Advertisement

A Precise Style for Business Process Modelling: Results from Two Controlled Experiments

  • Gianna Reggio
  • Filippo Ricca
  • Giuseppe Scanniello
  • Francesco Di Cerbo
  • Gabriella Dodero
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6981)

Abstract

We present a precise style for the modelling of business processes based on the UML activity diagrams and two controlled experiments to compare this style with a lighter variant. The comparison has been performed with respect to the comprehensibility of business processes and the effort to comprehend them. The first experiment has been conducted at the Free University of Bolzano-Bozen, while the second experiment (i.e., a differentiated replication) at the University of Genova. The participants to the first experiment were Master students and so more experienced than the participants to the replication, who were Bachelor students. The results indicate that: (a) all the participants achieved a significantly better comprehension level with the precise style; (b) the used style did not have any significant impact on the effort; and (c) more experienced participants benefited more from the precise style.

Keywords

Business Process Modelling UML activity diagrams Controlled experiment Precise and Ultra-light styles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G., Ricca, F.: Modeling business within a UML-based rigorous software development approach. In: Degano, P., De Nicola, R., Bevilacqua, V. (eds.) Concurrency, Graphs and Models. LNCS, vol. 5065, pp. 261–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.H.: The Goal Question Metric Paradigm, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili, V.R., Shull, F., Lanubile, F.: Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 456–473 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birkmeier, D., Overhage, S.: Is BPMN really first choice in joint architecture development? An empirical study on the usability of BPMN and UML activity diagrams for business users. In: Heineman, G.T., Kofron, J., Plasil, F. (eds.) QoSA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6093, pp. 119–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carver, J., Jaccheri, L., Morasca, S., Shull, F.: Issues in using students in empirical studies in software engineering education. In: 9th International Symposium on Software Metrics, pp. 239–249. IEEE CS, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Scanniello, G., Tortora, G.: Distributed workflow management based on UML and web services. In: Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government, and Mobile Commerce, pp. 217–222. IGI Global (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Tortora, G.: Deriving workflow enactment rules from UML activity diagrams: a case study. In: Symposium on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments, pp. 211–218 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Cerbo, F., Dodero, G., Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Scanniello, G.: Precise vs. Ultra-light activity diagrams - an experimental assessment in the context of business process modelling. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds.) PROFES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6759, pp. 291–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Nitto, E., Lavazza, L., Schiavoni, M., Tracanella, E., Trombetta, M.: Deriving executable process descriptions from UML. In: 22rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2002), pp. 155–165 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eriksson, H.E., Penker, M.: Business Modelling with UML. Wiley Computing Publishing, Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gross, A., Doerr, J.: EPC vs. UML activity diagram - two experiments examining their usefulness for requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 47–56. IEEE CS, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jurack, S., Lambers, L., Mehner, K., Taentzer, G., Wierse, G.: Object flow definition for refined activity diagrams. In: Chechik, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) FASE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5503, pp. 49–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S., Pickard, L., Jones, P., Hoaglin, D., El Emam, K., Rosenberg, J.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(8), 721–734 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG. Business process model and notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. OMG Final Adopted Specification, Object Management Group (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peixoto, D., Batista, V., Atayde, A., Borges, E., Resende, R., Pádua, C.: A Comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams. In: VII Simposio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software, Florianopolis (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reggio, G., Ricca, F., Astesiano, E., Leotta, M.: On business process modelling with the UML: a discipline and four styles. Technical Report DISI-TR-11-03, DISI - University of Genova, Italy (April 2011), http://softeng.disi.unige.it/tech-rep/TECDOC.pdf
  18. 18.
    Ricca, F., Di Penta, M., Torchiano, M., Tonella, P., Ceccato, M.: The role of experience and ability in comprehension tasks supported by UML stereotypes. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2007), Minneapolis, MN, USA, May 20-26, pp. 375–384 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering - An Introduction. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianna Reggio
    • 1
  • Filippo Ricca
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Scanniello
    • 2
  • Francesco Di Cerbo
    • 3
  • Gabriella Dodero
    • 3
  1. 1.DISIUniversità di GenovaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Matematica e InformaticaUniversità della BasilicataItaly
  3. 3.CASE, Libera Università di Bolzano-BozenItaly

Personalised recommendations