Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Business Process and Rule Integration Approaches - An Empirical Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management Forum (BPM 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 329))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Modeling landscapes in organizations suffer from the problem of information silos, where a number of process models, business rule repositories and other information artefacts may exist concurrently for the same business activity. In this paper, we investigate integrating business process models and business rules. Prior literature presents three such approaches, namely text annotation, diagrammatic, and link integration. We evaluate these approaches from a cognitive load perspective and measure the value of integration from three perspectives: understanding accuracy, mental effort and time efficiency. Our results indicate that diagrammatic integration is associated with better understanding accuracy than text annotation and link integration, but may require more mental effort and time under certain conditions. We also found that the integration approach partially influences mental effort and time efficiency. Further insights from our empirical analysis reveal relationships between process model constructs, integration approaches and cognitive load, especially how approaches applied to models with specific characteristics, impact on process understanding and cognitive load.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more specifications of eye tracker, please visit https://www.tobiipro.com/product-listing/tobii-pro-tx300/.

  2. 2.

    Model originated from a travel booking diagram in OMG’s BPMN 2.0 examples can be viewed in http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/10-06-02.

  3. 3.

    Model adopted from Signavio website can be viewed in https://www.signavio.com/post/process-thinking-insurance/.

  4. 4.

    The experiment materials can be download from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eiow8c3z6u4vx7w/AACm44dstgRm2KRLJBRzwF8Na?dl=0.

  5. 5.

    The Shapiro-Wilk test is a test of normality.

  6. 6.

    Levene’s test is an inferential statistic used to assess the equality of variances for a variable calculated for two or more groups.

  7. 7.

    Tukey’s HSD is a post-hoc analysis of ANOVA that can be used to find means that are significantly different from each other.

  8. 8.

    Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric method when there are more than two groups.

  9. 9.

    Dunn’s test is a non-parametric multiple comparison post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis test.

References

  1. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen, F., et al.: Robust Multimodal Cognitive Load Measurement. HIS. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31700-7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21863-7_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Duchowski, A.T.: Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. Springer, London (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-609-4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Figl, K., Laue, R.: Influence factors for local comprehensibility of process models. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 82, 96–110 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requir. Eng. 9(4), 248–260 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Governatori, G., Shek, S.: Rule based business process compliance. In: Proceedings of the RuleML2012@ ECAI Challenge, article 5 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Gruhn, V., Laue, R.: Adopting the cognitive complexity measure for business process models. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI 2006), Beijing, China (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hogrebe, F., Gehrke, N., Nüttgens, M.: Eye tracking experiments in business process modeling: agenda setting and proof of concept. In: Proceedings of EMISA 2011, pp. 183–188 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A.: Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cogn. Psychol. 8, 441–480 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0027102

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34871-1_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Melcher, J., Seese, D.: Towards validating prediction systems for process understandability: measuring process understandability (experimental results). Research report, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Institut AIFB (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 127–136 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M.: Influence factors of understanding business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds.) BIS 2008. LNBIP, vol. 7, pp. 142–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79396-0_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Mendling, J., Strembeck, M., Recker, J.: Factors of process model comprehension—findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53, 195–206 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Van Gerven, P.W.M.: Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychol. 38, 63–71 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J.: Eye-tracking the factors of process model comprehension tasks. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 224–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38709-8_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Petrusel, R., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Task-specific visual cues for improving process model understanding. Inf. Softw. Technol. 79, 63–78 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Recker, J.: Empirical investigation of the usefulness of Gateway constructs in process models. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 673–689 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P.F., Indulska, M.: Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? MIS Q. 35, 57–79 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reijers, H., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R.: Human and automatic modularizations of process models to enhance their comprehension. Inf. Syst. 36, 881–897 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rima, A., Vasilecas, O., Šmaižys, A.: Comparative analysis of business rules and business process modeling languages. Comput. Sci. Tech. 1(1), 52–60 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rolón, E., Garcia, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M., Visaggio, C.A., Canfora, G.: Evaluation of BPMN models quality - a family of experiments. In: ENASE, pp. 56–63 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Mendling, J., Ruiz, F.: Quality assessment of business process models based on thresholds. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 78–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16934-2_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. Turetken, O., Rompen, T., Vanderfeesten, I., Dikici, A., van Moll, J.: The effect of modularity representation and presentation medium on the understandability of business process models in BPMN. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 289–307. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 

  35. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S., Weber, B.: Effect of linked rules on business process model understanding. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10445, pp. 200–215. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Weitlaner, D., Guettinger, A., Kohlbacher, M.: Intuitive comprehensibility of process models. In: Fischer, H., Schneeberger, J. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2013. CCIS, vol. 360, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36754-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29645-1_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Tianwa Chen, Wei Wang & Shazia Sadiq

  2. University of Queensland Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Marta Indulska

Authors
  1. Tianwa Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Indulska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shazia Sadiq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Wang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso-Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Mathias Weske

  2. Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy

    Marco Montali

  3. Data61, CSIRO, Eveleigh, New South Wales, Australia

    Ingo Weber

  4. University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Jan vom Brocke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Chen, T., Wang, W., Indulska, M., Sadiq, S. (2018). Business Process and Rule Integration Approaches - An Empirical Analysis. In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds) Business Process Management Forum. BPM 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 329. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98651-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98651-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98650-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98651-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation