Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence Factors of Understanding Business Process Models

  • Conference paper
Business Information Systems (BIS 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 7))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The increasing utilization of business process models both in business analysis and information systems development raises several issues regarding quality measures. In this context, this paper discusses understandability as a particular quality aspect and its connection with personal, model, and content related factors. We use an online survey to explore the ability of the model reader to draw correct conclusions from a set of process models. For the first group of the participants we used models with abstract activity labels (e.g. A, B, C) while the second group received the same models with illustrative labels such as “check credit limit”. The results suggest that all three categories indeed have an impact on the understandability.

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 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hoppenbrouwers, S.S., Proper, H.E., van der Weide, T.: A Fundamental View on the Process of Conceptual Modeling. In: Delcambre, L.M.L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker, J., Rosemann, M.: Guidelines of Business Process Modeling. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 30–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Moody, D.: Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowl. Eng. 55, 243–276 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowl. Eng. 58, 358–380 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mendling, J., Moser, M., Neumann, G., Verbeek, H., Dongen, B., Aalst, W.: Faulty EPCs in the SAP Reference Model. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 451–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendling, J., Verbeek, H., Dongen, B., Aalst, W., Neumann, G.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPCs of the SAP Reference Model. In: Data & Knowl (accepted, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Simon, H.: Sciences of the Artificial., 3rd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mendling, J.: Detection and Prediction of Errors in EPC Business Process Models. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Lindland, O., Sindre, G., Sølvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11, 42–49 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: A revised quality framework. Europ. J. of Inf. Systems 15, 91–102 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moody, D., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., Sølvberg, A.: Evaluating the Quality of Process Models: Empirical Testing of a Quality Framework. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, pp. 380–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. ISO: Information technology - software product evaluation - quality characteristics and guide lines for their use. ISO/IEC IS 9126 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Güceglioglu, A.S., Demirörs, O.: Using software quality characteristics to measure business process quality. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 374–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Gemino, A., Wand, Y.: Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Commun. ACM 46, 79–84 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Green, T., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A ’cognitive dimensions’ framework. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 7, 131–174 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee, G., Yoon, J.M.: An empirical study on the complexity metrics of petri nets. Microelectronics and Reliability 32, 323–329 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nissen, M.: Redesigning reengineering through measurement-driven inference. MIS Quarterly 22, 509–534 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Morasca, S.: Measuring attributes of concurrent software specifications in petri nets. In: METRICS 1999, pp. 100–110 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Reijers, H., Vanderfeesten, I.: Cohesion and coupling metrics for workflow process design. In: Desel, J., Pernici, B., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3080, pp. 290–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cardoso, J.: Evaluating Workflows and Web Process Complexity. In: Workflow Handbook 2005, pp. 284–290 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Balasubramanian, S., Gupta, M.: Structural metrics for goal based business process design and evaluation. Business Process Management Journal 11, 680–694 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Canfora, G., García, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz, F., Visaggio, C.: A family of experiments to validate metrics for software process models. Journal of Systems and Software 77, 113–129 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aguilar, E.R., Ruiz, F., García, F., Piattini, M.: Towards a Suite of Metrics for Business Process Models in BPMN. In: Manolopoulos, Y., Filipe, J., Constantopoulos, P., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2006, Proceedings (III), pp. 440–443 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laue, R., Gruhn, V.: Complexity metrics for business process models. In: Abramowicz, W., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) BIS 2006, Proceedings. LNI, vol. 85, pp. 1–12 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cardoso, J.: Process control-flow complexity metric: An empirical validation. In: IEEE SCC 2006, Proceedings, pp. 167–173 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P.: A Study of the Evolution of the Representational Capabilities of Process Modeling Grammars. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 447–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Agarwal, R., Sinha, A.: Object-oriented modeling with UML: A study of developers perceptions. Communications of the ACM 46, 248–256 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sarshar, K., Loos, P.: Comparing the Control-Flow of EPC and Petri Net from the End-User Perspective. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Curbera, F. (eds.) BPM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3649, pp. 434–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Lange, C., Chaudron, M.: An experimental investigation. In: Osterweil, L., Rombach, H., Soffa, M. (eds.) ICSE 2006, Proceedings., pp. 401–411 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mendling, J., Aalst, W.: Towards EPC Semantics based on State and Context. In: Nüttgens, M., Rump, F.J., Mendling, J. (eds.) EPK 2006, Proc., pp. 25–48 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mendling, J., Aalst, W.: Formalization and Verification of EPCs with OR-Joins Based on State and Context. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 439–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Hosmer, D., Lemeshow, S.: Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nagelkerke, N.: A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78, 691–692 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BPM Cluster, Faculty of Information Technology, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

    Jan Mendling

  2. New Media Lab, Institute of Information Systems, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria

    Mark Strembeck

Authors
  1. Jan Mendling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Strembeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Witold Abramowicz Dieter Fensel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Mendling, J., Strembeck, M. (2008). Influence Factors of Understanding Business Process Models. In: Abramowicz, W., Fensel, D. (eds) Business Information Systems. BIS 2008. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 7. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79396-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79396-0_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-79395-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-79396-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation