspective. In: Kienzle, J. (ed.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7167, pp. 123–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29645-1_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zugal, S.: Applying cognitive psychology for improving the creation, understanding and maintenance of business process modelsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haji, F.A., Rojas, D., Childs, R., de Ribaupierre, S., Dubrowski, A.: Measuring cognitive load: performance, mental effort and simulation task complexity. Med. Educ. 49, 815–827 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Box, G.E., Hunter, W.G., Hunter, J.S.: Statistics for experimenters: an introduction to design, data analysis, and model building. JSTOR (1978)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81–105 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S.: To integrate or not to integrate – the business rules question. In: Nurcan, S., Soffer, P., Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9694, pp. 51–66. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zoet, M., Versendaal, J., Ravesteyn, P., Welke, R.J.: Alignment of business process management and business rules. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, p. 34 (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hashmi, M., Governatori, G., Wynn, M.T.: Normative requirements for business process compliance. In: Davis, J.G., Demirkan, H., Motahari-Nezhad, H.R. (eds.) ASSRI 2013. LNBIP, vol. 177, pp. 100–116. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07950-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Wang
    • 1
  • Marta Indulska
    • 2
  • Shazia Sadiq
    • 1
  • Barbara Weber
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.University of Queensland Business SchoolThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations